Page 5 of 5
Re: Do we need selectors?
Posted:
Fri May 02, 2014 10:12 amby Albondiga
sussexpob wrote:Albondiga wrote:Sussexpob.... I just think that umpires are non biased and if they were biased would not be umpires
Yes, but you are talking about an umpire that is not required to also recommend players of potential quality. Once an umpire becomes accountable, even to a tiny extent, for a recommendation or comment on the quality of a player, he has become a stakeholder in his development, and can no longer claim to be an impartial viewer of a match.
In any system you need accountability, or even some kind of incentive for success, whether financial or mere recognition. I fail to see an umpire who would want to make recommendations without some form of benefit, and recent times have shown that all it would take to protect the ECB's coach would be a press release saying... "yeah the guy failed, but that was Umpire X's recommendation".... the public would find out on the source, and this would put pressure on the umpire in question to justify his decision making, and this is not sensible when cross interests are at stake.
From all angles, its a non starter. It works well on paper, but in practice cant work.
You say that I'm talking about an umpire that "" is not required to also recommend players of potential quality "" However I said that they would be able to ""recognise a good player in the making" Is not that the same thing?
Re: Do we need selectors?
Posted:
Fri May 02, 2014 10:55 amby sussexpob
You say that I'm talking about an umpire that "" is not required to also recommend players of potential quality "" However I said that they would be able to ""recognise a good player in the making" Is not that the same thing?
You are confusing two issues?
My statement you have selected was in relation to the idea that umpires are "impartial, and not on the general point made about their ability to recognise a player. I don't think I have said anything on the later point other than it doesn't matter, simply because umpires have to remain impartial.
You addressed the point on impartiality by simply inferring that umpires are currently impartial, hence I answer in agreement that they were, but at current they are not a stakeholder in a players performance. This essentially means that your point about them being impartial by definition is totally irrelevant.
If they are not being asked to do something that compromises their impartiality in the past, you cant draw on that as proof that changing their role to include subjective views on a players quality, and to be responsible for their judgements, means that such a measure changes all of that.
Re: Do we need selectors?
Posted:
Sat May 03, 2014 3:05 pmby Albondiga
With respect I don't think I am confusing two issues. I don't know all the umpires (far from it) but those I do know would form their opinions based solely on cricketing ability and temperament and no amount of outside pressure would deter them from that. They would make their recommendations without fear or favour and if their opinions were ignored then they would leave it at that. They are men who love the game of cricket and that is the reason they become umpires.
I don't know Peter Willey but I can"t see him being influenced by anything other than cricketing ability and temperament.
If that were the case I think they would be ideal for the task of getting the best that we've got in the England side.
Re: Do we need selectors?
Posted:
Sat May 03, 2014 6:58 pmby Making_Splinters
I think as soon as you open the door for umpires to have something beyond the match at hand invested in their decisions you are standing at the top of a very slippery slope. If an umpire makes a mistake and it comes out that it benefited a player they had put forward for England selection things would not look very good, regardless of the innocence of the mistake.
Re: Do we need selectors?
Posted:
Sun May 04, 2014 7:13 amby Gingerfinch
Making_Splinters wrote:I think as soon as you open the door for umpires to have something beyond the match at hand invested in their decisions you are standing at the top of a very slippery slope. If an umpire makes a mistake and it comes out that it benefited a player they had put forward for England selection things would not look very good, regardless of the innocence of the mistake.
Pretty much agree with that. Let them umpire.
Re: Do we need selectors?
Posted:
Sun May 04, 2014 8:59 pmby Albondiga
I believe umpires to be impartial at first class level at least and am perhaps less cynical than some. If I was doing the job I would always be giving an honest judgement regardless of how competent I was. As for letting umpires umpire I think DRS put paid to that but that's another matter entirely.
Re: Do we need selectors?
Posted:
Mon May 05, 2014 10:24 amby Making_Splinters
Whether or not umpires are impartial is beside the point, Albindiga. Innocent mistakes will automatically be view with suspicion should they benefit players an umpire has put forward for selection.
Re: Do we need selectors?
