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

Making_Splinters wrote: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.

The comparison to rugby and football is not relevant at all. It hardly matters that a player is not seen enough, unlike those sports mentioned cricket is not really a game where you are looking for characteristics of technique that blend. A player who never scores goals as a striker in a certain style of football may compliment another style, and coaches and scouts are looking at lots of players to see what they offer, how they fit in a scheme.

Cricket doesn't work like that. I don't think you could say for instance that Player A is a very good player because his cover drive is textbook immaculate, yet he cant get passed 30 most innings. Its much more cut and dry because its such an individual sport, you are looking for an individual who can make contributions of a certain value regardless of how he does it.

So you are left with a much less complex analysis. If a player has shown great heights of performance, but his overall performance doesn't stand out, it is evidence that he lacks a sound game. The truth is, the only players realistically that should get picked are those with the most constant performance, and that is not something that requires a guy sitting at every game to judge. It pointless sending a selector to watch a game where no one has proved they can perform consistently.

I mean say for instance a guy average 35 with a sound technique. If he is averaging 35, then surely the fact his technique is sound is irrelevant? There are other latent qualities in his game that prevent him from performing to an expected international level. If he bangs a picture perfect 200 in front of a selector, then one has to assume he shells his first ball to the keeper on average 5 times to accommodate that.

Its a sinmplistic argument, and of course there are other stages that need to come in, or other factors in judgement. But put simply, a selector should only be spending time watching a player who has a record that is test match class. And by that, you would expect only 5/6 players in county cricket at a time who satisfy that top performance, and so a selector should have adequate time a season travelling in between games to see most valid players 2/3 times a year.

Even by your analysis you're expecting a selector to spend between 10 and 18 days watching first class cricket, even in an ideal world where the stars align so matches fall perfectly, that's still a lot of cricket to be watching. It's not even that simple, would you go watch an opening batsmen early doors on a cloudy April morning?

When England are looking for a range of players across a range of positions then it's not 5 or 6 players, it's lot more, on top of keeping an eye on how international players are getting on.

Making_Splinters wrote:Even by your analysis you're expecting a selector to spend between 10 and 18 days watching first class cricket, even in an ideal world where the stars align so matches fall perfectly, that's still a lot of cricket to be watching. It's not even that simple, would you go watch an opening batsmen early doors on a cloudy April morning?

When England are looking for a range of players across a range of positions then it's not 5 or 6 players, it's lot more, on top of keeping an eye on how international players are getting on.

I think the point is you don't need to check players that much. If a player isn't scoring runs then what is the point of seeing him, and if he is scoring more runs than anyone else, then surely he is better? The idea that some runs are as good as others maybe true, but even with 16 selectors following each team you aren't going to gauge that successfully.

At the end of the day the coach should sit down and analyse who is performing and send his scout out with a clear message to bring a detailed report back on a players feasibility to suit whatever tactical result the coach wants to satisfy. So if a coach is thinking he needs a number 6 for a tour to India, come back and tell me how you think he played the spinners.

I don't think it should be a case of "tell me, do you think he is test class". A seasons worth of bad or good luck is still reflected in how many runs he scored, and that is the key mark of quality. Having someone watch a player, for me, just adds an element of subjectivity into a process than is pretty clear based on end results.

Of course its not a foolproof plan, but then again nothing is.

sussexpob wrote:

Making_Splinters wrote: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.

The comparison to rugby and football is not relevant at all. It hardly matters that a player is not seen enough, unlike those sports mentioned cricket is not really a game where you are looking for characteristics of technique that blend...

I wish I knew what "characteristics of technique that blend" means and its relevance to other sports, but not cricket. Much of what followed was not clear either.

It should be obvious that with any sport. or in any walk of life, the more that is seen of someone, the better the assessment that can be made.

sussexpob wrote:I think the point is you don't need to check players that much. If a player isn't scoring runs then what is the point of seeing him, and if he is scoring more runs than anyone else, then surely he is better? The idea that some runs are as good as others maybe true, but even with 16 selectors following each team you aren't going to gauge that successfully.

You haven't mentioned the Lions team in your posts on this subject. The numbers might get you noticed, but that, recently, has only got you as far as the Lions or a performance/academy place. From there, more intense analysis judges whether they are good enough for the Test team.

The value of this analysis hasn't much been scrutinised. This is the stage at which KP was discovered to be an introvert. Where Geoff Miller said he was preferring mental strength and leadership qualities, but they produced a team with no plausible captain and sacked a player for criticising the coach. And that decided James Taylor (in spite of astonishing numbers of runs at A level) hasn't got a good enough technique for Tests- but Jonny Bairstow has... Sometimes I get the impression that they are trying to prove a bee can't fly.

