Attn Samarth, Sadiq: On Fringe players

Attn Samarth, Sadiq: On Fringe players

Post by RoshanC » Wed, 14 Jul 1999 04:00:00


Lost your post where you explain selecting fringe players is a real test for
the selectors

I agree that every team has 6-7 players who get automatically selected & the
onus is on the selectors to get other 5 right. Both Samarth & Sadiq described
in length how it should be done. All is fair in a idealistic world.

But why dont you put yourself in the selctors shoes? There are 2 marginal
players X & Y. Bcoz they are marginal, X > Y when X hits form & Y > X when Y
hit form. So lets say you pick X for the tour. X performs between poor &
moderate. In the mean time Y sets the domestic field on fire.

So what would you do now? You have a Y who is in a brilliant form & not lesser
than X in any ways waiting to be selected & you have X who had his chance to
prove his mettle.

If you dont select 'Y' you'll be accused of bias for 'X' (after all many have
acccused of ignoring Kuru when Prasad had a moderate debut season). Also you'll
be denting the confidence of a young Y, who even though have performed well is
*ignored*. Also who knows considering Y's brilliant form he may actually
perform well. You never know

If you dump 'X' & select 'Y' you'll be accused of not giving X a fair trial.

I'll ask specific questions for you guys,
1) What criteria should one use when selecting X over Y?
    remember for every person who wants X there is another who want Y (& both
have equal supporing theories). What should have been the basis of selecting
Kuru over Johnson? Remember both had similar records before the RSA tour.

2) When should the guy be given an extended run (Should Bhupinder, Mhambrey,
Johnson, Ganesh have been persisted after their tours?) & when should he be
dumped? (Should Vikram Rathore, Laxman given the same number chances as they
got even if they failed first time around?)

For me, If a guy is good he'll make appropriate comebacks by performing well (a
la Saurav, Ganesh, Dravid for ODI's). A cricketers toughness is revealed when
he is dumped. So actually it may be a pretty good process of filtering the junk
with the real men.

And no, I dont believe Ankola, Kuru, Harvinder, Amre would have done anything
different from what their respective replacements did. Even if they did, its
all based on hindsight

If you think a 3-man selction committee will solve all these problems surely
you are hallucinating

Cheers,
Roshan

 
 
 

Attn Samarth, Sadiq: On Fringe players

Post by samarth harish sha » Wed, 14 Jul 1999 04:00:00


<snip>

Quote:
> I'll ask specific questions for you guys,
> 1) What criteria should one use when selecting X over Y?
>     remember for every person who wants X there is another who want Y (& both
> have equal supporing theories). What should have been the basis of selecting
> Kuru over Johnson? Remember both had similar records before the RSA tour.

Simple. Look at who's done well in the past. Kuru had some great seasons
in the early 90s. In 1994, he got a 5-fer against a touring side. Johnson
had *one* great season. Now, unless a selector thinks that Kuru is over
the hill in terms of age, he's an easy choice over Johnson.

I admit that I didn't put forth Kuru's name to go to RSA, then. But then
again, I wasn't aware of his superb FC record sitting in Madras. I *was*,
however, rooting for Ankola to go to RSA even *then*. But the reason given
for not choosing him was something to do with Ankola having some injury,
which somewhat appeased me.

Quote:
> 2) When should the guy be given an extended run (Should Bhupinder, Mhambrey,
> Johnson, Ganesh have been persisted after their tours?) & when should he be
> dumped? (Should Vikram Rathore, Laxman given the same number chances as they
> got even if they failed first time around?)

If you fail, you get dumped. That should be the policy. Simple. The only
place where this doesn't is when there aren't adequate replacements for
you. Bhupinder, Johnson, Ganesh, Mhambrey and Rathore all failed and
weren't dumped a moment too soon.

Laxman wasn't that big a failure. 51 against RSA on debut - second highest
score in the match! 35 (rt hurt) at Capetown, 2 50s in WI, 95 against Aus,
did better than his captain against Pak.

Now, the question is: which of the above players will you want to pick
*again* to play for India some time in the future?

It depends on more factors than one:

1) How did the player perform?

Johnson, Bhupinder, Mhambrey and Ganesh all did just as well/badly, IMHO.
OTOH, I think Laxman did substantially better overall than Rathore.

2) How likely is he to correct his mistakes?

a) Bhupinder is too old. If he corrects his mistake in 2 years, it's no
use.
b) Mhambrey is too slow and lacks variety for his speed. Very debilitating
deficiencies, not likely to be quickly corrected.
c) Johnson - too erratic; not an easy deficiency to correct.
d) Ganesh - lacks stamina; comparatively easier defect to correct. Some
off-season fitness training; long spells in the nets, etc.

That leaves only one person: Ganesh.

With Rathore and Laxman, they both have equally serious technical defects,
but somehow I pick Laxman to correct his faults earlier and better than
Rathore. Just MHO.

3) What has been his FC performance since being dropped?

a) Bhupinder - already retired or about to retire.
b) Mhambrey - not that great.
c) Johnson - not that great.
d) Ganesh - pretty good.

