England's Selection policy and player management systems

What's buzzing in the world of cricket....

Re: England's Selection policy and player management systems

Postby hopeforthebest » Mon Nov 04, 2013 3:11 pm

sussexpob wrote:Like a government setting out a manifesto for future governance, the culture of selection and player management from Cricket Boards and National managers is often of acute important to the health and future success of a national team, and of the domestic game as a whole. It contains a vision, or a plan, for long term as well as short term benefits.

In the 1990’s England’s selection policy and player management was a disastrous mix of ad hoc fads combined with random decision making, backed up with little player rehabilitation. It contributed to major problems that run through the very fabric of the domestic game and grassroots, and soldified bad practice and attitudes that limited success.

Players would be capped after half a seasons good form, only to be spat out when not making an instant impact, and thrown back into a county system that ignored their existence. The net effect was a national game that was stuffed to the brim with damaged players no longer playing for the honour of test cricket, lingering around the county circuit like post-apocalyptic zombies. The standard dropped as a result of the lack of motivation. Players who rose to the top had their confidence destroyed and were never given the time to settle, even if their quality in a system of poor quality county cricket was shining through constant… .England’s lost to New Zealand in the late 90’s condemned them to the tag of “world’s worst test team”!

Like the saviour of a bad horror B movie, Duncan Fletcher held an antidote for the zombiefest of county cricket. He recognised that the system was flawed; that it produced statistics that had little significance, as he understood that the lack of motivation in the game was holding players of technical quality back. His new way was like a shot in the arm. Players like Strauss, Collingwood, Trescothick, Flintoff and Vaughan all emerged, all with qualities that grew inside a system that fostered consistency and comfort. Players were picked more on potential capabilities, managed inside a sound coaching system, and able to fulfil their abilities.

The main cultural change, backed by central contracting, was the creation of a philosophy towards “Team England”. The county system feed team England, who took the responsibility of polish the rough diamonds of county cricket inside an academy and management system that finished these players into world beaters. It worked, England went 8 series in a row victorious, and have produced a team that has become number one.. from the bottom to the top in just over ten years!

Yet like a national park that has been robbed of its predators, over time the county system ecosystem has reacted by producing increasing numbers of harmless herbivores. Flower’s Team England policy has masterminded the central nervous system plan to the point that the brain now controls everything, even if its arms and legs slowly wither and detach. The system has become entrenched to the point that county performance is now often ignored, the rare talent too busy playing for the national teams C team, or resting for the endless carnival of limited overs gluttony. Players are not exposed to quality domestic operators, and there is little motivation for players to perform, especially when the invisible quality of “potential talent” is often touted to select players who are not performing to the top levels.

Somewhere along the line I get the feeling that Andy Flower has buried himself in the pursuit of these mythical qualities and ignored the reality outside his door, like an old pirate clinging to his treasure map. This policy of always identifying players based on an as yet unachieved and often intangible standard means that patience has to be paid, often requiring unshakeable levels of faith over protracted periods of time.

Here lies the problem of recent selection policy. It is hard to judge the amount of time a player needs to excel, and even harder to judge whether or not the player even has the potential to perform to test match levels if he has not had the performance levels in county cricket even to prove he can perform to this extent at another level.

A good example is Eion Morgan, a player with a fantastic ODI career and known as an inventive, clean hitting limited overs player with a less than convincing 4/5 day record and defensive technique. Since being capped in an adequate amounts of test matches, more so than his FC talent maybe deserved, his ODI format has troughed in the last 3 years as the previously unshakeable mentality gave way to technical uncertainties that have hampered him. What possessed his selection when with him looking so inadequate of test match technique, and to pick him 16 times is strange.

In fact to look into the last 3 years of test selection, what has been the identifiable policy behind selection? Tredwell played one test and played ok, but was jettisoned for Panesar in every other tour, including the upcoming ashes despite Panesar having done nothing to deserve his recall, with ball or behaviour, which has been catastrophic. Then we have Ajmal Shahzad, a player who looked to have tangible quality, but who’s career after he was released from the England setup has become deflated to the point of possible non-existance.

Then there is Taylor, the man who has done everything but was judged on two tests, Compton who seems to lost his chance despite passable returns that could have improved with time, Kerrigan who didn’t even make it to the Ashes team(again over Panesar), Woakes made one test before being dumped out the squad, and Samit Patel, the Asian pitch specialist who was picked as a second spin option, taking only 4 wickets in 5 tests at a huge average, and who clearly couldn’t bat on Asian pitches…. And despite being a handy ODI player, he even found himself out of that squad now. The only players who find themselves still in the squad are Root, who has been moved around the order, and Bairstow, who hangs onto his test match place by a single thread.

