Are you suggesting that doesn’t happen now?
2 Likes
He seems to be.
I’m not suggesting it does or doesn’t but if you want to accept that it does, then why is a another system that promotes the same problem any better?
If you have a group of players, senior players, retired from international cricket, but still playing, they can form a committee that discusses players from each of the teams. They can then offer names and detailed reports to a selection committee who has the final say on what players are selected.
It is better than having 3 selectors who often do not make it to many games, including the coach who has a personal bias for those he has worked with.
Not saying that would work, but it isn’t going to be worse than what we have.
1 Like
When you lay out his record like that, … it’s really quite amazing he did so.
1 Like
So you’re basically ignoring that the very same bias might exist for current players and their team mates?
Of course it might, it is why you make it a committee of players, not just one. They are also not selectors.
1 Like
Cowan’s put forward an interesting idea, one I have some sympathy for I have to say but that’s neither here nor there, and the reasons behind it.
Your rebuttal of it has been ‘it’s stupid,’ and when pushed put forward a flaw that absolutely already exists under the current set-up.
Not saying you don’t have reasons, but you haven’t stated them.
1 Like
And because you want blokes picked on form… Shaun Marsh has 443 runs at 88 for the shield season so far from half the games of Wade/Burns et al. People don’t like it but every time his position is in jeopardy he outperforms the guys at the lower level to retain his place.
1 Like
Sure his shield looks great but for 4 tests he has failed and he is now 35. For that reason he should not be playing anymore.
The other guys deserve a chance and if they fail then they go too. But you give them a chance over a guy who consistently fails.
2 Likes
So you’re saying a different group of selectors with their own bias to put forward their ideas on who is selected.
Mate, it’s exactly the same situation we have now, except the blokes picking the names are playing and probably even more prone to bias because they can only focus on those they’re playing with.
Because it might do something else better, even if it doesn’t fix that particular fault/failing.
The reality is everyone is human and has their biases.
The reality also seems to be that the current mob keep picking sides that are losing, and often quite badly
1 Like
They also play AGAINST the other players in the comp and can see how they are performing. So therefore they will have a good idea what happens out in the middle for each of the names.
You really are not offering reasons why it wouldn’t work, just “because”…
Had Smith and Warner been available I reckon Marsh might’ve missed this summer and we might’ve actually moved on. Alas they couldn’t not pick him based on his superior form to any other 1st class batsman in the country and his relative experience.
The most obvious flaw I can see is that given they’re actually playing, then they won’t get the same opportunity to watch Tests.
Unless CA did something crazy and separated the Shield and Test seasons, but no-one would be that stupid.
2 Likes
I heard an interview with Bailey the other day and he had a pretty good handle of opposition players, their strengths and weaknesses.
197 @ 17.9 in Tests
Fork in him. He’s done.
1 Like
No I’m exposing that idea is laced with the very same issue that you are deriding in the current selection panel, except probably worse.
But then persist with him despite constantly failing. They dumped Mitch then brought him BACK in.
Every solution is going to be laced with bias, stop carrying on. Start adding to the discussion by making suggestions, we are just throwing around ideas on how to change up what has consistently not worked.