alfie wrote:At the moment Archer and Stone are still injury absences ; Mahmood and Fisher as yet untried ; Overton as yet underwhelming.
There are seven Tests scheduled for the English summer. Does anyone seriously believe Woakes Wood and Robinson are playing all of them ? Even if they - and one or other of the new boys - do a job in West Indies , there will be plenty of room for rotations. I think we will see a bit more of both of them - though how long either will continue is another matter ...as indeed it was always going to be even before the decision to tour without them this month.
The thing I am a little unhappy about with this whole Broad and Anderson issue is that Strauss seems to have been less than clear about his intentions - almost as if he wishes to be able to spin in whichever direction fits the narrative as these next ten Tests (and the new coaching set up) take place. Suppose that is understandable , in a political sort of way ; but doesn't seem too admirable - and more than a little unfair to two fine servants of English cricket. At some point they will obviously have to give way to younger men ; but I don't think we need to have this happen in any contrived manner as time and form will ensure the progression happens naturally.
Whatever anyone says , there is more than a touch of "development tour" about this one : if the tour were to one of the "big" countries England wouldn't be travelling without 1100 odd wickets...
alfie wrote:The thing I am a little unhappy about with this whole Broad and Anderson issue is that Strauss seems to have been less than clear about his intentions - almost as if he wishes to be able to spin in whichever direction fits the narrative as these next ten Tests (and the new coaching set up) take place. Suppose that is understandable , in a political sort of way ; but doesn't seem too admirable - and more than a little unfair to two fine servants of English cricket
Slipstream wrote: KP was made captain in 2008 and immediately brought Harmison back. KP, a captain that had the power than Root doesn't have. Harmison played 2 Tests under KP and 4 Tests under Strauss when he became the new captain in the West Indies. 9 wickets at 34.89 and Harmison was gone
sussexpob wrote:Strauss should be focusing on putting in place the guys who will create their own strategic blueprints, not creating his own vision for a future he will not be part of.
Durhamfootman wrote:sussexpob wrote:Strauss should be focusing on putting in place the guys who will create their own strategic blueprints, not creating his own vision for a future he will not be part of.
unless, of course, he secretly does want to be a part of it
Durhamfootman wrote: and not very smart from someone who obviously fancies himself as some sort of administrative messiah
sussexpob wrote:alfie wrote:The thing I am a little unhappy about with this whole Broad and Anderson issue is that Strauss seems to have been less than clear about his intentions - almost as if he wishes to be able to spin in whichever direction fits the narrative as these next ten Tests (and the new coaching set up) take place. Suppose that is understandable , in a political sort of way ; but doesn't seem too admirable - and more than a little unfair to two fine servants of English cricket
Only the ECB could appoint a temporary person to oversee "strategic decision making", as Strauss has summed up his role to be. What exactly is the point? Strauss will soon pass on his role to new selectors and new coaches, people with their own ideas. Any "strategic" decisions he makes about the future do not have any binding effect, and do not have any impact into the future. Strauss' strategic blueprint will be burnt the moment he leaves the role; which is going to be very soon.
All of this is of course not lost on those players. Like Jimmy has said, new decision makers, different decisions. New decision makers, new pressures to perform. No coach is going to watch England's bowling stocks decline in the West Indies and not recall these two players.
It makes the decision idiotic. Strauss should be focusing on putting in place the guys who will create their own strategic blueprints, not creating his own vision for a future he will not be part of.
sussexpob wrote:Now Smith has gone, Bobat is the person in the setup who represents the chaotic confusion of backroom selection. When given the opportunity to explain his Lions squad at the end of last summer, he said it was picked on "data, scouting, and my own assessments on mental/physical attributes"...... so what you are saying is, you are throwing at pictures on a dart board?
I am all for data analytics and what not, but data can mean anything. And why have data analytics if you then say two of the three main criteria are subjective assessments? The very nature of saying that is to literally say "the data tells me one thing, I chose to accept it and use my subjective judgement anyway!". So why use data? Are you just using data in a confirmation bias way? Bobat lifted the lid on it when justifying Zak Crawley coming back - he had reams of data about how Crawley played quicker bowlers better and shorter lengths better, and that test batsman face that type of bowling more. Which is why he was a better pick. Which is why his average of 30 was actually better than people averaging 35 or higher.
Save from this excellent data analysis, the actual fact was Crawley averaged 10 in the year for test cricket . Bobat was telling us data tells us he should be excellent, the only stat that mattered was he was batting like a tailender on a bad patch. I think that is all we need to say for the role of data in English cricket. Anyone with half a keen cricket eye can see Zak Crawley's forward defensive is far from good enough; even if he plays attacking strokes that should end on postcards.
Bobat got a promotion in 2019 after 8 years overseeing a team that introduced hardly any test quality newbies. Taylor got the role because Smith thought his recent experience in the dressing room meant he was a great scout.... the returns have been woeful. How is anyone involved with selection and performance management still in a job?
Slipstream wrote:It seems that when Ed Smith was selector Bobat and Taylor reported to him. When Smith went the two of them then reported to the weak Silverwood and it seems they took charge of selection.......If England choose a national selector Bobat and Taylor would report to him but I wouldn't be surprised if Bobat got that job
sussexpob wrote: Where Taylor fits into this is anyones guess. He is just an additional layer of subjectivity and has very little use.
Durhamfootman wrote:presumably he's the guy who trundles around the grounds looking at players to see if they're worth investing time in
Return to International Cricket
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests