m@tt wrote: The Lions has always mattered. Pretty much every new cap has progressed through the Lions to the senior team. And many of them have been watched from age group cricket onwards. It's more an argument over what is prioritised once you're in the Lions set up. It's not just a case of score a century and you get a promotion. There's supposedly long-term thinking behind it all. And they look at other stuff, temperament and toughness and all of that - which from another perspective is 'if your face fits...' and each person will have their own opinion on where it goes on the BS scale......So there's definitely this big pathway in place
To me, it would occur that your post above highlights the Orwellian nature of Flower and the ECB's state "doublethink" towards player pathway nonsense. We are both to place faith in two very distinct and contrasting ideas; the first is that success has been mapped out to the nth degree with the successful blueprint being the be all and end all that governs player progression. The second is that in parallel, there is also a huge subjective judgement taking place on a case by case basis. If the pathway system in place has any validity, then why is subjectivity coming into the system? Such a move would highlight the inconvenient truth that the pathway is not the scientific process it is argued to be, the mechanics in play with the system actually highlight its own weakness.
In the end, it seems that the ECB's player pathway model is simply a paper trial for a system that is designed only for the self-preservation of those who created it. In that way, its unshakably infallible; a player fails inside the system, and the player is questioned as not being able to pass through the systems goals. A player fails on subjective judgement, and it affirms the pathway system, as they didnt pass through it and therefore were never really prepared in the best way. I have to admit, its a work of genius in how little individual accountability it places on those who administer it.
The key is, the apparent pseudo-complexity of the system and the scientific concepts that make it create enough of a smokescreen to suck people into believing it; dare I say Matt, that your post above highlights it. The plan is so detailed and complex we cant understand it, but I think a better conclusion is there is actually no plan whatsoever. The vagueness of the strategy is covered by its very nature.
While most of England's caps end in the Lions, Lions performance clearly doesnt have a basis on elevation. There is no clear criteria of what is expected from the Lions players. Some display form and never get elevated, some abjectly fail and are in next available test. At current the Lions has several test "failures" in it, like Jennings who seems to be the ever present at the moment. If he was considered good enough for extra attention, why was he dropped after 3 tests with a 100 to his name, while a plus 30 year old replaced him and has got 3 times the tests with a similar record and no hundred away in India to fall back on?
Why is Vince able to fail in loads of tests, get capped after a hugely embarrassing series v Pakistan where he scored 26 runs in 5 innings, and get repicked last test with 8 matches since his last one without a 50. Sam Robson performed better than all our last handful of batting caps to this point, he averaged 76 in 2016 County Season and watched as England picked 4 openers above.
You could go on and on. Stokes couldnt bowl this series, do England really believe with hardly any preparation and a criminal charge above him that he was in the position to be one of our top 6 batters available? Mason Crane was a huge prospect a month ago, now he is disappearing despite the message from Flower they would stick with him only a couple of weeks ago. Players need to know what is expected of them. In fact, a lot of problems with England probably stem from the fact that the players dont know what whims their selectors and coaches have. Of course though, the inability to cope with such BS is a sign of weakness. So the players who cant perform in this insane environment are not good enough anyway.
Slowly but surely, we are fading back to the 1990s style where some players get endless opportunities to be mediocre, while we flick through and dispense with careers at the touch of a button in other cases. No scheme, no thought processes, and all the talk of longevity and grand plans, but little display of it. And what happened in the 90s was to create a toxic atmosphere, where players jettisoned from the national team after inadequate amounts of time simply drifted and became average in county cricket, lowering standards across the board.