It appears that Flower has therefore adopted a strange policy of non-trust in the county game, judged by snap judgements of players who have shown quality there, combined with a lack of patience in players he has tried to develop. Broad is the standout example of a player who has been given ample time to succeed while maintaining a high level of failure, others have had to be instant success or have faced the axe from England plans.

Broad is in a way a player who both proves and disproves the rule. A player with potential that had not proved much over a long term, the time it took for him to be test class may have exceeded 40 tests, inside which his performance was often below par and he was carried by the rest of the attack. It has been proved right that the potential was there, but at what cost? And under such a policy, how much waste does not step up and make it worthwhile.

Finn looks like a player who has not progressed despite the opportunity and protection offered by the national team. The 21 year old that emerged years ago looked better than now. The same is true of Shahzad, and arguably of others. And as for those young players brought into ODI teams or development squads, have those players benefitted from the centralised system? There are certainly few examples, and in fact, the increased protection of the national team seems to have eroded the match worthiness of several players.

Jimmy Anderson in the recent Ashes looked like a guy struggling to play that much cricket in such a short space of time. His performance tailed sharply as the matches went on. Prior looks like a player who needs to play some cricket, yet was sitting on his hands as his county side were picking 18 year old schoolkids to fill the gaps in a ravaged squad. Trott and Cook seem to have declined in recent times, a result of too much switching between limited overs cricket and tests, with not a lot in between. Bresnan still looks like a guy who could be much fitter.

It’s quite a damming thought that the only player in the last 13 test picks who has so far confirmed his test match existence for the long term is Joe Root, a man who one would guess at this stage will be a player to play for a long time. Before that, we have to go back to the 2009 Ashes series to find a player, Jon Trott, who has unquestionably solidified his place.

It is even more worrying still that these players who have been picked do not even find themselves in the development squads. Kerrigan will be in Australia, yet Woakes will not, preferred to a 19 year old Essex all-rounder(Mills) with 6 wickets at huge cost last year, and no scores with the bat. Ben Foakes is preferred to Taylor, who scored 121* against the Aussies and has averaged in excess of 75 in the last two Lions tours. Another 19 year old lad from Essex who has never played Div 1 cricket features at the expense of test match experienced Onions, who also happens to be the best county bowler in the last 2 years. It doesn’t take much for neutrals to work out which county our Selection panel have links with.

The future have worrying signs for England with so little established and proven back up now flooding the squads, and with so many picks being made on short term displays of talent, or unquantifiable potential. Should Flower depart anytime in the next couple of years he will be leaving an ageing team with many long term questions marks over them. Fletcher had a knack of picking a rough diamond but he turned those rough diamonds into good players… Flower is yet to prove that his extension of this policy has bore fruit.

Something has to give, as at the moment the English test management are not filling me with a great deal of confidence.


It's got me beaten, which is it?
Work expands to fill the time available, so why do today what can be put off until tomorrow.


2017 West Indies v Pakistan ODI FL Guru
2016 Bangladesh v England Combined FL Guru
2016 India v New Zealand ODI FL Guru
2015 India v South Africa ODI FL guru.
2013 Ashes fantasy prediction guru
2013 NZ in England combined FL guru.
hopeforthebest
 
Posts: 15058
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:50 pm
Location: The Netherlands
Team(s) Supported: Warwickshire and England

Re: England's Selection policy and player management systems

Postby meninblue » Mon Nov 04, 2013 3:13 pm

I was hugely surprised by the selection of Morgan and Rankin.However, England has stayed at number 1 for a decent period and now number 2.They have been in the top 3 for a reasonable period of time :?: Some of the selected players are bound to fail.We have seen that.The selectors have found some high quality specialist batters (Cook,Trott,KP,Bell)and bowlers (Jimmy, Swann). The current established players are of so much good quality that it will give selectors more years to find replacements from domestic cricket in all skill sets - players in each skillset who are good enough to stick in the team for 10 years or so.There is not much experimentation they can do in batting lineup as the likes of Cook,KP,Bell and Trott make it tough to spare a spot to find new players.Off the remaining two batting spots, they have found Joe who is very young to carry the next team through if he sticks in.There is only one allrounders spot to find a replacement and Bresnan had paid off well enough since Freddie retired. However, his recent frequent injuries affecting his form is a concern.Swann and Monty will not provide a spot to develop new spinner and that skill has to be searched and developed mostly at the domestic level until one of them retires.Overall, i think selectors have done a good job.If they are unbiased in selections then there is enough time ,good infrastructure in terms of facilities,development programs and abroad tours getting better which selectors can use well to do better at the job in future.
Test FL's - 8 , ODI and Tests Combo FL's - 1, ODI World Cup - 1, ODI FL's - 7, ODI and T20i combo FL's - 1 ,
T20 Franchisee FL's - 7, T20i Cup FL's- 1, T20 FL's- 5 , 50 Overs Domestic FL's - 1, 40 Overs Domestic FL's- 1
User avatar
meninblue
 