Also the role of youth cricket is a factor. Former U19 cricketers are fast tracked through before they have done that much for their county- like Steve Finn. I'm sure Whitaker right this moment is trying to think of a way of getting Nathan Buck into a performance squad.

And a further problem here is, not only the lack of discussion in the press over the methods of the England set up, but their bimboish cheerleading. Understandable from 09-11, perplexing from 12-14.

There is also the emergence of the 'net pick', where a star just emerges in practice, like a Pakistani fast bowler. Although obviously well known players, Finn, Root and Shahzad all stepped up after a good net.

I was a club cricketer and like many others before me match managed a number of cricket matches for the M.C.C where I has to comment on probationary cricketers and recommend if they were good enough to play in representative games for the M. C. C. I used to tell them to play in the manner they usually did as I thought I could tell whether a batsman could bat and a bowler could bowl at a better level given an hour or so. I made a number of recommendations over sixteen years and had a very successful percentage that went on to better things. Whilst I appreciate that this is very different from finding a test player from the ranks of county cricket I didn't have the abilities of an England selector. Given that they have the opportunity to see these players on several occasions I don't see that the job is as difficult as it is made out as long as " the selection of the selector is competent " This is why I believe some umpires would make the best selectors.

Albondiga wrote:I was a club cricketer and like many others before me match managed a number of cricket matches for the M.C.C where I has to comment on probationary cricketers and recommend if they were good enough to play in representative games for the M. C. C. I used to tell them to play in the manner they usually did as I thought I could tell whether a batsman could bat and a bowler could bowl at a better level given an hour or so. I made a number of recommendations over sixteen years and had a very successful percentage that went on to better things. Whilst I appreciate that this is very different from finding a test player from the ranks of county cricket I didn't have the abilities of an England selector. Given that they have the opportunity to see these players on several occasions I don't see that the job is as difficult as it is made out as long as " the selection of the selector is competent " This is why I believe some umpires would make the best selectors.

An interesting thought; umpires are probably better qualified for the selectors positions as they have the best view of the game and are unbiased.

Alviro Patterson wrote:

Albondiga wrote:I was a club cricketer and like many others before me match managed a number of cricket matches for the M.C.C where I has to comment on probationary cricketers and recommend if they were good enough to play in representative games for the M. C. C. I used to tell them to play in the manner they usually did as I thought I could tell whether a batsman could bat and a bowler could bowl at a better level given an hour or so. I made a number of recommendations over sixteen years and had a very successful percentage that went on to better things. Whilst I appreciate that this is very different from finding a test player from the ranks of county cricket I didn't have the abilities of an England selector. Given that they have the opportunity to see these players on several occasions I don't see that the job is as difficult as it is made out as long as " the selection of the selector is competent " This is why I believe some umpires would make the best selectors.

An interesting thought; umpires are probably better qualified for the selectors positions as they have the best view of the game and are unbiased.

By making them a selector you make them biased, so its a non starter

sussexpob wrote:

Alviro Patterson wrote:

Albondiga wrote:I was a club cricketer and like many others before me match managed a number of cricket matches for the M.C.C where I has to comment on probationary cricketers and recommend if they were good enough to play in representative games for the M. C. C. I used to tell them to play in the manner they usually did as I thought I could tell whether a batsman could bat and a bowler could bowl at a better level given an hour or so. I made a number of recommendations over sixteen years and had a very successful percentage that went on to better things. Whilst I appreciate that this is very different from finding a test player from the ranks of county cricket I didn't have the abilities of an England selector. Given that they have the opportunity to see these players on several occasions I don't see that the job is as difficult as it is made out as long as " the selection of the selector is competent " This is why I believe some umpires would make the best selectors.

An interesting thought; umpires are probably better qualified for the selectors positions as they have the best view of the game and are unbiased.

By making them a selector you make them biased, so its a non starter

Not really, unlike the current selectors umpires are not affiliated to a county.

Alviro Patterson wrote:

sussexpob wrote:

Alviro Patterson wrote:

Albondiga wrote:I was a club cricketer and like many others before me match managed a number of cricket matches for the M.C.C where I has to comment on probationary cricketers and recommend if they were good enough to play in representative games for the M. C. C. I used to tell them to play in the manner they usually did as I thought I could tell whether a batsman could bat and a bowler could bowl at a better level given an hour or so. I made a number of recommendations over sixteen years and had a very successful percentage that went on to better things. Whilst I appreciate that this is very different from finding a test player from the ranks of county cricket I didn't have the abilities of an England selector. Given that they have the opportunity to see these players on several occasions I don't see that the job is as difficult as it is made out as long as " the selection of the selector is competent " This is why I believe some umpires would make the best selectors.

