Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Although I think you do need a core of county achievers. Reliable number accumulators. A bowler as good as Martin Bicknell didn't get a career because he didn't seem to have any x factor, but when he finally got his chance, he performed. But it can't be ruled out that there are also big game players. If a player gets turned on by the big occasion, maybe there has to be a feeling for that kind of person. Maybe the difference is demonstrated between Pietersen in a tour match and a test match.

bhaveshgor wrote:lol if you picked the 11 best player in Statistic england would pick a very bad team and probably pick players that not even international standard

Most runs in the county championship this year...

Ashwell Prince.... successful international
KP.... Englands most successful international and most runs for England in the last series they played
Adam Voges..... averages 45 in ODI cricket, and I think has the largest average of any player playing more than 5 T20 internationals.
Alex Hales.... was tipped by many to debut in this test until the IPL came knocking
Michael Carberry..... played one full series for England, outperformed Root, Cook et al by being the second highest run scorer.
James Hildreth.... possibly the unluckiest player in England never to get capped...12000 runs at 44 in a career is highly impressive.

Most wickets...

Shehzad.... Average of 28 in ODI cricket, and 15 in tests.....
Jarvis.... test average of 30, on par with Broad and Anderson, playing in an attack as being the only person capable
Rushworth.... stand out county perfomer, has 5 4-fors in 7 county games.
Harris.... has a good record for the England Lions and is highly regarded.

Not sure this is a list of poor cricketers

I dont really understand the point of this "well you cant guarantee a player with good stats is international standard"

How can you guarantee someone worse is going to make it then? Its not rocket science really, if one player is returning more facing the same opposition, then how can you equate that one has the characteristics to succeed when the other doesnt?

Surely, the more likely scenario is the person who has a technique and quality to perform against lesser mortals, while thrive better against others? If Stokes can only score 33 per innings against county attacks, then how is to say these weaknesses disappear when faced with Dale Steyn?

Its a false economy

sussexpob wrote:

bhaveshgor wrote:lol if you picked the 11 best player in Statistic england would pick a very bad team and probably pick players that not even international standard

Most runs in the county championship this year...

Ashwell Prince.... successful international
KP.... Englands most successful international and most runs for England in the last series they played
Adam Voges..... averages 45 in ODI cricket, and I think has the largest average of any player playing more than 5 T20 internationals.
Alex Hales.... was tipped by many to debut in this test until the IPL came knocking
Michael Carberry..... played one full series for England, outperformed Root, Cook et al by being the second highest run scorer.
James Hildreth.... possibly the unluckiest player in England never to get capped...12000 runs at 44 in a career is highly impressive.

Most wickets...

Shehzad.... Average of 28 in ODI cricket, and 15 in tests.....
Jarvis.... test average of 30, on par with Broad and Anderson, playing in an attack as being the only person capable
Rushworth.... stand out county perfomer, has 5 4-fors in 7 county games.
Harris.... has a good record for the England Lions and is highly regarded.

Not sure this is a list of poor cricketers

I'd pick KP.

I mean Rushworth is a good example. So he is fat, not quick, not going to reverse swing it.... but he is getting batsman out every week, for cheaper than anyone else.

If these guys who bowl 99mph and reverse swing it are better than them, then why arent they taking wickets like him? If Stokes is better than Taylor, then why isnt he scoring runs like him every week?

sussexpob wrote:I dont really understand the point of this "well you cant guarantee a player with good stats is international standard"

How can you guarantee someone worse is going to make it then? Its not rocket science really, if one player is returning more facing the same opposition, then how can you equate that one has the characteristics to succeed when the other doesnt?

Surely, the more likely scenario is the person who has a technique and quality to perform against lesser mortals, while thrive better against others? If Stokes can only score 33 per innings against county attacks, then how is to say these weaknesses disappear when faced with Dale Steyn?

Its a false economy

It does happen though.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:

sussexpob wrote:I dont really understand the point of this "well you cant guarantee a player with good stats is international standard"

How can you guarantee someone worse is going to make it then? Its not rocket science really, if one player is returning more facing the same opposition, then how can you equate that one has the characteristics to succeed when the other doesnt?

Surely, the more likely scenario is the person who has a technique and quality to perform against lesser mortals, while thrive better against others? If Stokes can only score 33 per innings against county attacks, then how is to say these weaknesses disappear when faced with Dale Steyn?

Its a false economy

It does happen though.

To get to this players, you have to go through a long list of messy casualties.... the overall net effect is that its a total lottery to pick a guy who hasnt established himself to a good level before test cricket, I would probably hazard a complete guess that 5% of those picks take off.

Is this a worthwhile policy then? Considering those "success" examples I can think of dont include a single world class player

sussexpob wrote:

bhaveshgor wrote:lol if you picked the 11 best player in Statistic england would pick a very bad team and probably pick players that not even international standard

Most runs in the county championship this year...

Ashwell Prince.... successful international
KP.... Englands most successful international and most runs for England in the last series they played
Adam Voges..... averages 45 in ODI cricket, and I think has the largest average of any player playing more than 5 T20 internationals.
Alex Hales.... was tipped by many to debut in this test until the IPL came knocking
Michael Carberry..... played one full series for England, outperformed Root, Cook et al by being the second highest run scorer.
James Hildreth.... possibly the unluckiest player in England never to get capped...12000 runs at 44 in a career is highly impressive.