Again, that leaves only Ganesh.

Rathore - not bad.
Laxman - got 100s against visiting sides and that counts for a lot in my
book.

On the whole, I don't think it's that tough a choice. Clearly, among the 4
medium-pacers you mention, Ganesh stands out. It's much closer between
Rathore and Laxman, but purely on performance, Laxman beats Rathore.

<snip>

Quote:
> If you think a 3-man selction committee will solve all these problems surely
> you are hallucinating

The problems the 3-man selection committee will solve will be the ones
related to regionalism and zonal favoritism.

-Samarth.

 
 
 

Attn Samarth, Sadiq: On Fringe players

Post by Mike Holman » Thu, 15 Jul 1999 04:00:00


Quote:

><snip>

>> I'll ask specific questions for you guys,
>> 1) What criteria should one use when selecting X over Y?
>>     remember for every person who wants X there is another who want Y (& both
>> have equal supporing theories). What should have been the basis of selecting
>> Kuru over Johnson? Remember both had similar records before the RSA tour.

>Simple. Look at who's done well in the past. Kuru had some great seasons
>in the early 90s. In 1994, he got a 5-fer against a touring side. Johnson
>had *one* great season. Now, unless a selector thinks that Kuru is over
>the hill in terms of age, he's an easy choice over Johnson.

I sympathise with this debate. It's a familiar one for England
supporters too. And I suspect, New Zealanders.

Particularly the nondescript so-called quick bowlers. I think our
rubbish has been a bit quicker than your rubbish, but, honestly, haven't
most of the names we can come up with for our respective teams over the
last several years of selectorial dithering been pretty hopeless anyway?
There might have been the odd one or two who would make a respectable
third seamer, but we needed them to be new ball strike bowlers alongside
the long-suffering Fraser or Srinath. And they were, generally, crap.
(Or they were Devon Malcolm, who was utterly marvellous on about three
occasions, and utter ***the rest of the time.) I mean, Gladstone
Small. Mike Smith. Peter Martin.

India's problems have probably been exacerbated by what Sadiq and
Samarth have been describing in terms of the politics, but the fact is
that none of the players they've chopped and changed have been worth
much anyway.

It puts the selectors on a hiding to nothing when there aren't any
outstanding bowlers crying out for selection. I'm not sure that you have
much alternative to trying someone for a match or three and seeing what
happens. When, as usual, nothing happens, you might as well pick the
most recent guy to take a hatful in domestic f-c and let him make an ass
of himself for a bit. Maybe the fact that it's obviously anybody's guess
who's going to be picked inspires a younger generation to think "I could
be picked" and make an effort, he said hopefully.

We've certainly got some good looking bowlers coming along right now.
Tudor looks almost certain to be dropped, because his bowling wasn't
much cop at Edgbaston, Gough's already back for Yorkshire, and Hussain
has made it very clear that a fit Gough will be picked. And there are
three or four others to compete with Tudor, too. Sadiq said he'd heard
good things about Silverwood this season. So have I, now. It appears
that he has added a yard and a half of pace and is now very quick
indeed, comments very similar to those I was hearing about Alan Mullally
before he got picked against SL last year and was revealed as a far
better bowler than the drongo who'd played a couple of years before.

So maybe what you need is a way for some of your rejects to feel that if
only they could improve a great deal, they could get back in, the way
Mullally did, and Silverwood may yet do, and force their attentions on
the selectors by taking a lot of wickets domestically, and taking them
well, there'd be less to *** about.

Cheers,

Mike
--
At least the World Cup's over for another four years

 
 
 

Attn Samarth, Sadiq: On Fringe players

Post by RoshanC » Thu, 15 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Quote:
>Simple. Look at who's done well in the past. Kuru had some great seasons
>in the early 90s.

So did Johnson, where did you heard the myth that Johnson was a
*one-season-wonder*? See you easily got carried away by Sadiq's posts on J'son
vs Kuru.

Quote:
>In 1994, he got a 5-fer against a touring side.

Now thats a one season wonder. But nobody will consider the 94 season when
selecting the team for 96'. You really have to be stupid to do that

Quote:
>Now, unless a selector thinks that Kuru is over
>the hill in terms of age, he's an easy choice over Johnson.

Thats what Sadiq has made to believe you. Now consider this situation, an
excelent journalist praises Johnson's performance over the years with his
eloquent style (just like Sadiq does for Kuru). Just like you believed Sadiq,
the selector will definitely get carried away by his writing & select Johnson
over Kuru.

Quote:
>I admit that I didn't put forth Kuru's name to go to RSA,

Thats bcoz you were an unbiased viewer who didn't have the benefit of mumbai
press or karnataka press
Quote:
>I wasn't aware of his superb FC record sitting in Madras

Are you aware of J'sons record before writing him off? See thats how media
influences the selectors

Quote:
>If you fail, you get dumped. That should be the policy. Simple.