An interesting thought; umpires are probably better qualified for the selectors positions as they have the best view of the game and are unbiased.

By making them a selector you make them biased, so its a non starter

Not really, unlike the current selectors umpires are not affiliated to a county.

Its not the county that matters, what you are essentially suggesting is that an umpire becomes a stakeholder in the performance of a given player, and that destroys the impartiality of the umpire. Would an umpire responsible to the ECB for selection be happy to trigger his chosen man in a county game? Or if he didnt favour a player, give him a dodgy decision?

Umpires are umpires. I dont think the suggestion above was that they should change, just that they see the players most.

sussexpob wrote:

Alviro Patterson wrote:

sussexpob wrote:

Alviro Patterson wrote:

Albondiga wrote:I was a club cricketer and like many others before me match managed a number of cricket matches for the M.C.C where I has to comment on probationary cricketers and recommend if they were good enough to play in representative games for the M. C. C. I used to tell them to play in the manner they usually did as I thought I could tell whether a batsman could bat and a bowler could bowl at a better level given an hour or so. I made a number of recommendations over sixteen years and had a very successful percentage that went on to better things. Whilst I appreciate that this is very different from finding a test player from the ranks of county cricket I didn't have the abilities of an England selector. Given that they have the opportunity to see these players on several occasions I don't see that the job is as difficult as it is made out as long as " the selection of the selector is competent " This is why I believe some umpires would make the best selectors.

An interesting thought; umpires are probably better qualified for the selectors positions as they have the best view of the game and are unbiased.

By making them a selector you make them biased, so its a non starter

Not really, unlike the current selectors umpires are not affiliated to a county.

Its not the county that matters, what you are essentially suggesting is that an umpire becomes a stakeholder in the performance of a given player, and that destroys the impartiality of the umpire. Would an umpire responsible to the ECB for selection be happy to trigger his chosen man in a county game? Or if he didnt favour a player, give him a dodgy decision?

Umpires are umpires. I dont think the suggestion above was that they should change, just that they see the players most.

Not if a collective of umpires forward their suggestions to a representative, who then passes on the information to ECB selectors and coaching staff.

Sussexpob


I just think that umpires are non biased and if they were biased would not be umpires; They do their job day in day out and are mostly ex first class players so should be able to recognise a good player in the making better than anyone else particularly from 22 yards.. I'm of the opinion that you make best use of experience when you can and think it an enormous leap in assumption to say that umpires would favour certain players. We shall see how many Nottingham and Middlesex players come to the fore this year.

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.

Albondiga wrote:I was a club cricketer and like many others before me match managed a number of cricket matches for the M.C.C where I has to comment on probationary cricketers and recommend if they were good enough to play in representative games for the M. C. C. I used to tell them to play in the manner they usually did as I thought I could tell whether a batsman could bat and a bowler could bowl at a better level given an hour or so. I made a number of recommendations over sixteen years and had a very successful percentage that went on to better things. Whilst I appreciate that this is very different from finding a test player from the ranks of county cricket I didn't have the abilities of an England selector. Given that they have the opportunity to see these players on several occasions I don't see that the job is as difficult as it is made out as long as " the selection of the selector is competent " This is why I believe some umpires would make the best selectors.

I don't think its that hard in my own opinion. I remember seeing Matt Machan, a guy who may make a solid county pro in the next few years, smashing 4 hundreds in club cricket when he was 15/16 for Hastings & St Leonards, and Harry Finch had a very good year last up and got signed for Sussex. I have played against Sussex county players when they were younger, like Will Beer, Hoppo and Nash when they were playing for Horsham, and even a guy like Will Adkin captains the East Grinstead XI despite being terrible at county level given his opportunity.

I guess the point is, every club cricketer I have played with or against that have gone onto County XI's or even Second XI's were brilliant in club cricket. They stood out a mile, yet many of them get to the next level and get slaughtered. Bowling to a guy like Nash is soul destroying, you pitch it slightly wide or short, and you are gone.... the margin for error is so tight, you don't have to be that bad, anything is carted that isn't on the money.

That's the key for me... the margin and consistency. What I considered a decent but not very good length, would the next level up be considered fodder... and so on, and so on. Its why a guy who does not do very well at his current level, imo, should not be picked on any basis. A bowler averaging over 30 in county cricket is clearly a guy who doesn't get his line and length right all the time, and the margins on those lines and lengths tighten considerably when he goes to test cricket. Same for a batter, he holes in his technique get bigger, the errors and weakness of judgement increase.

There are examples to the contrary, of course, but for me a player has to have performed to the top of his bracket to consider selection... and for at least a one year period, preferably 3 years. If by that stage you then analysis him, and should only realistically be looking at a very tiny pool of elite performers.