Posts: 25045
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:36 am

England's Selection policy and player management systems

Postby sussexpob » Mon Nov 04, 2013 3:38 pm

Like a government setting out a manifesto for future governance, the culture of selection and player management from Cricket Boards and National managers is often of acute important to the health and future success of a national team, and of the domestic game as a whole. It contains a vision, or a plan, for long term as well as short term benefits.

In the 1990’s England’s selection policy and player management was a disastrous mix of ad hoc fads combined with random decision making, backed up with little player rehabilitation. It contributed to major problems that run through the very fabric of the domestic game and grassroots, and soldified bad practice and attitudes that limited success.

Players would be capped after half a seasons good form, only to be spat out when not making an instant impact, and thrown back into a county system that ignored their existence. The net effect was a national game that was stuffed to the brim with damaged players no longer playing for the honour of test cricket, lingering around the county circuit like post-apocalyptic zombies. The standard dropped as a result of the lack of motivation. Players who rose to the top had their confidence destroyed and were never given the time to settle, even if their quality in a system of poor quality county cricket was shining through constant… .England’s lost to New Zealand in the late 90’s condemned them to the tag of “world’s worst test team”!

Like the saviour of a bad horror B movie, Duncan Fletcher held an antidote for the zombiefest of county cricket. He recognised that the system was flawed; that it produced statistics that had little significance, as he understood that the lack of motivation in the game was holding players of technical quality back. His new way was like a shot in the arm. Players like Strauss, Collingwood, Trescothick, Flintoff and Vaughan all emerged, all with qualities that grew inside a system that fostered consistency and comfort. Players were picked more on potential capabilities, managed inside a sound coaching system, and able to fulfil their abilities.

The main cultural change, backed by central contracting, was the creation of a philosophy towards “Team England”. The county system feed team England, who took the responsibility of polish the rough diamonds of county cricket inside an academy and management system that finished these players into world beaters. It worked, England went 8 series in a row victorious, and have produced a team that has become number one.. from the bottom to the top in just over ten years!

Yet like a national park that has been robbed of its predators, over time the county system ecosystem has reacted by producing increasing numbers of harmless herbivores. Flower’s Team England policy has masterminded the central nervous system plan to the point that the brain now controls everything, even if its arms and legs slowly wither and detach. The system has become entrenched to the point that county performance is now often ignored, the rare talent too busy playing for the national teams C team, or resting for the endless carnival of limited overs gluttony. Players are not exposed to quality domestic operators, and there is little motivation for players to perform, especially when the invisible quality of “potential talent” is often touted to select players who are not performing to the top levels.

Somewhere along the line I get the feeling that Andy Flower has buried himself in the pursuit of these mythical qualities and ignored the reality outside his door, like an old pirate clinging to his treasure map. This policy of always identifying players based on an as yet unachieved and often intangible standard means that patience has to be paid, often requiring unshakeable levels of faith over protracted periods of time.

Here lies the problem of recent selection policy. It is hard to judge the amount of time a player needs to excel, and even harder to judge whether or not the player even has the potential to perform to test match levels if he has not had the performance levels in county cricket even to prove he can perform to this extent at another level.

A good example is Eion Morgan, a player with a fantastic ODI career and known as an inventive, clean hitting limited overs player with a less than convincing 4/5 day record and defensive technique. Since being capped in an adequate amounts of test matches, more so than his FC talent maybe deserved, his ODI format has troughed in the last 3 years as the previously unshakeable mentality gave way to technical uncertainties that have hampered him. What possessed his selection when with him looking so inadequate of test match technique, and to pick him 16 times is strange.

In fact to look into the last 3 years of test selection, what has been the identifiable policy behind selection? Tredwell played one test and played ok, but was jettisoned for Panesar in every other tour, including the upcoming ashes despite Panesar having done nothing to deserve his recall, with ball or behaviour, which has been catastrophic. Then we have Ajmal Shahzad, a player who looked to have tangible quality, but who’s career after he was released from the England setup has become deflated to the point of possible non-existance.

