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

I'm pretty sure the ECB interviews candidates for posts, but they tend not to publicise that. That I know of, the captain and the bowling coach were definitely interviewed along with other candidates.

How about we ask the team to pick the captain?

England have advertised the job of head coach.

Note, they've gone back to the title used before Flower.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:England have advertised the job of head coach.

Note, they've gone back to the title used before Flower.

Thanks for the info Arthur. That makes me feel a bit better - I was probably a bit ratty having returned to the UK yesterday. Much as I love my family and homeland I have no desire to spend the winter here if I can possibly avoid it!!

Arthur Crabtree wrote:England have advertised the job of head coach.

Note, they've gone back to the title used before Flower.

I think by law they have to advertise the post but probably already know there choice.

In answer to the original post yeah we do need selectors but they have to be better at highlighting new talent and then working out if they are ready for any format of the game... For example playing future "test players" in the odi team really annoys me when there county 4 day record is brilliant but odi one is average at best we have to be smarter when picking squads and not throwaway valuable odis and T20s

englandmad666 wrote:...In answer to the original post yeah we do need selectors but they have to be better at highlighting new talent and then working out if they are ready for any format of the game... For example playing future "test players" in the odi team really annoys me when there county 4 day record is brilliant but odi one is average at best we have to be smarter when picking squads and not throwaway valuable odis and T20s

Good point, well made, em666. For example, Rashid was doing well in CC cricket for Yorkshire and not so well in one day cricket when he was thrown in to ODIs for England. This decision cost Rashid, and probably England, dear.

Yeah i think it has destoyed a fair few careers along the way, remember jonathon trott made his international debut in T20s and failed so was cast aside, he only got back into the reckoning on the back of a extended run of form for warks and a batting crisis before the 5th test of 2009 ashes

By the same token, you have to wonder why they kept picking Chris Woakes for ODis when he's far better with the red ball and longer game.

KipperJohn wrote:By the same token, you have to wonder why they kept picking Chris Woakes for ODis when he's far better with the red ball and longer game.

Exactly and its quite probable the reason we have performed so badly in shorter format world cups! Players can play at all 3 levels but some players are specialists at certain levels... Woakes and rashid are examples.. But then we dont think when it comes down to games! Chris jordan is brilliant in the ODIs v aus, but then we drop him for the T20s! Only to play in the last game its bad management and selection

There is a suggestion on cricinfo's Switch Hit podcast that Paul Downton is expending his role into team matters and selection. If he is taking on a new chairman of selectors role, this may complicate the job of the new coach. And don't forget Flower is also in charge of coach development! This has potential to be anarchy by committee.

One has to ask why English cricket has to have a selection panel when other major team sports, as far as I'm aware, do not eg football and rugby.

I can't for the life of me fathom out how a coach responsible for the team's performance does not the pick the players he wants to fill the roles of the playing strategies he has in mind. Why would any self respecting coach want a job where he has to argue with selectors (some of whom will have their own agendas/preferences) as to who is in the team/squad?

Having a team of people who can run their eye over a player and then report to him is surely preferable?

I note that nobody from the selection panel got the boot after the disastrous Ashes tour - the waters of responsibility and accountability are incredibly muddled.

KipperJohn wrote:...I can't for the life of me fathom out how a coach responsible for the team's performance does not the pick the players he wants to fill the roles of the playing strategies he has in mind. Why would any self respecting coach want a job where he has to argue with selectors (some of whom will have their own agendas/preferences) as to who is in the team/squad?

Having a team of people who can run their eye over a player and then report to him is surely preferable?...

The difference between cricket and most other team sports is that county championship cricket is played over 4 days and not 80 or 90 minutes, which enables soccer and rugby coaches far more opportunity than their cricket equivalents to run their eye over players, particularly when just about every top match is televised.

Effectively, there is a team of people, collectively probably better qualified to select a squad than the coach and which, in most cases, probably contains the players best able to represent England.

The coach, of course, has a large say in who makes it into the team from the squad.

D/L wrote:Having a team of people who can run their eye over a player and then report to him is surely preferable?...

The difference between cricket and most other team sports is that county championship cricket is played over 4 days and not 80 or 90 minutes, which enables soccer and rugby coaches far more opportunity than their cricket equivalents to run their eye over players, particularly when just about every top match is televised.

Effectively, there is a team of people, collectively probably better qualified to select a squad than the coach and which, in most cases, probably contains the players best able to represent England.

The coach, of course, has a large say in who makes it into the team from the squad.[/quote]
agree with that

although I completely accept the point about the ashes selection panel, who got selection about as wrong as it was possible to get it, in as indecisive a way as it was possible to be

Selectors dont do anything that fans dont do. I think its quite clear from the Flower times that selection was made on parameters that showed our selection staff were qualified enough to mirror all armchair fans and judge their output on a list of statistics.

The selectors have made two types of pick.

1. The Cricinfo statistics page pick:-

Bairstow - Averaged 50, he got picked. Root, young guy scoring runs, picked. Carberry scoring runs for years, picked. Taylor averaging 50 at the time, picked. You are going to Asia and need a second spinner, who has the best average, Tredwell picked. Compton had a few run crazy years, delayed selection based on past bad performance and Taunton pitch, waited a year long then anyone else, picked. He bats like a batter, bowls like a bowler, Woakes is picked. He does the same when the previous man fails, Ben Stokes picked. He is 23 and has averaged 52 in a sufficient amount of matches, Ballance picked. Im as tall as Michael Holding and take wickets for fun at Lords, Steven Finn picked

Not a single one of these players was down to anything other than a page of stats. There was no specialist insight a selector could have got.

2. The inspiration pick. This is the pick where stats dont jump out, but someone decided the player had qualities through observations of selectors that made them pickable.

Like Morgan, who averaged 24 in the full county season before his test selection.

Or Samit Patel, who was billed as an excellent player of spin bowling despite melting like a chocolate fireguard in the face of Asian spin bowlers, and despite his plus 40 average with the ball in county cricket, was deemed appropriate to fill the gap of bowling 10-15 overs per innings against a team who had made Shane Warne and Murali look rather average. I can only assume that the selectors made a rather racist conclusion that because he was Asian, he could bowl spin and bat against it..... key to note also that, previous to these series he was dropped from the World Cup squad for not being fit enough to last a 50 over game.

Shehzad - Averaged between 35-40 per wicket, came in and got a game against Bangladesh when he looked decent, but the selectors then dropped him because it was only BD, and his county form didnt really justify his continued selection

Kerrigan - Poor record against the best teams in county cricket, we know how that ended.

Rankin - Picked for the bouncy pitches of OZ, held back on all the bouncy pitches until the series was over and England had lost.

I hope the selectors actually dont have a scentific approach to things, the idea they use Cricinfo actually reflects better on them

D/L makes a very good point. It is unfeasible for a single Coach to get round and see all of the players who are starting to press a case in domestic cricket. What the role of these observers should be is a different question, it is clear we need both clarified accountability and at the same time internal checks and meassures.