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.
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.
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.
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?
Timmuh
Roar Guru
sheek, I agree, selection is not an exact science - its probably not a science at all, but I do believe there should be some basic philosophies applied to it - even if they need to have some flexibility in extraordinary circumstances. And, yes, sometimes no matter what approach you take, things don't work out. Everything pointed to apossible Ponting resurgence prior to the South Africa series; it wasn't to be. Quiney was coming off a high quality Shield season, it didn't work out. Those selections aren't necessarily mistakes, although there were others who would not have picked those players. The"best" at any given time is subjective, and picking someone who looks right coming in and then fails is forgivable in my view. On the other hand, rotating Siddle out of Perth (if he was fit) was a mistake. He probably would have made no difference to the result, but he was still the best quick available, even if a bit tired. The rotation policy itself is a mistake, we have no less injuries than before, and end up resting players for as many games as they would miss through injury anyway. Johnson, even in Perth, did not have a good record heading to the WACA Test. Then, having been called up presumably as a Perth specialist and not performing that well (although he was remarkably consistent by his standards) he gets picked for Hobart above bowlers such as Cutting who have performed over a few years, and are performing now. Regardless of how it works out in Hobart, that is a selection mistake in my view.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
Those numbers are interesting. I always tend to think of McDonald as another of those all-rounders who isn't really good enough with bat or ball but selectors choose to fill a gap over a specialist. A sustained average of those heights tends to show that thought to be incorrect. Given he has only had two innings this summer, it might be considered hard to determine if that form is still going - the signs are good though, 64 and 101 in those innings.
Booners
Guest
I say for picking players it has to be form over a period of 2 or 3 seasons - you have to earn your place (exception can be made if your a stunning new player with an amazing first yr but must be ponting, clarke level not just solid). In this I had a look back at our star candidate batsmen over the last 2 and a half (inc this season in shield cricket) to check the form of batsmen. The following are the batsmen to average over 40 in that period in order 1. Andrew McDonald - 1041 runs at 54.79 2. Rob Quiney - 1730 at 44.36 3. Usman Khawaja - 1311 at 43.70 4. mark Cosgrove -1526 at 43.60 5. Peter Nevill - 1209 at 43.18 6. Jacob Burns - 1367 at 41.42 7. Phil Hughes - 1403 at 41.26 8. David Hussey - 1024 at 40.96 9. Glenn Maxwell - 860 at 40.95 So really these are the only 8 batsmen who should be considered - although please note the next 5 averaging 38 or 39 were Bailey, Doolan, Fergusen, Cooper and Henriques in that order and an interesting one is Ben Cutting averaging 32 who is a bowling all rounder I think Cosgrove who plays on difficult Tasmanian pitches and has been forced to open is probably the pick of the batsmen outside McDonald but his fitness issues have curtailed his support
womble
Guest
To pick a Test team purely on form would be goimg against the culture and fabric of Australian test cricket. Ponting would of stayed there till he was 42 if he didnt go now. Watch how long Hussey prolongs his tenure.Next season must be his swansong. He cant keep batting on the back of Clarke, and keeping Watson out of his rightful allrounder position.
Jason
Guest
Meanwhile, Hazlewood is now out of the rest of the international summer (and the BBL) and it looks like Hastings will be injured for the next test. You do have to wonder what Alex Kountouris gets paid for.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Pick ya mates, place exceedingly high value on ultimately useless dressing room attitude, exaggerate fielding and bowling ability of incumbent batsmen. Blame the woes of the world on the top 3.
The Barry
Roar Guru
There's a worrying trend of selectors to look at the results in the most recent match or appearance rather than overall ability and technique. A lot of this appears to be media driven. If selectors feel that Khawaja is the best player to replace Ponting then that shouldn't change if he fails in his first appearances. Ditto if it's Hughes or Quiney or Doolan. I like that the selectors have identified Cowan and Warner as the two best available openers and are sticking with them. So they should unless either have an extended run of poor form or there's someone banging down the selection door. Cowan doesn't become second choice just because say Chris Rogers got a hundred in his last knock. This policy paid of handsomely in the 80s. In one of the biggest periods of upheaval in Australian cricket - Chappell, Lillee, Marsh retirements, Hughes resignation and rebel tours meant there was a dearth of test ready players. Between Border, Simpson and the selection panel they pieced together the players that they thought were ready for tests and gave them extended runs. Over a couple of seasons they pieced together a line up of Boon, Marsh, Jones, Border, Steve Waugh. The 6th batting spot was a bit more difficult and they went through a fair number of players like Dirk Wellham, Greg Ritchie, Mike Veletta, Tom Moody, Greg Matthews until they found Tubby Taylor in 88-89. They didn't drop Steve Waugh because he didn't score a hundred on debut, they recognised that the 30s he was making would turn into 50s, into 70s, into 90s and eventually hundreds. He was identified as one of the best six batsmen in the country and given an opportunity to grow into the side. Chopping and changing every couple of tests is what England did through the 90s and early 00s. It doesn't benefit the team in the long run. I agree about picking the best 6 bets, 4 bowlers etc but there does need to be an eye to the future nut just the next test.
