Selection oddities

Team selection is a funny thing, dependent on the level of the game.

At decent club level, there are selection meetings to discuss the relative merits of players and assess their form from the previous weekend (and in the nets) ahead of the weekend to come. Getting a blend of youth and experience can be important, as can making sure you have enough people who are happy to drive to that away fixture, which will take an hour or more to get to. So too can Bill's ability to stand his ground against the opposition's quick bowler from the sub-continent.

At the village level that I now play, other factors come into play. You have to pick Fred, as he prepares the ground, Charlie because he's fixtures secretary and Dave - well, you pick Dave because his wife always sends him away with the best array of comestibles in the club, bar none. Then you pick enough decent players to give you the chance of a competitive game and pray that none of them call in on the day of the game to say that their tortoise has died and a burial at sea is the only proper way to give the little critter a send-off...

All of which is a precursor to the top level of the game, where you assume that even-handedness would be de rigeur. But in some cases, it isn't.

Here in Scotland, for years there was a known east/west divide. The selectors of the national team were primarily based in Edinburgh and therefore saw more of cricket in the capital than elsewhere. Lo and behold, at team selections there were usually far more players from that neck of the woods, stretching parochial tendencies to the limit. Far too many good cricketers in and around Glasgow didn't get a national call, because they were rarely seen.

In the era before the First World War, England team selections often saw a local favourite brought in to boost the crowd. In between the wars, sides were increasingly selected by committees who were primarily based down south, so northern players were often perceived to require to be twice as good as their southern counterparts to gain selection. This attitude, of course, persisted into the 1950's, which is why Les Jackson was only selected twice for England, in 1947 and 1961, despite being widely regarded by players as the best seam bowler in the country. There were denials of bias, of course, but the feeling remains that Jackson was treated appallingly by the cricketing establishment. These were, presumably, the descendants of those who reputedly declined to pick the fine turn of the century Nottinghamshire bowler "Topsy" Wass for national duty on account of his appalling table manners...

Fast forward to the present day and thankfully such parochialism, snobbery and bias is a thing of the past, but selection curios still abound. Steve Kirby was still gaining selection for England Lions when past his 30th birthday, while James Tredwell emulated him last week by playing against Australia A when six months short of his 31st. What more do we hope to learn of them, or of Samit Patel? It seems strange, to me at least, that when we are incentivising counties to play under 23s and under 26s that we aren't looking at more of these age groups in such matches, instead bringing in Nick Compton, albeit in the form of his life, at 29. One could, of course, argue that a thousand runs at Taunton was worth 650 elsewhere, but that might be deemed churlish...

Which brings me neatly to my last selection curiosity and its time to take a bow for those at the helm of England Under-19s. Logic suggests that when you are playing in a World Cup you select your strongest side, unless having already qualified and needing to rest players. That being the case, logic suggested that Tom Knight of Derbyshire would be in the side for the first match. Sure, he'd had some long handle from Pakistan in one warm up match, but that sort of things happens to any bowler from time to time. That Knight followed it with collective figures of 4-7 in the two ensuing matches suggested that normal service had been resumed. The sort of service that saw him as a standout in the side's pre-tour matches against county Second XIs and a bowler who has shown that he can dismiss very good batsmen for Derbyshire's senior team.

But no. The selectors decided that Knight was surplus to requirements for a game in which the Australian off spinner took three wickets and England were beaten with a piffling 89 balls remaining. As one of the more experienced members of the side, Knight should have been one of the first names on the team sheet, especially when his all-round efforts had got them out of a jam in a previous match.

I'm not going to suggest that the southern-based selection committee omitted the lad "because he is from Derbyshire", though it would be tempting and easy to do so. What I am going to say is that as a selection it is odd that preference was given to a lad with no first-class experience and a far inferior track record, albeit from a county with who the head coach has a thirty-year association...

Sorry, did I say odd?

I meant stupid.