Why England keeps picking Low FC Average Test batsmen?

[Texan]

I don't quite understand England's selection policies. They keep picking batsmen with low FC average on the basis of Test "potential". Case in view is Haseeb Hameed, who has an FC average of only 32 and a highest score of only 122, which means that he is neither consistent nor can he get big scores. There are other players with 40+ averages that linger in their county cricket without getting a chance to play Tests.

 

It seems like they feel that they can replicate the Michael Vaughan template with all these players, but not every player is going to go on to become a Michael Vaughan. In the process, many duds will get picked for England costing them many Test matches. 

 

I just quickly browsed some FC averages of players playing English county cricket and here are a few with 40+ averages:

 

Van Buuren (recently got British citizenship): https://www.espncricinfo.com/player/graeme-van-buuren-381002

Ben Brown: https://www.espncricinfo.com/player/ben-brown-259517

Josh Bohannon: https://www.espncricinfo.com/player/josh-bohannon-747067

 

I have no idea how these players bat, but if there is something to learn from the successes of Steven Smith, Marnus Lambuchagne, Chanderpaul and to a lesser extend Fawad Alam, it is that you don't need to have a picture perfect technique to succeed at the international level. Many players are able to succeed despite what looks like an extremely flawed stance or technique.

 

Even players like Gary Ballance, who have been tried before could be given a second chance.

 

You cannot keep expecting that players who cannot even average 40+ in FC cricket will suddenly start averaging 40+ in Tests and expecting a player to average 40+ is the minimum benchmark for a Test player.

Edited December 28, 2021 by Texan

[Vijy]

29 minutes ago, Texan said:

I don't quite understand England's selection policies. They keep picking batsmen with low FC average on the basis of Test "potential". Case in view is Haseeb Hameed, who has an FC average of only 32 and a highest score of only 122, which means that he is neither consistent nor can he get big scores. There are other players with 40+ averages that linger in their county cricket without getting a chance to play Tests.

 

It seems like they feel that they can replicate the Michael Vaughan template with all these players, but not every player is going to go on to become a Michael Vaughan. In the process, many duds will get picked for England costing them many Test matches. 

 

I just quickly browsed some FC averages of players playing English county cricket and here are a few with 40+ averages:

 

Van Buuren (recently got British citizenship): https://www.espncricinfo.com/player/graeme-van-buuren-381002

Ben Brown: https://www.espncricinfo.com/player/ben-brown-259517

Josh Bohannon: https://www.espncricinfo.com/player/josh-bohannon-747067

 

I have no idea how these players bat, but if there is something to learn from the successes of Steven Smith, Marnus Lambuchagne, Chanderpaul and to a lesser extend Fawad Alam, it is that you don't need to have a picture perfect technique to succeed at the international level. Many players are able to succeed despite what looks like an extremely flawed stance or technique.

 

Even players like Gary Ballance, who have been tried before could be given a second chance.

 

You cannot keep expecting that players who cannot even average 40+ in FC cricket will suddenly start averaging 40+ in Tests and expecting a player to average 40+ is the minimum benchmark for a Test player.

The chief reason is that there aren't too many players with 40+ FC avgs, because Eng pitches are largely bowler friendly (with exceptions like Oval, where Pope has made merry) and dibbly-dobbly bowlers like Daryl Stevens run amok. The second chief reason is that selectors have consistently shown a preference for "flashy" players picked on the basis of "talent" (like Buttler, Crawley). Lastly, even a 40+ avg means little since it's very heavily dependent on the home pitch - Pope has an avg of 55+ in FC mostly thanks to Surrey, whereas batters at Durham struggle to avg above 35.

 

Coming to your names: Bohannon should play soon. Brown is a keeper-batsman, and Foakes until recently also had a FC avg of nearly 40 (even now it's around 38.5), which is why he won't be replaced. I have not seen Van Buuren, but I think they have cooled off a bit on selecting ex-Kolpak players. Ballance will never make it to any squad in any likelihood due to his named involvement in the Rafiq scandal.

 

A few more players I expect to see soon are: (1) Jack Libby (FC avg of 35, but it has been above 40 in recent times), (2) recall for James Vince (who does have a decent FC record), and potentially (3) David Bedingham (ex-Kolpak might go against him). Bedingham is one of the better players around in particular. (4) Recall for Sam Robson is not out of the question.

[G_B_]

There are too many counties in England 

 

18 is overkill. Need around 10 spread all over the country. Australia have 6 for a pop of 22 million. 10 should be enough for 62 million England and Wales.

 

They have split the counties into tiers to combat the quality vs quantity issue. But a promising batter in tier 2 scoring plenty of runs is hard to guage their quality. 

 

I tend to agree that England need batters with 40+ in fc cricket as a base

 

 

 

 

 

[Jay]

57 minutes ago, Texan said:

I don't quite understand England's selection policies. They keep picking batsmen with low FC average on the basis of Test "potential". Case in view is Haseeb Hameed, who has an FC average of only 32 and a highest score of only 122, which means that he is neither consistent nor can he get big scores. There are other players with 40+ averages that linger in their county cricket without getting a chance to play Tests.

 

It seems like they feel that they can replicate the Michael Vaughan template with all these players, but not every player is going to go on to become a Michael Vaughan. In the process, many duds will get picked for England costing them many Test matches. 

 

I just quickly browsed some FC averages of players playing English county cricket and here are a few with 40+ averages:

 

Van Buuren (recently got British citizenship): https://www.espncricinfo.com/player/graeme-van-buuren-381002

Ben Brown: https://www.espncricinfo.com/player/ben-brown-259517

Josh Bohannon: https://www.espncricinfo.com/player/josh-bohannon-747067

 

I have no idea how these players bat, but if there is something to learn from the successes of Steven Smith, Marnus Lambuchagne, Chanderpaul and to a lesser extend Fawad Alam, it is that you don't need to have a picture perfect technique to succeed at the international level. Many players are able to succeed despite what looks like an extremely flawed stance or technique.

 

Even players like Gary Ballance, who have been tried before could be given a second chance.

 

You cannot keep expecting that players who cannot even average 40+ in FC cricket will suddenly start averaging 40+ in Tests and expecting a player to average 40+ is the minimum benchmark for a Test player.

Labushagne averaged 39 in shield cricket before playing county. Then post county he averages 60 In internationals.

[Jay]

19 minutes ago, Vijy said:

The chief reason is that there aren't too many players with 40+ FC avgs, because Eng pitches are largely bowler friendly (with exceptions like Oval, where Pope has made merry) and dibbly-dobbly bowlers like Daryl Stevens run amok. The second chief reason is that selectors have consistently shown a preference for "flashy" players picked on the basis of "talent" (like Buttler, Crawley). Lastly, even a 40+ avg means little since it's very heavily dependent on the home pitch - Pope has an avg of 55+ in FC mostly thanks to Surrey, whereas batters at Durham struggle to avg above 35.

 

Coming to your names: Bohannon should play soon. Brown is a keeper-batsman, and Foakes until recently also had a FC avg of nearly 40 (even now it's around 38.5), which is why he won't be replaced. I have not seen Van Buuren, but I think they have cooled off a bit on selecting ex-Kolpak players. Ballance will never make it to any squad in any likelihood due to his named involvement in the Rafiq scandal.

 

A few more players I expect to see soon are: (1) Jack Libby (FC avg of 35, but it has been above 40 in recent times), (2) recall for James Vince (who does have a decent FC record), and potentially (3) David Bedingham (ex-Kolpak might go against him). Bedingham is one of the better players around in particular. (4) Recall for Sam Robson is not out of the question.

Bedingham I believe wants to play for saffers.

[Prabhdeep Singh]

They need to have criteria of Batsmen averaging minimum 35 in first class cricket before playing for England, it should be 40 but England don't have many.

 

In addition, they need to play on flatter pitches, I guess this will likely change when Broad & Anderson retire as they have too much power with regards to pitches prepared for England home test matches.

 

They should try the following (excluding Broad & Anderson, likely to retire soon):

 

Johnny Bairstow

David Malan

Joe Root

James Vince

Liam Livingstone

Ben Stokes (C)

Jose Butler (WK)

Chris Woakes

Ollie Robinson

Jofra Archer

Jack Leach/Matt Parkinson

 

The top 7 above do not have dodgy techniques, they need to work on temperament.

 

[Texan]

44 minutes ago, Vijy said:

The chief reason is that there aren't too many players with 40+ FC avgs, because Eng pitches are largely bowler friendly (with exceptions like Oval, where Pope has made merry) and dibbly-dobbly bowlers like Daryl Stevens run amok. The second chief reason is that selectors have consistently shown a preference for "flashy" players picked on the basis of "talent" (like Buttler, Crawley). Lastly, even a 40+ avg means little since it's very heavily dependent on the home pitch - Pope has an avg of 55+ in FC mostly thanks to Surrey, whereas batters at Durham struggle to avg above 35.

 

Coming to your names: Bohannon should play soon. Brown is a keeper-batsman, and Foakes until recently also had a FC avg of nearly 40 (even now it's around 38.5), which is why he won't be replaced. I have not seen Van Buuren, but I think they have cooled off a bit on selecting ex-Kolpak players. Ballance will never make it to any squad in any likelihood due to his named involvement in the Rafiq scandal.

 

A few more players I expect to see soon are: (1) Jack Libby (FC avg of 35, but it has been above 40 in recent times), (2) recall for James Vince (who does have a decent FC record), and potentially (3) David Bedingham (ex-Kolpak might go against him). Bedingham is one of the better players around in particular. (4) Recall for Sam Robson is not out of the question.

 

I know that they don't have too many players with 40+ averages, but then it becomes even more important to pick those who are still able to average 40 despite difficult conditions. The ones that I shared were just a random sampling looking at the top averages for the current season, so there could be more. In contrast, England is hellbent on picking and retaining players like Crawley (FC av: 30) and Haseeb (FC av: 32), which seems like a strategy that is set to fail.

[Texan]

41 minutes ago, Jay said:

Labushagne averaged 39 in shield cricket before playing county. Then post county he averages 60 In internationals.

 

Shield cricket is also pretty competitive, so an average of 39 is pretty respectable. Moreover, Labuchagne was picked initially only as a concussion replacement. He took his chance and ran with it.

[Vijy]

2 hours ago, Texan said:

 

I know that they don't have too many players with 40+ averages, but then it becomes even more important to pick those who are still able to average 40 despite difficult conditions. The ones that I shared were just a random sampling looking at the top averages for the current season, so there could be more. In contrast, England is hellbent on picking and retaining players like Crawley (FC av: 30) and Haseeb (FC av: 32), which seems like a strategy that is set to fail.

ECB has stopped caring about test cricket. they seem to be selecting people at random.

[Jay]

31 minutes ago, Vijy said:

ECB has stopped caring about test cricket. they seem to be selecting people at random.

They have no one.

[Trichromatic]

Giving examples of Labu and others is like following exception.

 

Most of good test bats are beast in FC. That's where a team should try to find majority of their batsmen.

[Serpico]

They should encourage their players to play in shield and Ranji

[Texan]

Alex Lees: one more added to the stable of low FC average batters picked for England. No idea how he bats, but it seems like England are reluctant to change their strategy.

[Vijy]

1 hour ago, Texan said:

Alex Lees: one more added to the stable of low FC average batters picked for England. No idea how he bats, but it seems like England are reluctant to change their strategy.

too many "posh totty" candidates in Eng setup. go to the right schools, make the right connections, and you will get to play no matter what. burns, hameed, sibley get dropped, but not posh totty crawley because of this very reason despite having an even poorer 2021 than some of them. Dan lawrence also ditto.

[poyzzplaidwell]

On 3/9/2022 at 6:06 AM, Vijy said:

too many "posh totty" candidates in Eng setup. go to the right schools, make the right connections, and you will get to play no matter what. burns, hameed, sibley get dropped, but not posh totty crawley because of this very reason despite having an even poorer 2021 than some of them. Dan lawrence also ditto.

posh tatty.. i like this term. Where does this originate from..?

[Vijy]

11 hours ago, Stumped said:

 

All 3 of the guys you've listed went to schools that cost 10s of thousands of pounds each year and Crawley did get dropped during his poor run.

 

On 3/8/2022 at 2:06 PM, Vijy said:

too many "posh totty" candidates in Eng setup. go to the right schools, make the right connections, and you will get to play no matter what. burns, hameed, sibley get dropped, but not posh totty crawley because of this very reason despite having an even poorer 2021 than some of them. Dan lawrence also ditto.

Let me reiterate what I said: "go to the right schools, make the right connections". The fact that burns, hameed, sibley played in the first place is due to their elite schools. second, the reason that they got dropped and not picked again, unlike crawley is because crawley not only went to the right schools but also has better connections. There are well-documented articles about how he used those connections to get elite coaching and playing experience(s) from diff parts of the world. The contrast vs. hameed (or Ali from a slightly earlier generation) in particular is quite striking, who was picked when he was not ready for int'l comeback, etc. crawley in contrast has been better treated by selectors, as has dan lawrence.

 

I am glad crawley seems to be doing well after his return, but it does not change the fact that his privilege is helping him get a longer run... or so I believe anyway.

Edited March 12, 2022 by Vijy

[Vijy]

19 hours ago, poyzzplaidwell said:

posh tatty.. i like this term. Where does this originate from..?

not sure, but it is indeed a nice term.

[Jay]

On 3/13/2022 at 9:57 AM, Vijy said:

 

Let me reiterate what I said: "go to the right schools, make the right connections". The fact that burns, hameed, sibley played in the first place is due to their elite schools. second, the reason that they got dropped and not picked again, unlike crawley is because crawley not only went to the right schools but also has better connections. There are well-documented articles about how he used those connections to get elite coaching and playing experience(s) from diff parts of the world. The contrast vs. hameed (or Ali from a slightly earlier generation) in particular is quite striking, who was picked when he was not ready for int'l comeback, etc. crawley in contrast has been better treated by selectors, as has dan lawrence.

 

I am glad crawley seems to be doing well after his return, but it does not change the fact that his privilege is helping him get a longer run... or so I believe anyway.

all about money baby. england dont have access to the rough, rustic, battle hardened tough neighbourhood raised kids like we see in some parts of india. actually in india we dont even pick such players cause they have no connections and no financial backing. english players are too soft.

aussies are the tradie, more hard working, tougher version of poms as most are uneducated and are descendants of convicts. 

[sage]

3 hours ago, Jay said:

all about money baby. england dont have access to the rough, rustic, battle hardened tough neighbourhood raised kids like we see in some parts of india. actually in india we dont even pick such players cause they have no connections and no financial backing. english players are too soft.

aussies are the tradie, more hard working, tougher version of poms as most are uneducated and are descendants of convicts. 

working class "hardened" English play football not cricket

[rollingstoned]

10 hours ago, Jay said:

all about money baby. england dont have access to the rough, rustic, battle hardened tough neighbourhood raised kids like we see in some parts of india. actually in india we dont even pick such players cause they have no connections and no financial backing. english players are too soft.

aussies are the tradie, more hard working, tougher version of poms as most are uneducated and are descendants of convicts. 

In india it is a recent thing. Most cricketers traditionally came from the major cities and educated, middle class families at least if not from royalty.