There is an interesting piece on the cricinfo website on the selectors' views of County Cricket:
http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/364841.html
Christopher Martin-Jenkins makes a decent case for the view that England's selectors (particularly those tasked with following the county game) which can be summarised as "to a man they seem to me to take too much notice of a bowler's speed and of any cricketer's age, picking too often on potential rather than performance".
He highlights two cricketers in particular: David Sales of Northants and Mark Davies of Durham.
Seven or eight years ago, the Fletcher-Hussain (Graveney) approach to selection took shape. In the 1990s, I would argue that good performances at county level would be enough to ensure a player got at least a couple of England caps. This was (is still) talked about as "recognition" as a box to be ticked as part of any good county player's career.
F-H (G) took a different approach. As CMJ says, they went for potential, and backed their ability to pick talent. Players with often middling first-class records were identified (usually at the age of 25 or younger) and picked when more senior, consistently successful players were probably "due a bit of recognition".
And it worked. Marcus Trescothick, Michael Vaughan, Andrew Flintoff, Simon Jones and Steven Harmison all had unspectacular county records but obvious potential to take the Test side forward (be it technical, physical or temperamental) and all of whom have produced world (rather than first) class performances.
To return to CMJ's core criticism, I think he wants it both ways. There is a strong case for saying that under Peter Moores and Geoff Miller, we have returned to valuing county experience to a greater degree. This has met with success, particularly in two cases, both a key part of the title-winning Notts side from a few seasons back.
Ryan Sidebottom is a better bowler now than when he played against Pakistan in 2001, but Fletcher, having disgarded him then, failed to monitor (or listen to the reports) of Sidebottom's improved pace and ability to swing the ball back into the right-hander. Secondly Graeme Swann, taken on tour in 1999-2000 and written off as indisciplined, has been a very consistent performer with ball and bat for Northants and Notts, done well on England A tours and was brought back into the one-day side last year. Even under Fletcher there was occasionally scope for picking a good county pro (Martin Saggers, Shaun Udal), and Swann could be in Udal's slot in the Test side as second spinner this winter.
The Mooresian/Millerian fondness for in-form county performers has also led to some odd-ball moves. The selection of Pattinson (in the wickets at Trent Bridge, which, like the Riverside CMJ demands is taken in context) attracted criticism from most quarters (including CMJ I believe). Last year's Twenty20 world cup saw players like Darren Maddy and (eeek!) Chris Schofield getting a run out, as well as more deserving cases like Dmitri Mascheranas.
What I am getting at (eventually) is that neither approach is without fault and a balance between the two (which M&M are close to) must be struck. The danger of having a too dogmatic selection policy is that it might ignore a young genius unmotivated by the grind of county cricket and equally might ignore an older player who has improved through hard work and experience into a test class player. Predictably the Australians have it pretty much sorted. With the admittedly easier task of selecting from a smaller, higher level pool of domestic first-class cricket, they are able to bring in players like Mike Hussey, Darren Lehmann and Stuart Clark, but also to give the likes of Michael Clarke, Mitchell Johnson and Luke Ronchi a go early in their careers.
CMJ's two examples (Sales and Davies) are different cases. Sales, as readers may recall, had a particularly prolific period of scoring from about 1999-2002, which included several double hundreds and at list one triple. He was on the 'A' tour and a dark horse for selection in the winter of 2002-3 (I think) when he was badly injured playing beach volleyball. This was pure misfortune, and despite solid scoring ever since, I think he's missed his chance. This could be pure prejudice but a look at his physique these days does not inspire an image of an elite athlete. In fact he makes Rob Key look like Peter Crouch.
Davies is a little younger than Sales, and has an exceptional first class record with the ball. But, as CMJ concedes, he is bowling at the Riverside (where admittedly he has a better record than England bowlers Harmison, Plunkett and Onions) and he is definitely medium pace. It is telling that when Durham have all bowlers available he rarely gets a start at the moment, partly down to his own injuries in recent years. He has merited a place on the A team in the past but I think (and this is pure prejudice) that he is emblematic of the good pro who would be outgunned at Test level. Gentle, even though it is accurate, medium pace on flat pitch just doesn't bowl sides out any more. If he was playing on the English minefields of the 90s I would seriously think about picking him but he is not. Plus he can't bat.
Ultimately selectors are supposed to be able to identify talent on an individual basis to fit the current and future needs of the team. We have to back them to do this or sack them. No need to crack them.
http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/364841.html
Christopher Martin-Jenkins makes a decent case for the view that England's selectors (particularly those tasked with following the county game) which can be summarised as "to a man they seem to me to take too much notice of a bowler's speed and of any cricketer's age, picking too often on potential rather than performance".
He highlights two cricketers in particular: David Sales of Northants and Mark Davies of Durham.