Most wickets...

Shehzad.... Average of 28 in ODI cricket, and 15 in tests.....
Jarvis.... test average of 30, on par with Broad and Anderson, playing in an attack as being the only person capable
Rushworth.... stand out county perfomer, has 5 4-fors in 7 county games.
Harris.... has a good record for the England Lions and is highly regarded.

Not sure this is a list of poor cricketers

Be good if you can name players that can actually play for England since Voges/Prince/KP/Jarvis won't exactly play for england or can even play for england right now.

sussexpob wrote:I mean Rushworth is a good example. So he is fat, not quick, not going to reverse swing it.... but he is getting batsman out every week, for cheaper than anyone else.

If these guys who bowl 99mph and reverse swing it are better than them, then why arent they taking wickets like him? If Stokes is better than Taylor, then why isnt he scoring runs like him every week?

What do you do if a different kind of bowler does well in SA, Aus, India, etc?
Or if 70-80 mph bowlers do worse in international cricket if given the chance?

Simon Jones wasn't a successful fc bowler. Were Freddie and Harmi?

There probably isn't an absolute way of doing it. But it might be that just picking a county heavy hitter (Hick) isn't always going to trump the hunch (Vaughan). But again, I generally agree with your point.

Although with Stokes he got picked for his bowling and not his batting since they saw a lad that can bowl quick and his a decent/good batsman.

sussexpob wrote:

Arthur Crabtree wrote:

sussexpob wrote:I dont really understand the point of this "well you cant guarantee a player with good stats is international standard"

How can you guarantee someone worse is going to make it then? Its not rocket science really, if one player is returning more facing the same opposition, then how can you equate that one has the characteristics to succeed when the other doesnt?

Surely, the more likely scenario is the person who has a technique and quality to perform against lesser mortals, while thrive better against others? If Stokes can only score 33 per innings against county attacks, then how is to say these weaknesses disappear when faced with Dale Steyn?

Its a false economy

It does happen though.

To get to this players, you have to go through a long list of messy casualties.... the overall net effect is that its a total lottery to pick a guy who hasnt established himself to a good level before test cricket, I would probably hazard a complete guess that 5% of those picks take off.

Is this a worthwhile policy then? Considering those "success" examples I can think of dont include a single world class player

The Lions is supposed to iron out the two different selection styles.

I wonder what the 2005 team would have been like on county stats? Maybe only Hoggy would have been selected on those terms.

Be good if you can name players that can actually play for England since Voges/Prince/KP/Jarvis won't exactly play for england or can even play for england right now.

Thats not the point you were making, and it hardly makes a difference. Generally, those currently performing in the county championship are either consistent performers, or have played international cricket with relative success, in some cases with very good success, and in one, the most successful run scorer in English history. You cant really say in that list there is a person who was an utter failure at internationals, given a chance.

What do you do if a different kind of bowler does well in SA, Aus, India, etc?
Or if 70-80 mph bowlers do worse in international cricket if given the chance?

Pace means nothing, its a false thing. Glenn McGrath didnt bowl with pace, Pollock wasnt that quick.... both were world class.

Simon Jones wasn't a successful fc bowler. Were Freddie and Harmi?

Freddie averaged 40 with the bat, and 27 with the ball in the year he was selected in county cricket. Harmison was being touted big time by Botham at the time, the press were all over him for his pace and bounce, so England couldnt ignore him. Simon Jones was always injured, so half his games he was always half fit, they made an assessment on his fully fit performances.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:

sussexpob wrote:I mean Rushworth is a good example. So he is fat, not quick, not going to reverse swing it.... but he is getting batsman out every week, for cheaper than anyone else.

If these guys who bowl 99mph and reverse swing it are better than them, then why arent they taking wickets like him? If Stokes is better than Taylor, then why isnt he scoring runs like him every week?

What do you do if a different kind of bowler does well in SA, Aus, India, etc?
Or if 70-80 mph bowlers do worse in international cricket if given the chance?

Simon Jones wasn't a successful fc bowler. Were Freddie and Harmi?

There probably isn't an absolute way of doing it. But it might be that just picking a county heavy hitter (Hick) isn't always going to trump the hunch (Vaughan). But again, I generally agree with your point.

both ways is correct but you cannot pick team on Hunches alone or Stats alone.
Also bowlers is always a tricky one since they may get wickets in First class cricket for just being accurate but what they do in Test cricket against better batsman generally doesn't work and may not actually be effective in most conditions.
I agree with batsman that most of them should be picked in Stats but then even Conditions and where their bat makes a difference someone in Taunton is obviously gonna have better batting record then lets say Durham.

Stokes is kind of an anomaly which All rounders always are since everyone loves an all rounder and generally all rounders are fast tracked especially if they bowl quick for some odd reason Spinning all rounder don't really have the same level of hype.
Surely you must see why England Selectors picked Stokes he has the potential to bat at 7 and bowl 10-15 good overs.
Yes his bowling hasn't really done much but you can surely see why the Selectors picked him in the Squad.

There is definitely a bit of both in it. I may expand later. But now I remember that I am yet to expand on Cook v Graves.