Merit above all else

The media coverage of England’s team selection for the Test series against Sri Lanka went a long way towards proving that Edward Eggleston’s assertion about journalism is correct: it is “organised gossip”. For weeks, a number of journalists argued Ravi Bopara should be chosen to replace Paul Collingwood in England’s Test team.

It was argued that, as a batsman of supreme potential, Bopara should be given another chance to prove his worth on the world stage. If not solely his batting, his above-average bowling should earn him a place, as he was seen as a like-for-like replacement for Collingwood, who had chipped in with a few medium-pace overs in the past. Indeed, if not for these reasons, then Bopara should be held up as a paragon of integrity and rewarded for his decision to stay in England and play in the County Championship, rather than slither away to the IPL and play Twenty20 cricket like Eoin Morgan.

What a surprise Sunday morning must have been, then, when Morgan was selected ahead of Bopara, leading many to claim that one innings, of 193 against Sri Lanka in the tour game, swayed the selection in Morgan’s favour. For all their rationale and grapevine whisperings, many seem to have missed three key factors that made the selection of Morgan a more appealing, and rational, proposition.

Firstly, because of the way England cricket is currently run, politics does not factor into selection: ability and form does. The England team isn’t a body that chooses players because of the bold stands they make, no matter how admirable such a stance is. The basis for selection is, and quite rightly should be, meritocratic; the best players are picked ahead of those who are not as good. When Tim Bresnan was chosen over Steve Finn for the fourth Ashes Test last winter, he was not picked because of his favourable opinions on county cricket, but because he was believed to be the better player for the MCG. The point, here, is that precedent-setting was not on the ECB’s agenda; picking the best player was.

Secondly, for those with short-term memories, Bopara does not have a favourable record for England. While he has averaged 118 against an ordinary West Indies attack, he has more recently struggled against an Australian team that will hardly go down in history as ‘great’. In the 2009 Ashes, Bopara averaged a paltry 15.00 with a highest score of 35, suggesting there was something missing from his game, preventing him from establishing himself as an international player (and this is not taking into consideration his first international series against Sri Lanka where he averaged 8.00). Ten Tests with modest returns do not help Bopara’s case.

While Morgan’s Test average is roughly the same as Bopara’s, he has played fewer Tests and has scored a century against a very good Pakistan attack in a game where England’s batting had begun to wobble. Morgan’s previous Test innings have shown greater promise than Bopara’s.

Finally, if England are a team that plan ahead, then why did everyone forget that Morgan has been the No. 6 elect for some time? Having been chosen to play against Bangladesh and Pakistan in the summer and used as the reserve batsman in the Ashes series, England have believed for a while that Morgan is the best player to replace Collingwood, and have nailed their colours to their mast since the summer. Maybe closer attention to previous squads would have this point obvious.

The selection of Morgan, then, should have been less of a surprise than it was and should be seen as more positive than has been portrayed. Indeed, for those who have deplored the ECB for setting a terrible precedent – making the County Championship seem secondary in importance to the IPL – they should instead be commending the board for sticking to a selection policy that puts merit above all else.