Selection criteria: Form vs. Class/Experience

[Zobair]

The practice matches have thrown up some interesting questions regarding the selection process and what should constitute the criteria for getting selected for the test matches.

Form and class are not by any means mutually exclusive. It goes without saying that a classy batsman can be in form or out of form at any given point in time. While there are a host of factors that influence selection, my question to you, ladies and gentlemen is, ceteris paribus, in England which is more important for selection? Immediate form, or past performance? Or perhaps a mixture of the two?

I personally will go with 60% form, 40% past performance. My rationale is, given that the conditions are alien, good form in these conditions carry more weight than past performance/class.

[FaltuRidwanBhai]

pompous bhai, "good form in these conditions" you are missing something important. good form in that particular condition with third string bolers surely is not as same as past good performance in a diferent situation against quality bolers.
this is what is happening between ash rajin aftab and mushfique. mushfique did good now against third string bolers. whereas ash rajin aftab did good before against quality bolers.
i hope people get my point and dont jump on me.

[Zobair]

don't disagree at all...the problem with such discussions, far removed from the reality of the cricket being played on the ground, we fans tend to make assumptions about what is happening and base our opinions on that. As long as we realise that we are unfortunately unaware of these crucial pieces of information and thus our conclusions have a high margin of error, its ok. I am just interested manly in the thought process.

Originally posted by FaltuRidwanBhai
pompous bhai, "good form in these conditions" you are missing something important. good form in that particular condition with third string bolers surely is not as same as past good performance in a diferent situation against quality bolers.
this is what is happening between ash rajin aftab and mushfique. mushfique did good now against third string bolers. whereas ash rajin aftab did good before against quality bolers.
i hope people get my point and dont jump on me.

[Flipper]

This is because 2 years ago, we gave England a run for their money at home. Since then our team has matured as a team, and gained much more confidence.

But, now even the most optimistic fans would argu if our team can even reach the 4th day in a test in England. Just think about it!

[Sham]

This is a hard one, and not something we can quantify to be quite honest. Its going to have to be a judgement made on a case by case basis.

If you say, it should be form over class, then Yardy should be in the England team and Graham Thorpe should be kicked out. But lets face, that would be really stupid. On the other hand, when a player like Pieterson plays the way he does, he does put pressure on established players to keep their place. So, you cant really enforce a blanket policy on form v class, and as you say, they are not mutually exclusive either.

In terms of the Mushfique v Rajin argument, its not form v class that is the issue. From what I have seen of Mushfique, he is class as well. Its more a question of form v experience that is in question. And experience doesn't necessarily mean past performances, but the experiencing of playing at this level, knowing how to deal with different situations, having been there before etc.

Edited on, May 22, 2005, 6:38 PM GMT, by Sham.

[TheWatcher]

I voted for others. You can't have a general criteria for all players. Players like Shachin can play series after series in bad forms but a player like Kaif or Yuvraj, who is in competion, will be dropped right after a bad one. Same way, if Mashrafee struggles now, we will keep playing him because, for us, he is ireplacable. But a player like Taposh will be always under threat from some new comer (Nazmul, SK Rasel). Also players like Ashraful will keep playing because we know how much damage he can do to the opposition on a given good day.

It also depends who is judging. Whatmore and McInnes have very different criterias. One may value some quality of a player, the other may not even bother about it.

[Rubu]

I'd say form is more important in ODI than experience. In test, experience is more important unless someone is out of form. in other words, both are important in test but experience comes first. for example if someone is at the top of form but brand new is not a good choice over someone who is not in such great from but has experience. but if the latter is say below 70% in form then we might think of the newer one. but otherwise go for the experience.

so in my opinion that adds up to experience will automatically add an 30% offset to a player. so, (if such scale is possible) say someone is in 65% form. take him out for someone who is new but in 100% form. but if some one is 72% in form and experienced (adds up to 102%) there is no reason to substitute for anyone. this is for test. for odi, the offset experience adds should be about 15 to 20 percent.

[FaltuRidwanBhai]

see thats the problem. how are you going to measure what percentage a player is inform or out of form.

[Mav]

Originally posted by Sham

If you say, it should be form over class, then Yardy should be in the England team and Graham Thorpe should be kicked out. But lets face, that would be really stupid.