Then there is Taylor, the man who has done everything but was judged on two tests, Compton who seems to lost his chance despite passable returns that could have improved with time, Kerrigan who didn’t even make it to the Ashes team(again over Panesar), Woakes made one test before being dumped out the squad, and Samit Patel, the Asian pitch specialist who was picked as a second spin option, taking only 4 wickets in 5 tests at a huge average, and who clearly couldn’t bat on Asian pitches…. And despite being a handy ODI player, he even found himself out of that squad now. The only players who find themselves still in the squad are Root, who has been moved around the order, and Bairstow, who hangs onto his test match place by a single thread.

It appears that Flower has therefore adopted a strange policy of non-trust in the county game, judged by snap judgements of players who have shown quality there, combined with a lack of patience in players he has tried to develop. Broad is the standout example of a player who has been given ample time to succeed while maintaining a high level of failure, others have had to be instant success or have faced the axe from England plans.

Broad is in a way a player who both proves and disproves the rule. A player with potential that had not proved much over a long term, the time it took for him to be test class may have exceeded 40 tests, inside which his performance was often below par and he was carried by the rest of the attack. It has been proved right that the potential was there, but at what cost? And under such a policy, how much waste does not step up and make it worthwhile.

Finn looks like a player who has not progressed despite the opportunity and protection offered by the national team. The 21 year old that emerged years ago looked better than now. The same is true of Shahzad, and arguably of others. And as for those young players brought into ODI teams or development squads, have those players benefitted from the centralised system? There are certainly few examples, and in fact, the increased protection of the national team seems to have eroded the match worthiness of several players.

Jimmy Anderson in the recent Ashes looked like a guy struggling to play that much cricket in such a short space of time. His performance tailed sharply as the matches went on. Prior looks like a player who needs to play some cricket, yet was sitting on his hands as his county side were picking 18 year old schoolkids to fill the gaps in a ravaged squad. Trott and Cook seem to have declined in recent times, a result of too much switching between limited overs cricket and tests, with not a lot in between. Bresnan still looks like a guy who could be much fitter.

It’s quite a damming thought that the only player in the last 13 test picks who has so far confirmed his test match existence for the long term is Joe Root, a man who one would guess at this stage will be a player to play for a long time. Before that, we have to go back to the 2009 Ashes series to find a player, Jon Trott, who has unquestionably solidified his place.

It is even more worrying still that these players who have been picked do not even find themselves in the development squads. Kerrigan will be in Australia, yet Woakes will not, preferred to a 19 year old Essex all-rounder(Mills) with 6 wickets at huge cost last year, and no scores with the bat. Ben Foakes is preferred to Taylor, who scored 121* against the Aussies and has averaged in excess of 75 in the last two Lions tours. Another 19 year old lad from Essex who has never played Div 1 cricket features at the expense of test match experienced Onions, who also happens to be the best county bowler in the last 2 years. It doesn’t take much for neutrals to work out which county our Selection panel have links with.

The future have worrying signs for England with so little established and proven back up now flooding the squads, and with so many picks being made on short term displays of talent, or unquantifiable potential. Should Flower depart anytime in the next couple of years he will be leaving an ageing team with many long term questions marks over them. Fletcher had a knack of picking a rough diamond but he turned those rough diamonds into good players… Flower is yet to prove that his extension of this policy has bore fruit.

Something has to give, as at the moment the English test management are not filling me with a great deal of confidence.
2010 French Open fantasy league guru 2010 Wimbledon fantasy league guru 2014 Masters golf fantasy guru 2015 Players Championship FL Guru 2016 Masters Golf Fantasy Guru

And a hat and bra to you too, my good sirs!
sussexpob
 
Posts: 35322
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:14 pm
Location: Asker, Norway
Team(s) Supported: Sussex and England Cricket, Vålerenga Fotball/FC Barcelona/Seagulls! ....
England and Norway at everything else

Re: England's Selection policy and player management systems

Postby SaintPowelly » Mon Nov 04, 2013 4:35 pm

sussexpob wrote:yet Woakes will not, preferred to a 19 year old Essex all-rounder(Mills) with 6 wickets at huge cost last year, and no scores with the bat. Ben Foakes is preferred to Taylor, who scored 121* against the Aussies and has averaged in excess of 75 in the last two Lions tours. Another 19 year old lad from Essex who has never played Div 1 cricket features at the expense of test match experienced Onions, who also happens to be the best county bowler in the last 2 years. It doesn’t take much for neutrals to work out which county our Selection panel have links with.


