Jonathan Millmow wrote an article in the Dominion Post today covering the new selection policy to be followed for international, domestic and age-grade level cricket. It boils down to the following score-based analysis of players:
- Significant performance: 35%
- Consistent performance: 25%
- Contribution to the team: 15%
- Fitness: 10%
- Fielding: 10%
- Selector intuition: 5%
Now ignoring the regrettable writing style of Millmow (he actually uses the phrase "...the grand old days of the Richard Hadlee selection bolter have been hit for six") he does make one fine point and that is the surprisingly small percentage of influence the selector has compared to the statistical data- correctly pointing out that if stats were all that counted, we would not have benefited from one Jeremy Coney who captained winning sides in Australia and England in a 12 month period (and achieved much higher than his domestic averages would have suggested). John Buchanan is forgetting his cricket history, in my opinion, by going down this road; while the weight of statistics is important, there is still plenty of room for selector intuition. The two teams that Coney's cricket team beat in 1985/86 are appropriate given they can show us exactly how this 'new' system is flawed.
English cricket tried a purely performance based approach in the 1990s and it created an always-changing team that was constantly filled with players that scored heavily at domestic level/were performing well at the time, at the expense of players who, while out of form (perhaps), had the mental toughness and experience to play at the international level. In 1999 they lost a home series against New Zealand and were ranked the lowest test side in the world. Duncan Fletcher took over as coach with Nassar Hussain to captain and brought in central contracts and most importantly, a mind set that said there was more than just performing at the next level down - you had to show that your character was strong enough to help create a team capable of succeeding in the face of international pressures. It took a number of seasons but they reached number two in the world and beat Australia (2005) with batsmen who averaged 40-45 and bowlers who took wickets at 30 or more runs each. Now to reduce that victory to this simple fact is incorrect but the picking of players who could band together and meet the challenge presented by Warne, McGrath, Ponting and Gilchrist was quite clearly important.
The Australians themselves learnt that important lesson in 1980s after, again, New Zealand beat them at home. The selectors could see that to climb back up the rankings of cricket they had to invest in hard, young cricketers like Boon, Marsh, Waugh and Healy who could withstand the hard slog early in their career in order to build a fantastic team machine a decade later. It isn't just about numbers and calculations, there is something more that must be accounted for - a defiance, doggedness and determination that doesn't always construct first class averages of 50 but can do at international level.
Buchanan and company are ignoring this history and they risk negating what is one of the most potential-filled group of cricketers I have seen in a New Zealand setup. Fill your team with the Matthew Sinclairs, Mark Ramparakashs and Graeme Hicks of this world and see what happens when the heat is on them. John, you are too fond of your stats and computers and your contempt for your history and that of the team that is now beating you in the Ashes may cost this team more than a country of four million can afford to replace.
Next week I will preview the two-test series in Australia
Well that's it from here and I hope you join me again
It's good bye for now
No comments:
Post a Comment