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.