This is in exact contradiction to Sadiq's view. he wants everyone to be given a
fair trail. See there is already a difference of opinion. Assuming you both are
unbiased selectors you already have to fight who plays & who gets dropped.

Cheers,
Roshan

 
 
 

Attn Samarth, Sadiq: On Fringe players

Post by BCTA » Thu, 15 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Quote:

> It puts the selectors on a hiding to nothing when there aren't any
> outstanding bowlers crying out for selection. I'm not sure that you have
> much alternative to trying someone for a match or three and seeing what
> happens.

I think it's more important that they pick a balanced attack, and not expect the
less experienced bowlers to lead the attack.

England constantly stuffed up by going against this policy- eg picking
three defensive or three attacking bowlers bowlers instead of a mix, or
bringing someone straight in and giving them the new ball (eg Headley)
rather than making them third quick.

--

Cheers

Christian Kelly

I Support Fenetik Spelling

 
 
 

Attn Samarth, Sadiq: On Fringe players

Post by samarth harish sha » Thu, 15 Jul 1999 04:00:00


Quote:
> So did Johnson, where did you heard the myth that Johnson was a
> *one-season-wonder*? See you easily got carried away by Sadiq's posts on J'son
> vs Kuru.

I'll leave the comparative FC stats to Sadiq :-).

Quote:
> Now thats a one season wonder. But nobody will consider the 94 season when
> selecting the team for 96'. You really have to be stupid to do that

5 wickets in a FC game against a WI including Lara is not good enough, but
1-13 in a ODI game against Sachin is good enough to be picked for 2-3 test
matches?

The 5-fer was not Kuru's only performance. He had been doing well for
years... OTOH, Johnson had been doing well for *one year*.

Quote:
> Thats what Sadiq has made to believe you. Now consider this situation, an
> excelent journalist praises Johnson's performance over the years with his
> eloquent style (just like Sadiq does for Kuru). Just like you believed Sadiq,
> the selector will definitely get carried away by his writing & select Johnson
> over Kuru.

Well, now that I've seen them both, I now know whom to pick. If only the
selectors saw them both, instead of Johnson alone in one Challenger game,
they'd realize the same thing that I did.

Quote:
> >I admit that I didn't put forth Kuru's name to go to RSA,
> Thats bcoz you were an unbiased viewer who didn't have the benefit of mumbai
> press or karnataka press

I put forward Ankola's name, without the benefit of the Bombay or
Karnataka press...

Quote:
> Are you aware of J'sons record before writing him off? See thats how media

Yes. I follow most SZ Ranji games with interest. And Karnataka and
Hyderabad games, especially, since they're TN's biggest rivals. Also, a
lot of Karnataka players play league cricket in Madras. Another reason why
I follow them. Of late, a lot of Karnataka players in the Indian side.
Another reason why I follow them closely.

Quote:
> This is in exact contradiction to Sadiq's view. he wants everyone to be given a
> fair trail. See there is already a difference of opinion. Assuming you both are

No difference in opinion. How long is Sadiq's fair trial? My "fair trial"
is one series (provided you get enough tests and FC games). One series as
in Mohanty's tour to NZ doesn't obviously count.

Rathore failed in England; he should've gone right then. He played two
more tests than he should've and I can't blame the selectors for such a
minor mistake, especially since the prime replacement, Sidhu, was
involved in that scandal.

Johnson went after one series (you can't take the Aus one-off test as a
series). Laxman went after one poor series of 4 tests. Mhambrey went after
one poor series. Established cricketers like Sidhu also went after one bad
series. All of that was quite fair.

Sometimes you don't have any replacement and so you can't drop a player
who does badly... which is also quite acceptable.

-Samarth.

 
 
 

Attn Samarth, Sadiq: On Fringe players

Post by Sridha » Thu, 15 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Quote:

> > Now thats a one season wonder. But nobody will consider the 94 season when
> > selecting the team for 96'. You really have to be stupid to do that

> 5 wickets in a FC game against a WI including Lara is not good enough, but
> 1-13 in a ODI game against Sachin is good enough to be picked for 2-3 test
> matches?

> The 5-fer was not Kuru's only performance. He had been doing well for
> years... OTOH, Johnson had been doing well for *one year*.

no, more like 3 years. prasad only had marginally more ranji success
than johnson, but he went on to have as good a debut season as any
indian pace bowler. how should one have known johnson couldn't
duplicate it ? besides, kuruvilla was not even bombay's best bowler
at that time - it was mhambrey who, as we all know, flopped
in england. having said that, i reckon kuruvilla might have
been a better choice than johnson, but purely in hindsight. i also
believe that ankola might have been quite handy in aus and rsa in
the early '90s, and perhaps in eng in '96. but it's always easy to
sit here and perform speculative post-mortems. besides, if k'villa or
ankola had been selected for rsa in '92, the axe might well have
fallen on srinath, which wouldn't have been good in the long run
(or perhaps in the short run either).  remember that prabhakar and
kapil were fairly untouchable (for sound reasons) at that time.
Quote:

> -Samarth.