Ashton Agar and mirage selections

One of the more revealing comments this summer came when selector Mark Waugh said the job of a selector was “to have that gut feeling. If you just look at the stats, then anyone could be a selector.”

Ah, the selector’s gut. That magical oracle.

It’s not unique to Australian cricket. Remember that scene in film Moneyball where the baseball talent scouts are talking about various prospects? They went with their gut too: “Clean cut, good face.” “Good jaw. He’s the real deal.” “Five tools, good lookin’.” “He swings like a man.” “He’s got an ugly girlfriend… Ugly girlfriend means no confidence.” “I like the way he walks into a room. Kid’s so confident his dick gets there two minutes before he does.” “Passes the eye candy test. He’s got the looks, he’s ready to play the part. He just needs some playing time.”

You can imagine such things were said around the Australian selection table about players whose stats didn’t justify their selection. Mitchell Marsh. Ashton Agar. Nick Maddinson. Pat Cummins.

These are what I call ‘mirage selections’ – where the stats don’t back it up, where it’s done on gut. Players are picked, not on form or past performance, but on potential – the way the execute a square cut, say, or make an innings so memorable you overlook the next ten failures, or their similarity somehow (looks, technique, whatever) with a champion player, or an exciting personal narrative.

Or simply their youth. Glorious, untested youth. Good looks always help.

Mitchell Marsh is the most notable mirage selection in recent years. He’s good looking, can bat and bowl, is descended from a beloved former player, and he gave up drinking (Aussie selectors love a player who give up the grog).

Marsh was picked to bat at six despite a first class batting average of 30 because the selectors knew – they just knew – that he was better than the stats. Marsh played 19 Tests, continued to hit beautiful 30s and 20s, has a Test batting average of 23 and a strike rate of fewer than two wickets a game.

Nic Maddinson is another mirage selection. Sure, he only averaged 38 after years and years of promising more – but he was so exciting when on song, he had so much potential. The selectors knew – they just knew in their gut – that he was a better bet than, say, Glenn Maxwell, who averaged the same and also offered fielding and bowling options, and had been more consistent.

Moises Henriques replaced Usman Khawaja in Sri Lanka as a specialist bat despite a first class average of 30. Apparently he was a good player against spin. The selectors knew more than the stats.

If that decision happened in the corporate world there would be grounds for a negligence suit – it was simply unsupportable by any measure.

Ashton Agar could be anything, says Darren Lehmann. He’s “got the talent to be a batting allrounder or a spinning allrounder.” Well, at the moment he averages 26 with the bat and 40 with the ball, at a strike rate of under three wicket per game.

It’s easy to tell what he is – a not-particularly penetrative spinner who has his good days and is handy with the bat. He’s been that for a while now. If he’s something more, how about he figure that out in the Sheffield Shield before picking him at international level? Or does Darren Lehmann just want redemption for dropping Nathan Lyon for Agar at the start of the 2013 Ashes? (Another gut selection that went okay at first then haywire.)

Pat Cummins is my favourite mirage player. He hasn’t played one first-class game since 2011 but people are still talking about him as an exciting Test prospect. Personally, the idea of at Cummins bowling for Australia in a Test fills me with dread – I’d be waiting for the ambulance to be called every time he bowled. But he has speed, promise, and an impressive jaw.

It’s a mirage, but it is appealing.

“What about Steve Waugh?” I hear you ask. “It took him 26 Tests to score a century? From 1986 until 1989.”

Yes, well, the thing is Australia lost Tests pretty regularly during that time, Waugh became a specialist batsman quick smart, his batting improved regularly all along, and he only really became the ‘Steve Waugh’ we know and love at Test level after he was dropped in 1991 and came back a proper batsman.

Maybe we would’ve been better off dropping Waugh earlier? Maybe his comeback would’ve happened sooner? Why does everyone always ask “what about Steve Waugh” and not “what about Ian Davis? Greg Matthews? Simon O’Donell? Mike Valetta?” Or other players given a decent go who didn’t make it.

Steve Smith was an early selection who worked out well – but he averaged in his 40s with the bat before picked (as a bowler, just to remind everyone).

Sure, Nathan Lyon did well after not much first-class form, but don’t forget before him we’d tried Michael Beer, Xavier Doherty, Bryce McGain, Nathan Haurtiz, Beau Casson, Jason Krejza, Dan Cullen and yes, Steve Smith. So let’s not do too much high-fiving over the Lyon selection, it really was more of a case of last man standing.

The flip side of a mirage selection is not picking a player with great stats because the selectors know – they just know in their gut – they’re not up to it.

This was why Chris Rogers withered on the vine for so many years despite averaging more than 50. Why David Hussey ends his career averaging 52 with the bat having played no Tests – the gut told the selectors that he didn’t have it, whereas Marcus North, Shane Watson, Andrew McDonald, Alex Doolan, Ed Cowan, George Bailey and Rob Quiney did.

Why Brad Hodge only got six Tests. Why when Stephen O’Keefe had better stats than Agar, Doherty, Maxwell and Beer, he was overlooked in favour of all four at one stage or another.

Why do selectors do it? Because they’re human and humans tend to be emotional rather than rational. Who doesn’t want to be the hero and pull out a mystery move at the eleventh hour that helps Australia win the big game? Happened with Tony Mann and Peter Toohey in 1977, Peter Taylor in 1987, Pat Cummins in 2011, (almost) Ashton Agar in 2013.

Problem is, more often than not it backfires. Either the player tanks (Beer, Doherty, O’Donnell) or don’t sustain (Mann, Taylor, Cummins, Agar and yes Shane Watson). But people forget failures (unless they’re of Johnny Watkins-esque proportions), so it continues.

The selectors have every right to be proud of picking Renshaw and Handscomb. But let’s not forget that their stats weren’t too bad – both averaged 40 (Maddinson didn’t) and Renshaw was making more runs than Cameron Bancroft.

Let’s also not forget this summer they dropped Peter Neville and Jackson Bird for their batting, replaced Usman Khawaja with Henriques, broke up David Warner and Joe Burns, went for Maddinson over Maxwell, gave Callum Ferguson one Test, persisted with Mitchell Marsh for 19 Tests, and have been dying to drop Lyon.

Their gut is very erratic.

I accept you can’t simply go off statistics when it comes to selections. Sometimes it is a matter of temperament, and statistics can flatter – you have to look at when runs were scored, wickets taken etc.

But at the same time, stats are very useful and for crunch decisions you’re better off looking just at them.

Mark Waugh, I don’t think anyone can be a selector. You have to know the game, watch all the games, and look at the statistics. But you can’t just go off your gut either.