Seven or eight years ago, the Fletcher-Hussain (Graveney) approach to selection took shape. In the 1990s, I would argue that good performances at county level would be enough to ensure a player got at least a couple of England caps. This was (is still) talked about as "recognition" as a box to be ticked as part of any good county player's career.
F-H (G) took a different approach. As CMJ says, they went for potential, and backed their ability to pick talent. Players with often middling first-class records were identified (usually at the age of 25 or younger) and picked when more senior, consistently successful players were probably "due a bit of recognition".
And it worked. Marcus Trescothick, Michael Vaughan, Andrew Flintoff, Simon Jones and Steven Harmison all had unspectacular county records but obvious potential to take the Test side forward (be it technical, physical or temperamental) and all of whom have produced world (rather than first) class performances.
To return to CMJ's core criticism, I think he wants it both ways. There is a strong case for saying that under Peter Moores and Geoff Miller, we have returned to valuing county experience to a greater degree. This has met with success, particularly in two cases, both a key part of the title-winning Notts side from a few seasons back.
Ryan Sidebottom is a better bowler now than when he played against Pakistan in 2001, but Fletcher, having disgarded him then, failed to monitor (or listen to the reports) of Sidebottom's improved pace and ability to swing the ball back into the right-hander. Secondly Graeme Swann, taken on tour in 1999-2000 and written off as indisciplined, has been a very consistent performer with ball and bat for Northants and Notts, done well on England A tours and was brought back into the one-day side last year. Even under Fletcher there was occasionally scope for picking a good county pro (Martin Saggers, Shaun Udal), and Swann could be in Udal's slot in the Test side as second spinner this winter.
The Mooresian/Millerian fondness for in-form county performers has also led to some odd-ball moves. The selection of Pattinson (in the wickets at Trent Bridge, which, like the Riverside CMJ demands is taken in context) attracted criticism from most quarters (including CMJ I believe). Last year's Twenty20 world cup saw players like Darren Maddy and (eeek!) Chris Schofield getting a run out, as well as more deserving cases like Dmitri Mascheranas.
What I am getting at (eventually) is that neither approach is without fault and a balance between the two (which M&M are close to) must be struck. The danger of having a too dogmatic selection policy is that it might ignore a young genius unmotivated by the grind of county cricket and equally might ignore an older player who has improved through hard work and experience into a test class player. Predictably the Australians have it pretty much sorted. With the admittedly easier task of selecting from a smaller, higher level pool of domestic first-class cricket, they are able to bring in players like Mike Hussey, Darren Lehmann and Stuart Clark, but also to give the likes of Michael Clarke, Mitchell Johnson and Luke Ronchi a go early in their careers.
CMJ's two examples (Sales and Davies) are different cases. Sales, as readers may recall, had a particularly prolific period of scoring from about 1999-2002, which included several double hundreds and at list one triple. He was on the 'A' tour and a dark horse for selection in the winter of 2002-3 (I think) when he was badly injured playing beach volleyball. This was pure misfortune, and despite solid scoring ever since, I think he's missed his chance. This could be pure prejudice but a look at his physique these days does not inspire an image of an elite athlete. In fact he makes Rob Key look like Peter Crouch.
Davies is a little younger than Sales, and has an exceptional first class record with the ball. But, as CMJ concedes, he is bowling at the Riverside (where admittedly he has a better record than England bowlers Harmison, Plunkett and Onions) and he is definitely medium pace. It is telling that when Durham have all bowlers available he rarely gets a start at the moment, partly down to his own injuries in recent years. He has merited a place on the A team in the past but I think (and this is pure prejudice) that he is emblematic of the good pro who would be outgunned at Test level. Gentle, even though it is accurate, medium pace on flat pitch just doesn't bowl sides out any more. If he was playing on the English minefields of the 90s I would seriously think about picking him but he is not. Plus he can't bat.
Ultimately selectors are supposed to be able to identify talent on an individual basis to fit the current and future needs of the team. We have to back them to do this or sack them. No need to crack them.
2 comments:
How do you feel about moving towards a 'squad england' approach? I mean a sort of 16 man squad with a bit of rotation, giving players a bit of a rest or a chance to grab runs/wickets at county level when not selected. Such a squad can be made up players based on both the criteria you present - the up and coming such as stuart broad, and the in form
(recognition deserving) - maybe a James Foster.
It shouldn't be the case that unless a player has 4 years left in him, he gets ignored - a flexible squad would allow the form players to step in and keep everyone on their toes....
I think squad rotation has to happen - especially as 20-20 eats up the few remaining gaps in the calendar.
Ronnie has it right - there has to be a balance, with, I would say, a slight preference for the F-H(G) approach of picking players on potential and (crucially) temperament.
I imagine Fletcher was smirking to himself when Sidebottom started shouting at Monty at Edgbaston for not fielding well enough. Not really the behaviour you want from a test match cricketer.
Post a Comment