Dan McGrath
Roar Rookie
I'm not a fan of variety for variety's sake. If your best 3 pacemen are right arm outswing bowlers, there is no reason not to select all three. That is what we did with the attack of Hilfenhaus, Siddle and Pattinson. Then at the WACA, we went for variety for the sake of variety - two left armers, one who is tall and swings it in; the other shorter and angling it away, balanced with a right arm military medium workhorse bowling all-rounder. And we see how that went on Day 3. It doesn't matter if you're a left arm swing bowler or a right arm spearhead; if you bowl pies you will go at 5 an over on a flat track. Every bowler is different - different angles, slightly different release points, subtle pace variation, the amount of movement they extract in the air and off the pitch - so going "we need a left armer and someone who is 6 foot 8" ends up in selecting bowlers who don't deserve to be there. In my opinion, Australia should walk into the Test match at Hobart with an attack of Siddle, Starc and Jackson Bird. Not because it provides 'variety', but because they are the three bowlers most likely to take wickets in those conditions, against the Sri Lankan batting line-up. To me, the basic selection philosophies come down to this: 1. Form is temporary, class is (mostly) permanent. Selecting and dropping players on a whim is not fun for anyone. If you think they have the goods, stick with them through a rough patch. It's what we did with Michael Clarke, and we're reaping the rewards of it. We've done it with Hussey, and he's making runs now. 2. Stop-gap solutions are defined by the numbers. When someone breaks down injured, grab the most in-form player you can find. Even if he isn't Test quality long-term, you only need him until your first XI player comes back. Take the runs while they're there. 3. Select for the next Test...but keep one eye on the future. While it is important to try and win every game you play, you do still want to develop youngsters to build for future success. It is a definite balancing act. 4. Don't experiment in 'grand final' Tests. I understand why John Inverarity did what he did in Perth, but damn, when a series with South Africa is locked at 0-0 and the last game defines who's number 1 in the world, don't pick John Hastings! With Watson back and Johnson/Starc able to bowl a lot of overs, the risk of picking Siddle may have been worth it. Experience is key in that sitiuation. So what does this tell us? That selection is contradictory and very, very difficult to do well. Sometimes good decisions fail miserably, and other times bad selections can come off. There is definitely an element of luck to what is a completely inexact science.
Andy_Roo
Roar Guru
I believe that building a team or a squad is the best way to go. You need to pick the right players for the right positions and have a number of players in the squad who can cover for injuries. But a long term approach is needed and player shoul be given a decent run. Take (whoever they pick to replace Ponting) Khawaja for example. If he comes in to the team give him a fair chance to settle in. Don't drop him if he makes a duck in his first test. Stick with him. If he is looking over his shoulder all the time then he will neve stand a chance. This is also one of the concerns I have with Clarke and Arthur as selectors. Players will be looking over their shoulder all the time and not concentrating on their actual performance. A horses for courses selection policy is OK but don't go overboard with it. You can't build a great team if it is constantly changing. A rotation policy of resting players should not be over-used either. Up until the mid nineties Australia had one team for all forms of cricket. Then they decided to bring in one-day specialists, which was not a bad thing at all. However I believe it de-stabilised the team because there were too many changes. With T20 there are now three different teams. With so many changes it is hardly surprising that the performances of the team are so inconsistent
Seano
Guest
Simple, best 2 openers in the country, best new ball player in the land, 4 an 5 are interchangeable but must consist of best batsman and best all rounder, 6 is best young batsman under 26 then best keeper a spinner an 3 quicks but one of the bowlers must be able to bat above ave of 15 to night watch. Plus a left arm quick. So the side would be. 1. Warner 2. Cowan/Hughes/Quinney 3. Hussey 4. Watson 5. Clarke 6. Usman/ or similar 7. Wade though I prefer Paine 8. Johnson (night watchman) 9. Lyon 10. Starc (lefty) 11. Siddle I also pray they can fill Ryan Harris with enough pain killers for an ashes campaign! -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download it now [http://itunes.apple.com/au/app/the-roar/id327174726?mt=8].
sheek
Roar Guru
Timmuh, The first observation I would make is that selecting is an inexact science. A very inexact science! Accept that you will get it wrong sometimes simply because of the vagaries of human nature. So don't sweat the occasional mistakes. Work on getting it right more often than getting it wrong. There is a bond between selector & player. The selector gives the opportunity to the player & the player responds by grasping the opportunity. As we know, this often fails spectacularly. Either the timing was wrong, or the player wasn't up to the task. Or some other reason. Then there are injuries & form lapses. Unfortunately teams are continually moving & changing landscape canvasses. Trying to keep everything in kilter is inordinately difficult. What works for one selection won't necessarily work for another selection. it's a tough job, being a selector. Approach it pragmatically, even fatalistically. Retain your sense of humour. Don't sweat the small stuff. As long as you get it right more often than you get it wrong, you're a genius!
Let me firstly say I am no cricket buff. I played at social level only so my thoughts are that of a observer and supporter, not with any great amount of knowledge. Gary Kirsten said a while ago he bekeives in building a squad, 11 players is not good enough as form, injuries etc can influence selections. For me the ideal squad will consist of 4 new ball batsmen 6 old ball batsmen with a balance of being able to thrive on wickets that provides spin. 2 glovemen 5 pace bowlers, with as much variation as possible, left arm bowler, right arm bowler with a natural outswinger (ala Steyn), tall who gets bounce(ala Morkel) etc. 2 spinners, one containing bowler and one legspinner (attacking) If possible any new player must be tested against the lower ranked teams, if they make it there, you can have reasonable confidence when needed they can perform at a higher level. Just a thought.
Johnno
Guest
Pick specialists in specialist positions. Pick openers to be openers, eg Shane Watson example, now they are flip flopping him everywhere and don't know what to do with him. Mike Hussey they have mucked around too putting him at no 6 when really he is an opener , a no 3 ,or no 4 at lowest. Punter should of stayed at no 3, or been dropped altogether. Keep players in specialist spots i say, is first rules of selection, and picking bits and pieces all rounder cricketers ilke John Hastings is a mistake too most of the time. They should of picked Bird or Hazelwood, true specialist player , not guys like John Hastings or a Shane Lee type.