Been saying this for years.
Bang-NZ ODI prediction guru
India vs Oz ODI fantasy league 2013
SA-WI Tests fantasy league 2015
Sheffield Shield fantasy league 2014-2015
SaintPowelly
 
Posts: 18527
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 5:54 pm
Team(s) Supported: Hampshire Cricket, Southampton Football

Re: England's Selection policy and player management systems

Postby meninblue » Mon Nov 04, 2013 5:00 pm

sussexpob wrote:
The selectors have found some high quality specialist batters (Cook,Trott,KP,Bell)and bowlers (Jimmy, Swann). The current established players are of so much good quality that it will give selectors more years to find replacements from domestic cricket in all skill sets - players in each skillset who are good enough to stick in the team for 10 years or so.There is not much experimentation they can do in batting lineup as the likes of Cook,KP,Bell and Trott make it tough to spare a spot to find new players.Off the remaining two batting spots, they have found Joe who is very young to carry the next team through if he sticks in.


Selectors pre-Flower found those players. In fact Andy Flowers first move as selector was to replace Bell with Bopara, a move that history will remember as a pretty poor decision. Harmison was also disgarded for Onions back then, but Onions was never given a real chance in the squad despite form.... Bopara never developed into much of a test player either, so not much can be said of those picks.

Bresnan was also in the squad but he was a product of Fletcher who rated and capped him in 2006, and who had made sure he was in the development squad. Since 2006 he has missed lots of tests though, so still really not a player that Flower has fully committed to.

Trott only qualified for England after the Ashes tests of 06/07 I believe, and was included in the limited overs games by Peter Moores the next summer. Fletcher was a fan and had previously asked about his availability for the Ashes but was told he didnt qualify in time for England, and Flower only took notice when he averaged a 100 in 2009 having previously ignored him in any squad..... his is a perfect example, he hit the ground running and therefore stay, if he had initially failed he may not have got more than 5 tests.

Cook(Fletcher), KP(Fletcher), Anderson(Fletcher), Broad(Fletcher), Prior(Fletcher for ODI, but Moores was convinced he could keeper-bat), Swann(Moores), Panesar(Fletcher - credits his resurgance to Sussex and not England).....

So yeah, any players who have been purely Flower's era have yet to settle or have been given limited development opportunities... with our main batsman slowly declining over the last 2 years.


Sussex , the players as you say may well have been selected by past selectors , as i do not know which selection panel server under which years, but the current selectors cannot fiddle with the past selection too much for justifiable reasons.Rather than showing they have power/authority and they misuse it just to show that they have the power, it is good they are complimenting the good selection done by the previous selection panel.Not much can be done at international spots but there is certainly a lot they can do in the domestic setup for sure.Rankin,Woakes,Compton,Joe,Ballance,Johnny are still new comers at international level.I guess how they develop will reflect a lot about the job that the selectors are doing at domestic levels.Fair to comment only once these players have been given enough time.

Some problems regarding posting :S
Test FL's - 8 , ODI and Tests Combo FL's - 1, ODI World Cup - 1, ODI FL's - 7, ODI and T20i combo FL's - 1 ,
T20 Franchisee FL's - 7, T20i Cup FL's- 1, T20 FL's- 5 , 50 Overs Domestic FL's - 1, 40 Overs Domestic FL's- 1
User avatar
meninblue
 
Posts: 25045
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:36 am

Re: England's Selection policy and player management systems

Postby sussexpob » Mon Nov 04, 2013 5:44 pm

The selectors have found some high quality specialist batters (Cook,Trott,KP,Bell)and bowlers (Jimmy, Swann). The current established players are of so much good quality that it will give selectors more years to find replacements from domestic cricket in all skill sets - players in each skillset who are good enough to stick in the team for 10 years or so.There is not much experimentation they can do in batting lineup as the likes of Cook,KP,Bell and Trott make it tough to spare a spot to find new players.Off the remaining two batting spots, they have found Joe who is very young to carry the next team through if he sticks in.


Selectors pre-Flower found those players. In fact Andy Flowers first move as selector was to replace Bell with Bopara, a move that history will remember as a pretty poor decision. Harmison was also disgarded for Onions back then, but Onions was never given a real chance in the squad despite form.... Bopara never developed into much of a test player either, so not much can be said of those picks.

Bresnan was also in the squad but he was a product of Fletcher who rated and capped him in 2006, and who had made sure he was in the development squad. Since 2006 he has missed lots of tests though, so still really not a player that Flower has fully committed to.

Trott only qualified for England after the Ashes tests of 06/07 I believe, and was included in the limited overs games by Peter Moores the next summer. Fletcher was a fan and had previously asked about his availability for the Ashes but was told he didnt qualify in time for England, and Flower only took notice when he averaged a 100 in 2009 having previously ignored him in any squad..... his is a perfect example, he hit the ground running and therefore stay, if he had initially failed he may not have got more than 5 tests.

