Arthur Crabtree wrote:Crawley's fca is 31. Wonder when England last picked some one with such an unremarkable fc record
Why bother picking players who havent stepped up in county cricket, and who are not showing form? Call me dumb not to see Smith's masterplan, but how can a player who struggles against county attacks and cant buy a run, be expected to do better against world class attacks at the best level?
It begs the question as to what message we want to send players in county cricket. At the moment, it seems to be that mediocre play is fine. Half our team cant buy enough runs, but keep getting picked. And players who show very little quality get picked too. Then we cap the odd deserving youngster like Pope, and drop them after a game or 2, while someone averaging 20 less gets picked over and over again.
Selection policy filters down to player attitudes further down. When Fletcher picked a few guys in the early 2000s who got lost in the system, he told everyone that they'd be judged on what they could do in the now, not what they had done, and the national team benefited from it. But they key, he mostly targeted players who showed skill but seemed to lose themselves in a system in the mid to late 90s that fell apart, and was damaged. Its a different kind of damaged now.
Stick to picking players on form, with records that suggest they have excelled. Foakes averages 40 in tests, and gets dropped and departed for a player who cant be bothered to play FC cricket. He wont come back until he cracks runs around for fun, while he's replaced by an inferior player who also cant hit it off the square at the moment, and who's career suggest he has ever been able.
But I guess Smith is Oxbridge educated, and he wrote some wonderful books about sports no one cares about in England (nor sold a copy in a country where his analysis could be understood) ..... the great data analytics supremo who hasnt picked a single player who's data suggests worthy mention.
What a bloody chancer.