Alviro Patterson wrote:Don't necessarily agree with Ed Smith's selection logic, but understand the reasoning since Leach and Bess are not match sharp while there are no other viable alternatives in county cricket
While its not an attack on you, you are well entitled to conclude that there are no alternatives/match sharp competition based on whatever definition you give it, I do ask what is the reasoning in making that assessment in the case of Smith? Rashid hasnt bowled in a 4 day game for sometime, who is to say he can bowl 50-70 overs in a game if required, and to what standard? Who's to say Amar Virdi hasnt done a similar amount to Dominic Bess at the same age (hes certainly displayed more than Crane)? Why was one picked and the other not? Even something as small as these issues highlight just how bad the current selection thinking is.
The fact is, Smith's job really shouldnt be to pick from a list of names displaying his "cricket judgement". This view of his role and what its become smacks of that old world, upper class Oxbridge graduate type of outlook on business (no surprise considering the ECB). In the professional world, if a key decision maker was to make critical decisions and was to send an email saying "just had a hunch" they'd probably be sacked. When that old boy environment exists, it always fails. You can go anywhere, to any person who specialises in the process of decision making, and they will tell you the first golden rule is "hero decision making" is the worst type of decision making there is. There are whole industry standardised qualifications like Prince2 that hammer that home.
This might sound utterly irrelevant, but when you have a common successful goal to achieve as a collective, you have to structure the way you get an answer on how it is done by asking and answering all the relevant questions. For a start, what is success? What is the goal? Once thats defined you dont just blast out a list of end ways to get there based on whats perceived as key decision maker "specialist judgement". The final answer should be shaped by the results of all the minute questions and criteria that you set, not just some strategic nonsense created with a pen and a napkin while the sales director has a drink. And those questions are over seen and made accountable by your peers overlooking your progress.
To explain that as an example, what defines match sharpness? If we are dropping players on that basis, then has it been defined? Is there a criteria in place to judge if a player is fit enough or sharp enough? How many overs are they expected to have bowled in a given time period? Does it have to be a multiple format, or in a given format related to the selection in hand? At the moment, I see Rashid not bowled more than 10 overs in a game, so what says he can get through 20 overs in a day maintaining quality? Bess just had a first class game where he bowled 30 overs, so again, what are the steps being made to make this judgement?
In a healthy system, every player should know what is required of them. And every selector should know what is required from a player. And that figure should be set in stone, it should be tangible. A first class player should come into contention after a certain amount of games maintaining a required standard of results. That figure should be balanced or magnified by their overall career performance. A selector should know how many games a youngster needs to prove he has it. When a person is picked in the team, there should be a targeted level of performance measured over an initial period of games. Once established, he should maintain form of a specific amount of runs/wickets relating to his career performance.
It is setting these boundaries where cricketing judgement and great management manifest itself. The final decision to make a player then is not the result of a five minute conversation where all the metric of data and performance are left to off hand hutches, the selection team end with 15 names that fulfill all criteria, and then they make choices.
Selection at the heart needs to be inclusive, and the whole ecosystem lives and dies by the decisions that are made. Picking Rashid, while it might work and he goes onto become the next Shane Warne, might leave a collective legacy of all those young spinners trying a little less. If you continue to give 15 straight caps to Malan, who's average hovers permanently in the high 20s to lowest 30s, what does that say to the next guy coming, and what he has to achieve to get a long run.
At the moment, if I were a 20 year old spinner Id be very worried about myself. Dominate the discipline for a few years like Leach, get told you havent displayed mental maturity enough and arent ready for it. Get told you are the next best thing like Crane, get one test and be told you are a long term project; but then dont get picked in the Lions, which means your actually an abandoned project. Play a handful of games and told the job is yours at 20, 2 months later bowling for the second XI like Bess. Meanwhile, some guy who doesnt want to play, hasnt played, hasnt excelled really in the FC like others.... he gets picked.
So what was expected of Bess in April? Was he expected to win the series on his own to get a 3rd game? If so, why is he dropped for a guy averaging 42, so surely this guy hasnt done it either. If Crane was a long term project why was he dropped after one game from all levels of the national setup? If Leach is clearly demonstrating he is the consistent guy around, why did he get only one game, what did he have to do in that game? Is it realistic?
Quite literally, on every level, this is utterly shambolic management. It will not improve either. Buttler could go on to be Tendulkar, but the right answer from a wrong process in an isolated case will not help the common goal of building a consistent, world class side.
Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 2:22 pm