Cook(Fletcher), KP(Fletcher), Anderson(Fletcher), Broad(Fletcher), Prior(Fletcher for ODI, but Moores was convinced he could keeper-bat), Swann(Moores), Panesar(Fletcher - credits his resurgance to Sussex and not England).....

So yeah, any players who have been purely Flower's era have yet to settle or have been given limited development opportunities... with our main batsman slowly declining over the last 2 years.
2010 French Open fantasy league guru 2010 Wimbledon fantasy league guru 2014 Masters golf fantasy guru 2015 Players Championship FL Guru 2016 Masters Golf Fantasy Guru

And a hat and bra to you too, my good sirs!
sussexpob
 
Posts: 35322
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:14 pm
Location: Asker, Norway
Team(s) Supported: Sussex and England Cricket, Vålerenga Fotball/FC Barcelona/Seagulls! ....
England and Norway at everything else

Re: England's Selection policy and player management systems

Postby meninblue » Mon Nov 04, 2013 5:55 pm

sussexpob wrote:
Sussex , the players as you say may well have been selected by past selectors , as i do not know which selection panel server under which years, but the current selectors cannot fiddle with the past selection too much for justifiable reasons.Rather than showing they have power/authority and they misuse it just to show that they have the power, it is good they are complimenting the good selection done by the previous selection panel


Of course Adi, I wasnt suggesting that. What I am suggesting is that, as Flower has had to replace players that werent his initial selections or placed in development models before he was Team Manager, there is not much evidence to suggest that :-

(a) The right assessments are being made on those players that havent achieved in county cricket but have the "X Factor"... there have been some wild card picks, none seem to have worked, some of the development squad this time round is seriously confusing.

(b) The players who maybe are the right people have been treated appallingly. When looking at the last 10 picks, alot have been jettisoned very quickly and in some cases made blatently aware their careers are over.

(c) Are the first team regulars improving under this structure of management? Apart from Bell, every player seems to have got progressively worse over the last couple of years.

Its seems that everything lacks effort and direction at the moment. In effect, he has taken over a good crop of players but has yet to really add to that with anyone who can even pass as a test player, not a world beater... England would probably take a player with a high 30's average at 6.


I am wondering as to who is the X factor player or 10 picks that you are referring to .
Test FL's - 8 , ODI and Tests Combo FL's - 1, ODI World Cup - 1, ODI FL's - 7, ODI and T20i combo FL's - 1 ,
T20 Franchisee FL's - 7, T20i Cup FL's- 1, T20 FL's- 5 , 50 Overs Domestic FL's - 1, 40 Overs Domestic FL's- 1
User avatar
meninblue
 
Posts: 25045
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:36 am

Re: England's Selection policy and player management systems

Postby Alviro Patterson » Mon Nov 04, 2013 6:03 pm

clubcricketeradi wrote:The selectors have found some high quality specialist batters (Cook,Trott,KP,Bell)and bowlers (Jimmy, Swann). The current established players are of so much good quality that it will give selectors more years to find replacements from domestic cricket in all skill sets - players in each skillset who are good enough to stick in the team for 10 years or so.There is not much experimentation they can do in batting lineup as the likes of Cook,KP,Bell and Trott make it tough to spare a spot to find new players.Off the remaining two batting spots, they have found Joe who is very young to carry the next team through if he sticks in.


Summed it up nicely there Adi, the England team is so established at this moment in time that it would have to take players of exceptional talent to force their way in.

The England Performance Programme Squad shouldn't be confused with next players off the rank. Looking at the EPP squad, the vast majority of these players are proven campaigners in County Cricket and it's a testament of the high levels of talent in English Cricket.

http://www.ecb.co.uk/news/england/engla ... inter-2013

The likes of James Taylor and Chris Woakes don't need to prove themselves to national management, their chance will come once a current England player announces their retirement.
"Stats are there to be broken" Dominic Cork
"They took all our players away, banned our captain and we still came away with a ten-wicket victory" Jason Gillespie
"You won't get anywhere slouching about half out of bed" Geoffrey Boycott


2011-12 Oz vs India Tests FL guru | 2012-13 Oz vs SA Tests FL guru | 2012-13 Bang vs WI combined FL guru | 2013 Friends Life T20 FL guru | 2015 The Ashes FL guru | 2015 County Championship D2 FL guru | 2016 Womens WT20 FL guru| 2016 Eng v Pak Tests FL guru | 2017 Kia Super League FL guru | 2018 County Championship D2 FL guru
User avatar
Alviro Patterson
 
