sussexpob wrote:Like a government setting out a manifesto for future governance, the culture of selection and player management from Cricket Boards and National managers is often of acute important to the health and future success of a national team, and of the domestic game as a whole. It contains a vision, or a plan, for long term as well as short term benefits.
In the 1990’s England’s selection policy and player management was a disastrous mix of ad hoc fads combined with random decision making, backed up with little player rehabilitation. It contributed to major problems that run through the very fabric of the domestic game and grassroots, and soldified bad practice and attitudes that limited success.
Players would be capped after half a seasons good form, only to be spat out when not making an instant impact, and thrown back into a county system that ignored their existence. The net effect was a national game that was stuffed to the brim with damaged players no longer playing for the honour of test cricket, lingering around the county circuit like post-apocalyptic zombies. The standard dropped as a result of the lack of motivation. Players who rose to the top had their confidence destroyed and were never given the time to settle, even if their quality in a system of poor quality county cricket was shining through constant… .England’s lost to New Zealand in the late 90’s condemned them to the tag of “world’s worst test team”!
Like the saviour of a bad horror B movie, Duncan Fletcher held an antidote for the zombiefest of county cricket. He recognised that the system was flawed; that it produced statistics that had little significance, as he understood that the lack of motivation in the game was holding players of technical quality back. His new way was like a shot in the arm. Players like Strauss, Collingwood, Trescothick, Flintoff and Vaughan all emerged, all with qualities that grew inside a system that fostered consistency and comfort. Players were picked more on potential capabilities, managed inside a sound coaching system, and able to fulfil their abilities.
The main cultural change, backed by central contracting, was the creation of a philosophy towards “Team England”. The county system feed team England, who took the responsibility of polish the rough diamonds of county cricket inside an academy and management system that finished these players into world beaters. It worked, England went 8 series in a row victorious, and have produced a team that has become number one.. from the bottom to the top in just over ten years!
Yet like a national park that has been robbed of its predators, over time the county system ecosystem has reacted by producing increasing numbers of harmless herbivores. Flower’s Team England policy has masterminded the central nervous system plan to the point that the brain now controls everything, even if its arms and legs slowly wither and detach. The system has become entrenched to the point that county performance is now often ignored, the rare talent too busy playing for the national teams C team, or resting for the endless carnival of limited overs gluttony. Players are not exposed to quality domestic operators, and there is little motivation for players to perform, especially when the invisible quality of “potential talent” is often touted to select players who are not performing to the top levels.
Somewhere along the line I get the feeling that Andy Flower has buried himself in the pursuit of these mythical qualities and ignored the reality outside his door, like an old pirate clinging to his treasure map. This policy of always identifying players based on an as yet unachieved and often intangible standard means that patience has to be paid, often requiring unshakeable levels of faith over protracted periods of time.
Here lies the problem of recent selection policy. It is hard to judge the amount of time a player needs to excel, and even harder to judge whether or not the player even has the potential to perform to test match levels if he has not had the performance levels in county cricket even to prove he can perform to this extent at another level.
A good example is Eion Morgan, a player with a fantastic ODI career and known as an inventive, clean hitting limited overs player with a less than convincing 4/5 day record and defensive technique. Since being capped in an adequate amounts of test matches, more so than his FC talent maybe deserved, his ODI format has troughed in the last 3 years as the previously unshakeable mentality gave way to technical uncertainties that have hampered him. What possessed his selection when with him looking so inadequate of test match technique, and to pick him 16 times is strange.
In fact to look into the last 3 years of test selection, what has been the identifiable policy behind selection? Tredwell played one test and played ok, but was jettisoned for Panesar in every other tour, including the upcoming ashes despite Panesar having done nothing to deserve his recall, with ball or behaviour, which has been catastrophic. Then we have Ajmal Shahzad, a player who looked to have tangible quality, but who’s career after he was released from the England setup has become deflated to the point of possible non-existance.
Then there is Taylor, the man who has done everything but was judged on two tests, Compton who seems to lost his chance despite passable returns that could have improved with time, Kerrigan who didn’t even make it to the Ashes team(again over Panesar), Woakes made one test before being dumped out the squad, and Samit Patel, the Asian pitch specialist who was picked as a second spin option, taking only 4 wickets in 5 tests at a huge average, and who clearly couldn’t bat on Asian pitches…. And despite being a handy ODI player, he even found himself out of that squad now. The only players who find themselves still in the squad are Root, who has been moved around the order, and Bairstow, who hangs onto his test match place by a single thread.
It appears that Flower has therefore adopted a strange policy of non-trust in the county game, judged by snap judgements of players who have shown quality there, combined with a lack of patience in players he has tried to develop. Broad is the standout example of a player who has been given ample time to succeed while maintaining a high level of failure, others have had to be instant success or have faced the axe from England plans.
Broad is in a way a player who both proves and disproves the rule. A player with potential that had not proved much over a long term, the time it took for him to be test class may have exceeded 40 tests, inside which his performance was often below par and he was carried by the rest of the attack. It has been proved right that the potential was there, but at what cost? And under such a policy, how much waste does not step up and make it worthwhile.
Finn looks like a player who has not progressed despite the opportunity and protection offered by the national team. The 21 year old that emerged years ago looked better than now. The same is true of Shahzad, and arguably of others. And as for those young players brought into ODI teams or development squads, have those players benefitted from the centralised system? There are certainly few examples, and in fact, the increased protection of the national team seems to have eroded the match worthiness of several players.
Jimmy Anderson in the recent Ashes looked like a guy struggling to play that much cricket in such a short space of time. His performance tailed sharply as the matches went on. Prior looks like a player who needs to play some cricket, yet was sitting on his hands as his county side were picking 18 year old schoolkids to fill the gaps in a ravaged squad. Trott and Cook seem to have declined in recent times, a result of too much switching between limited overs cricket and tests, with not a lot in between. Bresnan still looks like a guy who could be much fitter.
It’s quite a damming thought that the only player in the last 13 test picks who has so far confirmed his test match existence for the long term is Joe Root, a man who one would guess at this stage will be a player to play for a long time. Before that, we have to go back to the 2009 Ashes series to find a player, Jon Trott, who has unquestionably solidified his place.
It is even more worrying still that these players who have been picked do not even find themselves in the development squads. Kerrigan will be in Australia, yet Woakes will not, preferred to a 19 year old Essex all-rounder(Mills) with 6 wickets at huge cost last year, and no scores with the bat. Ben Foakes is preferred to Taylor, who scored 121* against the Aussies and has averaged in excess of 75 in the last two Lions tours. Another 19 year old lad from Essex who has never played Div 1 cricket features at the expense of test match experienced Onions, who also happens to be the best county bowler in the last 2 years. It doesn’t take much for neutrals to work out which county our Selection panel have links with.
The future have worrying signs for England with so little established and proven back up now flooding the squads, and with so many picks being made on short term displays of talent, or unquantifiable potential. Should Flower depart anytime in the next couple of years he will be leaving an ageing team with many long term questions marks over them. Fletcher had a knack of picking a rough diamond but he turned those rough diamonds into good players… Flower is yet to prove that his extension of this policy has bore fruit.
Something has to give, as at the moment the English test management are not filling me with a great deal of confidence.
It's got me beaten, which is it?