• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

The role of selectors

Status
Not open for further replies.
chunkyshanhawk53

chunkyshanhawk53

Striker
Contributor
Surely this is outdated?

Back in the day when you had 17 counties there was no way you could have one man watching the lot

Now, with 17 shit and 1 class, and with technology why do you need a panel?

Get the top 10 batting and bowling averages, and some highlighted as promising youngsters...so 20 of each. Have a cameraman at every ground. Have a lacky you deletes the bat twirling and shit.

New coach can watch every ball that Saj, for example, bowls
 

Best selectors are the umpires.

See everything from the middle. That's how a lot of players got picked in the past.
 
Is there any other sport where they do selection by committee?

I suppose it is only tenable in cricket because despite all the talk of the team ethic, cricket is the team sport with by far the least interaction between teammates?
 
Aidan11 said:
Best selectors are the umpires.

See everything from the middle. That's how a lot of players got picked in the past.
Click to expand...
I've always maintained that.
Progression from County to Test level is more about temperament than technique so the experts tell us and only someone in the middle can make the temperament assessment.
 
chunkylover53 said:
Surely this is outdated?

Back in the day when you had 17 counties there was no way you could have one man watching the lot

Now, with 17 shit and 1 class, and with technology why do you need a panel?

Get the top 10 batting and bowling averages, and some highlighted as promising youngsters...so 20 of each. Have a cameraman at every ground. Have a lacky you deletes the bat twirling and shit.

New coach can watch every ball that Saj, for example, bowls
Click to expand...

The point you make about averages - would you consider Division Two players? Because in theory they play a lower standard of cricket. Also, Stoneman and Borthwick scored 1,000 runs last season where half of their cricket was played on a notoriously bowler friendly ground. Had they been Somerset/Surrey players they may have scored closer to 1,500 runs!

So, I think your idea is flawed on that score.

Personally I think the idea of selectors is still the best way of doing things - IF THEY PICK THE BEST POSSIBLE SIDE.

It's when they don't follow that rule there's a problem. So it's more a case here of hate the player not the game. So to speak. It's the selection that's flawed, not the logic.
 
brandon said:
The point you make about averages - would you consider Division Two players? Because in theory they play a lower standard of cricket. Also, Stoneman and Borthwick scored 1,000 runs last season where half of their cricket was played on a notoriously bowler friendly ground. Had they been Somerset/Surrey players they may have scored closer to 1,500 runs!

So, I think your idea is flawed on that score.

Personally I think the idea of selectors is still the best way of doing things - IF THEY PICK THE BEST POSSIBLE SIDE.

It's when they don't follow that rule there's a problem. So it's more a case here of hate the player not the game. So to speak. It's the selection that's flawed, not the logic.
Click to expand...
I take your point.

I was more highlighting that there are a core 50 players or so who could play for England. Sending one man on a 4 day trip to watch him make a duck is pointless, technology exists...use it
 
chunkylover53 said:
I take your point.

I was more highlighting that there are a core 50 players or so who could play for England. Sending one man on a 4 day trip to watch him make a duck is pointless, technology exists...use it
Click to expand...

I can see that aspect of it like. Although I'm all for the idea if they were to pick me. All expenses paid trips around the shires watching cricket, eating three course lunches and filling my face with scones at Tea?? Not far from paradise that :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top