Posts: 17832
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:07 pm
Location: North Cheshire
Team(s) Supported: Yorkshire CCC, Bradford City FC

Re: England's Selection policy and player management systems

Postby meninblue » Mon Nov 04, 2013 6:35 pm

Alviro Patterson wrote:
clubcricketeradi wrote:The selectors have found some high quality specialist batters (Cook,Trott,KP,Bell)and bowlers (Jimmy, Swann). The current established players are of so much good quality that it will give selectors more years to find replacements from domestic cricket in all skill sets - players in each skillset who are good enough to stick in the team for 10 years or so.There is not much experimentation they can do in batting lineup as the likes of Cook,KP,Bell and Trott make it tough to spare a spot to find new players.Off the remaining two batting spots, they have found Joe who is very young to carry the next team through if he sticks in.


Summed it up nicely there Adi, the England team is so established at this moment in time that it would have to take players of exceptional talent to force their way in.

The England Performance Programme Squad shouldn't be confused with next players off the rank. Looking at the EPP squad, the vast majority of these players are proven campaigners in County Cricket and it's a testament of the high levels of talent in English Cricket.

http://www.ecb.co.uk/news/england/engla ... inter-2013

The likes of James Taylor and Chris Woakes don't need to prove themselves to national management, their chance will come once a current England player announces their retirement.


Many careers have been wasted due to settled teams.Likewise, with England the blame can be passed on to Cook,Bell,KP,Trott,Swann,Jimmy,Broad,Prior. Every team has a problem with backup players, it's just not England.Can we attribute to bad selectors :?: It tough to be definitive.We often see that until the players do not get reasonable time in international cricket environment, they are not going to be prolific. It is better that the new comers get reasonable experience under established players so that they learn more from the experiences of others and hence reduce the learning time.
Test FL's - 8 , ODI and Tests Combo FL's - 1, ODI World Cup - 1, ODI FL's - 7, ODI and T20i combo FL's - 1 ,
T20 Franchisee FL's - 7, T20i Cup FL's- 1, T20 FL's- 5 , 50 Overs Domestic FL's - 1, 40 Overs Domestic FL's- 1
User avatar
meninblue
 
Posts: 25045
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:36 am

Re: England's Selection policy and player management systems

Postby sussexpob » Mon Nov 04, 2013 7:22 pm

Sussex , the players as you say may well have been selected by past selectors , as i do not know which selection panel server under which years, but the current selectors cannot fiddle with the past selection too much for justifiable reasons.Rather than showing they have power/authority and they misuse it just to show that they have the power, it is good they are complimenting the good selection done by the previous selection panel


Of course Adi, I wasnt suggesting that. What I am suggesting is that, as Flower has had to replace players that werent his initial selections or placed in development models before he was Team Manager, there is not much evidence to suggest that :-

(a) The right assessments are being made on those players that havent achieved in county cricket but have the "X Factor"... there have been some wild card picks, none seem to have worked, some of the development squad this time round is seriously confusing.

(b) The players who maybe are the right people have been treated appallingly. When looking at the last 10 picks, alot have been jettisoned very quickly and in some cases made blatently aware their careers are over.

(c) Are the first team regulars improving under this structure of management? Apart from Bell, every player seems to have got progressively worse over the last couple of years.

Its seems that everything lacks effort and direction at the moment. In effect, he has taken over a good crop of players but has yet to really add to that with anyone who can even pass as a test player, not a world beater... England would probably take a player with a high 30's average at 6.
2010 French Open fantasy league guru 2010 Wimbledon fantasy league guru 2014 Masters golf fantasy guru 2015 Players Championship FL Guru 2016 Masters Golf Fantasy Guru

And a hat and bra to you too, my good sirs!
sussexpob
 
Posts: 35322
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:14 pm
Location: Asker, Norway
Team(s) Supported: Sussex and England Cricket, Vålerenga Fotball/FC Barcelona/Seagulls! ....
England and Norway at everything else

Re: England's Selection policy and player management systems

Postby m@tt » Mon Nov 04, 2013 10:15 pm

It's very easy to rant about selections or non-selections. Especially when they involve players you like or don't like. Battingforbell's favourite player is well known. SaintPowell screams bloody murder whenever a Hampshire player is overlooked. Shanky is Shanky. D/L doesn't like Prior. And so on.

It is a successfully England team, in all formats. Surely for that to happen, strong picks as well as excellent performances have to be at the core of that.