Posted:
Mon May 05, 2014 2:00 pmby D/L
County umpires would need to be better judges of players than they are of LBWs, as we have seen illustrated by the ophthalmically challenged Lloyds at the Riverside stadium just now.
Re: Do we need selectors?
Posted:
Tue May 06, 2014 8:41 amby sussexpob
Making_Splinters wrote:Whether or not umpires are impartial is beside the point, Albindiga. Innocent mistakes will automatically be view with suspicion should they benefit players an umpire has put forward for selection.
Indeed. And even if its not true, how many journo hacks would love to fill a June paper, empty of Premier League gossip ,with leaked umpire picks and links to dubious decisions.
Or on the cross side, how many players would "tweet" their annoyance at being triggered unfairly by an umpire who had also expressed disinterest at recommending them for test cricket.
Re: Do we need selectors?
Posted:
Wed May 07, 2014 7:00 pmby KipperJohn
Thanks to all for your always forthright opinions.
I don't mind a panel of 'experts' as we have now - my issue is that they should merely give their opinions on players to the team director - and not be involved in the final decision making - which IMHO is down to the team director having weighed all opinions. He has to get the team to perform after all - and carries the can.
I think selection by committee - which is what it currently amounts to - is archaic. By all means sit round the table and chat - but let the final decision rest with team director.. I don't care what you call them - just not selectors.
Democracy is all well and good - but I'm not convinced it's the best way to pick a cricket team.
Re: Do we need selectors?
Posted:
Wed May 07, 2014 7:48 pmby Arthur Crabtree
An issue is that at the moment, county coaches are making up the selection committee alongside a full time selector, and the coach. Probably that allows the ECB not to pay them a proper wage. But it doesn't absolutely convince you of their impartiality. Currently Mike Newell and Angus Fraser are selectors, both division one coaches. Probably preferable to the old selection committee days of people like Doug Insole when it looked like they just picked anyone who had a backwind of favourable publicity blowing their way. While the selection over the last two years has been pretty much unsuccessful, it still feels better than what I grew up with.
Re: Do we need selectors?
Posted:
Wed May 07, 2014 8:40 pmby hopeforthebest
The England coach is also a selector and presumably discusses players with his captain before attending a selection meeting. I cannot believe he leaves such meetings with a squad of players that do not satisfy his requirements. The idea that the other selectors would foist players on him against his wishes is preposterous.
Re: Do we need selectors?
Posted:
Wed May 07, 2014 10:49 pmby KipperJohn
hopeforthebest wrote:The England coach is also a selector and presumably discusses players with his captain before attending a selection meeting. I cannot believe he leaves such meetings with a squad of players that do not satisfy his requirements. The idea that the other selectors would foist players on him against his wishes is preposterous.
I don't buy that hope.
Depends how strong a character he is. I'd be interested to know if they ever have to vote - or is it all all done by 'consensus'. These people will all have very strong opinions, not just about players but how the team is shaped.
The more I think about it the less I like it.
The board of a company appoints a CEO who then appoints his/her staff - I think that's a perfectly reasonable analogy. As far as I'm concerned 'selectors' should act more like a recruitment agency - but not be part of the final decision making process.
Not going to happen though- and the square table they've been asked to build will be round.
If they take into account all the permutations mooted on CMS it'll probably be hexagonal!
Re: Do we need selectors?
Posted:
Thu May 08, 2014 3:44 amby Slipstream
I always got the impression that the selectors were like scouts who went around the counties to see different players and get an assessment of certain players from coaches, umpires, opposition players etc. At the selectors' meeting all the information is put forward for the coach to choose his squad. Miller used to say that he would give the coach the players he wants. I think when it comes to choosing a captain it might be a little different. Probably all the selectors are involved in choosing who should get central contracts in October.
Re: Do we need selectors?
Posted:
Thu May 08, 2014 10:18 amby D/L
It would seem that much of the time and travelling that used to be required to assess as wide a range of players as possible may no longer be necessary. In one of the interval discussions on Sky during the Durham v Yorkshire match, we were informed that every delivery in the County Championship is now recorded on video and soon after made available to the ECB in a central database.
This should lead to players in future being newly selected on justifiable grounds.