View Single Post
Old 27th May 2015, 13:09   #84
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 11,606
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
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.
Very well put.

It's a concept not confined only to cricket and just one of many that can find favour if it's not thought about too deeply.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote