![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
How things change
May. 2nd, 2015 03:27 pmJust thinking about the upcming Ashes series while watching the clown car cricket from Bridgetown. In 1956 at Old Trafford Jim Laker took 19 wickets against the Australians and Tony Lock picked up the other one. I'm not sure that if they were available today the England selectors would pick either, certainly not both.
Once upon a time there was a formula for picking a test team. One picked two opening batsmen, three middle order batsmen, a wicket keeper, two opening bowlers and two spinners; preferably of contrasting types. Then you looked at what you had and picked an eleventh player. More often than not that turned out to be an all rounder who could bat a bit and be the third seamer but sometimes one got lucky and could pick a specialist batsmen. The risk was a long tail. Potentially one could have 8-11 who really couldn't bat at all and back in the day that really could mean couldn't bat at all. But still, if one wants to win test matches (as opposed to not losing them) it's a pretty good formula.
Let's compare it with the current England formula. First you pick the guys who have the key to the treehouse. No matter how awful their form if they know the secret handshake they are in. Then you pick four seamers. Not necessarily the best four seamers because one or two of them may be treehouse. Also you look at how many passengers you are carrying in the top six of the batting and decide that your third and fourth seamers need to be able to bat a bit because you need to bat at least to 9, preferably 11. Never mind if you can never win against quality opposition this way you'll scrape out more defensive draws. This doesn't actually leave room for even one spinner so you con yourself that a couple of the batsmen can fake it on a good day. Which is why England sides are full of bits and pieces players rather than the best specialists and why Jim Laker and Tony Lock likely wouldn't get picked today.
Sadly, winning the current farcical series in the West Indies will be regarded as vindication of this approach. The Aussies must be salivating.
Once upon a time there was a formula for picking a test team. One picked two opening batsmen, three middle order batsmen, a wicket keeper, two opening bowlers and two spinners; preferably of contrasting types. Then you looked at what you had and picked an eleventh player. More often than not that turned out to be an all rounder who could bat a bit and be the third seamer but sometimes one got lucky and could pick a specialist batsmen. The risk was a long tail. Potentially one could have 8-11 who really couldn't bat at all and back in the day that really could mean couldn't bat at all. But still, if one wants to win test matches (as opposed to not losing them) it's a pretty good formula.
Let's compare it with the current England formula. First you pick the guys who have the key to the treehouse. No matter how awful their form if they know the secret handshake they are in. Then you pick four seamers. Not necessarily the best four seamers because one or two of them may be treehouse. Also you look at how many passengers you are carrying in the top six of the batting and decide that your third and fourth seamers need to be able to bat a bit because you need to bat at least to 9, preferably 11. Never mind if you can never win against quality opposition this way you'll scrape out more defensive draws. This doesn't actually leave room for even one spinner so you con yourself that a couple of the batsmen can fake it on a good day. Which is why England sides are full of bits and pieces players rather than the best specialists and why Jim Laker and Tony Lock likely wouldn't get picked today.
Sadly, winning the current farcical series in the West Indies will be regarded as vindication of this approach. The Aussies must be salivating.
