Originally Posted by stevieh
Your man Boycott says you have to find the rough diamonds and polish them, speaking of players such as Ben Stokes. Flintoff was a great example of that in a different time past.
Looking at the challenge of 2019, for the World Cup in England, we have got to start from the correct premise re the composition of the team. That means Root, Buttler and Stokes (for he has now arrived, no mistake) at the core as players who have demonstrated they have the aptitude and toughness to take their performance to the next level.
Build around them and we have a chance of doing far better than the embarrassment Down Under.
OK, but can you be a bit more explicit about what you mean by the bits in bold?
Do these phrases mean that when you convene your selection panel you're going to start with these three in the team no matter what, and only discuss the remaining 8 places? If so, that sounds like a recipe for trouble -- because what if one of these three has consistently played badly for some time? Isn't that what they did with Cook after the last World Cup? It meant hanging on to him for some time after they should have dropped him. Wouldn't it be better just to pick all 11 players during the selection meeting, all on the same basis? Obviously if a player is doing badly one has to make a decision about if and when to drop him. And that will depend on one's hunches about his prospects of returning swiftly to his best, and it will depend upon who else is on the fringes and how you feel about them
. But I don't see any advantage in singling out people for preferential treatment in advance.
Or do the bits in bold mean that those players get to bat in their preferred positions? Because if that's the case, I don't think we know what those preferred positions might be. Or do they mean that you get to decide yourself where you think those players would bat best and that you're intending to be inflexible about that when discussing selection for future matches?
I'm just a bit confused by what is being suggested. The analogy seems foreign to the task.