Sure, I find some picks odd. The treatment of Taylor and Compton has been perciuliar and off the normal message England give out, whilst Onions should cleary be in Australia. Is Bairstow's technique really not flawed enough for him to be kept in the squad? Has Stokes performed well enough in the Championship over the past two years? Why was Morgan recalled to the Test squad last year? Why did England convince themselves the Oval would turn square and pick Kerrigan and Woakes? Is there a bias, deliberate or subconsciously, towards foreign-born players? Why are some players called up based on Div 2 scores when some are told or encouraged to move to a Div 1 side or at least a bigger team.

But is it really a flawed system or is it just a human system, one that likes hunches and is always resisting knee jerk decisions?

So yeah, an on the fence, non-commital post for you all :p
Andy Flower wrote:This is going to test my coaching expertise. This is the worst case I've ever seen.
User avatar
m@tt
 
Posts: 1305
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:20 pm
Team(s) Supported: .
England and Warwickshire.

Also tend to follow any former/current/prospective England players.

606 Username: matt_h88

Re: England's Selection policy and player management systems

Postby Making_Splinters » Mon Nov 04, 2013 11:56 pm

Englan's failure to resolve the number six spot is Flower's biggest black mark since taking over. We've used 9 different players in a little under three years, is it any wonder we seemingly have no answer to the problem! Let's not forget that this squad contains six players who could end up batting six, England have demonstrated a shocking lack of planning for a system which supposedly has a great deal of strength and depth and a multi layered development program.
"It was my opinion it is up to me if I want to justify it or not" - Bhaveshgor
User avatar
Making_Splinters
 
Posts: 10183
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:44 pm
Location: Manchester, England
Team(s) Supported: Cricket - Lancshire , England
Rugby - Sale , England

Re: England's Selection policy and player management systems

Postby Arthur Crabtree » Tue Nov 05, 2013 2:05 am

m@tt wrote:It's very easy to rant about selections or non-selections. Especially when they involve players you like or don't like. Battingforbell's favourite player is well known. SaintPowell screams bloody murder whenever a Hampshire player is overlooked. Shanky is Shanky. D/L doesn't like Prior. And so on.


Whereas very few posters are unbiased enough to see the great need for a fifth bowler in the side.
I always say that everybody's right.
User avatar
Arthur Crabtree
 
Posts: 80417
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 12:52 pm
Location: Nottingham
Team(s) Supported: Yorkshire.

Re: England's Selection policy and player management systems

Postby Alviro Patterson » Tue Nov 05, 2013 3:03 am

The amount of overlooked talented players in county cricket is a valid point made, problem is there isn't much opportunity for the county stalwart to further their game if they aren't involved with Team England.

Maybe it's the administration side of English cricket is the problem and that a new model is required, such as County Cricket and the ECB to be run as two separate entities.
"Stats are there to be broken" Dominic Cork
"They took all our players away, banned our captain and we still came away with a ten-wicket victory" Jason Gillespie
"You won't get anywhere slouching about half out of bed" Geoffrey Boycott


2011-12 Oz vs India Tests FL guru | 2012-13 Oz vs SA Tests FL guru | 2012-13 Bang vs WI combined FL guru | 2013 Friends Life T20 FL guru | 2015 The Ashes FL guru | 2015 County Championship D2 FL guru | 2016 Womens WT20 FL guru| 2016 Eng v Pak Tests FL guru | 2017 Kia Super League FL guru | 2018 County Championship D2 FL guru
User avatar
Alviro Patterson
 
Posts: 17832
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:07 pm
Location: North Cheshire
Team(s) Supported: Yorkshire CCC, Bradford City FC

Re: England's Selection policy and player management systems

Postby SaintPowelly » Tue Nov 05, 2013 4:37 am

m@tt wrote:SaintPowell screams bloody murder whenever a Hampshire player is overlooked.


Not really, I am just smart enough to see county bias in full flow, would Bopara be given so many chances if he played for Derby or Leicester ?? would Mills be in performance squads if he played for Gloucester ??

The answer is NO, so many good players get overlooked based on the team they play for..Brooks and Taylor have had to move counties just to have a hope of being considered.

Also kind of unrelated, but the ECBs stupid rule on pitch deductions will kill spin bowling in this country, taking points off teams anytime a wicket shows any indication of turn helps no-one, and why average bowlers like Panesar are going on tour, once Swann retires, England are screwed.
Bang-NZ ODI prediction guru
India vs Oz ODI fantasy league 2013
SA-WI Tests fantasy league 2015
Sheffield Shield fantasy league 2014-2015
SaintPowelly
 
Posts: 18527
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 5:54 pm
Team(s) Supported: Hampshire Cricket, Southampton Football

Next

Return to International Cricket

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests