The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

What should be the basic selection philosophies?

Roar Guru
4th December, 2012
Advertisement
Roar Guru
4th December, 2012
13

Selection always is a big part of sporting discussion, and this seems to be the case with cricket more so than other sports.

So what are the philosophies Roarers would like to see behind selection? And how much of a difference would a different philosophy make to the teams and squads selected?

I have two fundamental splits in selection belief. These are that home games and those more or less ‘in-season’ have slightly different criteria to ‘out of season’ tours away, and Test selection is markedly different to selection for other forms.

Test cricket selection is all about now. Test cricket is no place for learning your game, nor is it the place to try out players. It is not the format in which to speculate about the future.

Test cricket is relatively simple; pick the best six batsmen, the best four bowlers and the best gloveman. If a batsman can bowl, or a bowler can bat, then great; but trying to make an all-rounder when none exist leads to picking second-raters who are not up to the task of long innings or taking wickets.

Who the best players are depends on form, conditions and potentially opposition; but the task is relatively straight-forward.

There is a balance to be met, and the ‘best six batsmen’ requirement is the best six as a unit; not just the best six. For example, picking six middle order players and no openers is not a recipe for success.

Similarly with the bowlers, the bets four should almost always include a spinner, conditions might dictate two, even if the top four bowlers as individuals are pacemen.

Advertisement

For Test selection there should be no age considerations, no building for future tournaments, no rotation policies; just a straight out selection of the best available to suit the match at hand.

This also means selectors should be willing to drop experienced, older players without feeling they have ended that player’s career. If an older player shows the required form after being dropped, they should be recalled. It is my personal belief that some players have been kept on through lean periods as selectors are not willing to bring back players close to their career’s probable end.

I know some will disagree, because they believe that the Ashes should be treated as more important than other series and it is therefore important to build with an eye to the Ashes. That is the point of this article, for everyone to put forward their points of view not so much on individual selections but on the selection process.

In essence, players should have to earn a Baggy Green through being the best available for the job – not through having the potential to one day be the best available for the job.

With the two other forms, which I shall lump both together as ‘limited overs’ – as one is limited to 50 and the other to 20 overs – it gets a little trickier.

While form should still be the over-riding consideration, in these formats there is a tournament to build towards. It is necessary to select with an eye towards the next world cup of each format.

This makes for a bit more leeway to promote a player with promise and does bring age and likely future availability into consideration. There is little point bringing a player in now who will not be around for the tournament that counts, one in each of the two short formats.

Advertisement

There is also greater scope for choosing bit-part all-rounders who can keep an end tight with the ball and play quick cameos with the bat. As a general rule, the shorter the format the greater the scope for these players; particularly with lesser batting. In Tests, these players hold next to no value, in T20 they can be very valuable indeed.

Limited over forms of the game may also be used to expose possible Test players to international cricket. Test cricket being the more important form means using the other games as a platform for the Test team is a viable option. Generally speaking, this should only be done when the player in question would not otherwise be playing first class cricket.

As a general rule, for all formats, players should be chosen who have had at least a couple of seasons of consistent performances in state cricket under their belts. This is particularly true when selecting touring squads for out of season tours.

A player who has shown they can perform, take a break and then perform again is necessary for an out of season trip. This shows the player is not just on a hot streak, but is capable of backing up after an absence from the game.

At home, or for a tour which takes place while the domestic season is under way or has only just finished (tours to New Zealand and South Africa are often timed that way), a player who is in form right now might be the form choice and therefore the best selection.

If that player proves to be a ‘flash in the pan’ but in that time is good enough, there is no reason not to take advantage of that brief period of excellence.

For the limited overs formats, there is again more scope for picking with future tournaments in mind and somebody who has had less domestic may be considered if they are considered an exceptional talent.

Advertisement

Those are my basic views, with the caveat that there are sometimes exceptional circumstances which might require breaking them. Over to you. What are the fundamentals of selection you believe a selection panel should follow?

close