bigfluffylemon wrote:Agree with nearly everything sussex has said. The only quibble is an apparent contradiction with how you pick players. On the one hand you praise Fletcher for going on 'gut' and picking players who didn't have a good average in the CC, then criticise the selections of players who had a poor CC average on the basis there are others out there with better numbers...... But I'm guessing that whatever was behind the Crawley selection, it was probably a selector or two trying to do what Fletcher did, seeing things they liked despite a poor average and reckoning they were picking on potential to shine at international level rather than current form.
You have to remember that any "gut" feeling is subjected to whatever bias is inherent in those making the judgement. David Court and Mo Bobat, England's player Identification leads, have explained in regards to Crawley that his county form was secondary to what they referred to their own "holistic" assessment; that being a sort of ill defined collection of subjective views about a players capacity to improve, using such things as his perceived character and personality. Court went as far as to say that these assessments are made in reference to the established player pathway in place; a document which Flower and Downton created, and where by memory of viewing it, the most important defining characteristic to rate potential of a youngsters capacity to improve came from their academic education background. To be part of Flower's system, one has to achieve academic excellence to stay in.
Here is where it gets tricky, because it is pretty obvious that assessments made at an early age in a players development really do matter. I think the stat is that about 80 percent of people capped since Flower's pathway was written progressed through the complete pathway - that being Lions, Development camps, England U-19. Such a stat indicates that players who were not identified at an early age as "the right stuff" are ignored completely afterwards to a large extent.
Crawley does not satisfy such a test because he did not complete the International Pathway (didnt represent the U-19s, not sure about the Lions) but subsequent assessment in the scouting system deemed he had satisfied the criteria to have done so with future conduct. Bobat and Court felt he was the right stuff, as did their scouting team assessments. And while he is one of the few players not to complete it, he is still a product of it. He still went through it even if he didnt graduate the full programme. He is still a Flower product..
What is this right stuff though? As we said before, the pathway itself makes exhaustive references to academic achievement. The funny thing? The Sunday Times when Crawley printed that he did so in an England team that beat a record - 9 of the team in that NZ test came from private school backgrounds. Only Jofra Archer, who didnt grow up in England nor came through their youth development scheme, didn't along with Jack Leach. Think back to 2019. How much press was around saying Jofra Archer should not be capped for England. Think back a little further and how many people said Jack Leach wasnt the "right stuff"??? Flower certainly didnt think Leach was the right stuff. He called him immature and not ready for test cricket. Leach was subjected to a bit of a character assassination. He averages under 30 in tests and cant get in this team. He is deemed not mentally strong enough, but then saved a test v Ireland by scoring nearly a 100, saved an Ashes series with Ben Stokes, and has an identical bowling average to England's best spinner in 50 years.
At what stage do we acknowledge that "being the right stuff" means being a white guy who is privately educated?
Another example that supports this is the case of Liam Livingstone, another comprehensively educated school player. In 2016 he and Hameed debuted for their first full season for Lancashire - Livingstone averaged 50 in the year, Hameed I think slightly under him. Hameed got the international call, Livingstone was sent to the Lions. In the Lions, Livingstone is acknowledged to have possibly the best Lions game ever - he scored two x 100s in a game on a bunsen vs a strong spin attack from Sri Lanka, in 50 degree heat. In doing so everyone who witnessed it said his footwork was something no one had ever seen from an English bat in spinning conditions. Whitaker said he was by far the Lions best prospect and tipped him for the top. Flower I think said he was the cleanest hitter he'd ever seen.
But then came the usual nonsense. When England started to pass on him, what had first been reported in the summer as Livingstone being a strong character and combative, started to turn into Livingstone being a problematic presence on the field by getting into spats. Just like Leach, the character assassination started as soon as the England setup were looking for a reason to justify not picking him. Just another commoner who doesnt know how to behave.
I might get my years wrong at this stage, but I believe Jennings ended up at Lancashire after a whole series being outclassed vs South Africa, and set about scoring runs. Livingstone and him averaged high 40s. Jennings got the nod despite already failing miserably in about 10 back to back innings without a 50 and widely acknowledged as having massive issues with static feet. The ECB propaganda machine cranked up - Jennings WAS the right stuff. Future England Captain material was banned about a lot, all round great guy - also educated at an elite school who's former students included Gary Player, Graeme Smith and about 20 SA high profile test players.
In the end, Livingstone had out performed Hameed, and performed similar to Jennings with the additional factor that he also took wickets at an average of 35 with part time spin - considering England had picked Ansari with a very average record for his secondary spin, it makes favouring Hameed over Livingstone even more puzzling. But Hameed was the darling of the press and so was Jennings, while Livingstone painted as the problem child - its just no one could ever come up with much of a specific example.
The other form of bias is which county you play for. Stoneman had done very little to justify selection at Durham, then went to Surrey and got a cap instantly. 7 batters in that Surrey team have played for England since, or at that time. While you can say Stoneman did well, it was in a side that was doing well and playing probably on roads. Surrey also had 8 international capped bowlers play for them at some point that year, only one of them averaged under 34.... T.Curran averaged about 35 and got capped in that winter. Sam Curran averaged 48 per wicket and got capped before his next CC game. Playing for Surrey seems to be a great way to the international team. Stoneman scored 1200 runs that year and got capped. Nick Gubbins scored nearly 1500 and didnt at Middlesex. He'd have been straight into the side if he'd been at Surrey.
That was another thing about Crawley too actually; Bobat stated that his analysis confirmed that Crawley made runs playing half his matches in Kent, a pitch that gave up little runs that year - Kent had the most batting points in the CC that year. Get your head around that. Crawley was about Kent's 4th best batter.