Good example.

Its more a question of form v experience that is in question. And experience doesn't necessarily mean past performances.

Thats right. And based on that, Rajin deserves the place in the team.

Now,in the case between Aftab and Rahim, form is what we need to count. Because -- >

Aftab and Rahim, none of them are very experienced player.

And Rahim is in way better form than Aftab, after not only playing the 2 matches in the practice matches, but also 9 other matches against Australian U19 team just a month earliar.

Edited on, May 22, 2005, 7:02 PM GMT, by Mav.

[Sham]

Originally posted by FaltuRidwanBhai
see thats the problem. how are you going to measure what percentage a player is inform or out of form.

Exactly!

[Rubu]

Originally posted by Sham

Exactly!

Since its Pompous who came up with the numbers in the poll, he should come up with a scale to measure experience and performance.

But in a hypothetical situation where we can measure it, i believe thats how it should be done.

[Ejaj]

This is a strange poll.. cant really say much about this, speically if to look into Bangladesh Cricket. BD is quite a baby in the internation cricket field. We didnt even have a standard 1st class leauge before. So.. getting quality First class player representing national team is still a bit far away. Without a quality First class league, its difficult to judge the class of the batsman who are so called doing quite well in the league. So.. what option do we have??..May be.. after 5 years or more.. we will be having a quality league as atleast some of our players will be having a good enough international experiiences adn thus enriching the domestice cricket stnadard. But.. at the moment.. we just dont have such option. The only way.. someone can have experience and can show his class when being tested at the highest level. So.. if that means.. someone promising but extremely young as Rahim .. i will still go into the opinion of giving him a chance. BUt.. yes.. this cant a long term solution and.. domestic cricket needed to be improved sooner the better in order to get quality players inthe team.

[feisal]

on this form/out of form:

when Ponting scored three consecutive duck against pakistan in 99/2000, I M chappell said: not sure whether he is in any form or not, as he did not play enough balls.. (next innings: 190 plus at the WACA, came in when the side was something like 40/4)

and Jr. waugh once scored 4 consecutive ducks in test matches in srilanlka (91)... he was not actually in bad form..

bottom line: scoreboard may not capture many things....

[oracle]

A good question.

Here is where the influence of a coach is so telling, especially in Bangladesh, where we are a long way of using our domestic competition as a litmus test. We don't have enough precedence to base our selections and as such it is tempting to be allured by the power of form.

I remember that Mciness once fleetingly said that most of the players he has seen have been hovering at ONE level- still FAR below test standard. And it was a struggle to distinguish in a clear cut way the pedigree of one guy from the other (these were players coming into BKSP). If this is the case then sorry, we are still waddling about in a illusion.

And that is why I would stick to 11 guys even if they sucked in the practice match. We need to start at some point with a system even if that means losing a few games. What is more important- is it winning one fluke match or getting our act together with belief in our players.

I chose "others" as Bangladesh cannot use the same yardstick as other countries - at least for agood 7 or more years.

Edited on, May 22, 2005, 11:16 PM GMT, by oracle.

[BangladeshFan]

i think everything counts regarding selection, form, ,past and present perforamance, determination, class etc etc not sure which percentage of each makes the winning combo. However in the end, a coach or captain has to decide on his basic instinct. Some has that little better than others. But it can always fail.

[feisal]

on a related note, if anyone remembers the inclusion of Ashraful in that asian championship cricket..... that also was quite sudden...

i for one, have seen playing ashraful and nafis iqbal couple of years before that.. and to me nafis looked much more solid.. ashraful, i can clearly remember used to play in the air a lot..

may not mean anything,,, kambli was the dominating partner in that famous school cricket partnership (with sachin).. or daren lehmann was twelfth man in a 1989-90 test match and was considered to be a young prodigy, but tha fact his that many of his contemporary got intothe side before him....

another thing is there has always been some domestic wonder.. but never successful in the higher level. for bangladesh it was Nehal Hasnain. Also consider the first half of hayden's career, Graeme hick for certain extent.. and off course Rizwanuzzaman or W V Raman, and Vikram Rathore..

[Spitfire_x86]

Form and Class is important. Experience is least important among 3.

Form + Class + Experience = 30%+50+20%