Sleeping on the job

From David Allen, United Kingdom
How is it that selectors can never seem to get it right when at least one glaring inconsistency turns up in each match? Collingwood out, then in, Pattinson, where did that come from? Four bowlers, then five, then four again, Anderson, who seems to be a fixture but has a mediocre average of over 35 with an unselected-but-fit-again Simon Jones with an average of 28. It seems that selectors have no better idea of who to pick (often worse) than Joe public but why is that the case when they have every opportunity to see up-and-coming English talent of which there is plenty?

My view is that it is a mixture of fear and considerably more ignorance about what makes a great cricketer than they would like to let on. We should be putting out our best team but a fixture in the England side like Collingwood, for example who isn't the next best batsman in the country, is preferred in the hope that he might get a score and because of an over-rated 'team' concept. Batsmen do not bat as a team but as an individual in a team environment and that is a psychological fact that is clearly misunderstood.

Firstly the selectors have to know which players have that special talent, the time to play, the county results etc and then they have to find out if such abilities surface at the highest levels. I'm not sure that they even know the first or are even aware of the second because their selections indicate they don't do either very well. Again we see Bopara given another go despite only averaging eight in five innings and finding new and interesting ways to get out. Great players don't go through this failure process for very long even if they might initially. It's happened so many times.

Gatting a classic example of a good county player who was never good enough at Test level yet played an incredible 79 tests and finished with an average of just 35, poor by any standards. My recollection is that he barely scored a run in the first 20. How much longer are we going to be prepared to put up with long-term mediocrity when a wealth of talent waits on the sidelines? Rather, like the Ryder Cup approach, I would like to see players selected for England based, in part, upon actual current performance. Something along the lines of a third current performance, a third the captain and a third the selectors rather than the entire decision being made by out-of-touch ex-cricketers.

At least some structured means of ensuring that if a great young player is performing better than everyone else he cannot be permanently excluded just because the existing team are such good mates. Our recent performances have been lamentable simply because we never ever field the best available team and a capitulation to a good but not exceptional South African side really reinforces this weak showing. The final Test won't tell us anything either because it is a worthless exercise. The competition has already been lost and the players cannot somehow overlook that.