Sunday 16 August 2009

The Ashes: Selections for the Oval - Part 2

So what of the candidates for call ups ? Although many in the press and public have seen it as an open and shut case in favour of their chosen candidates, the simple fact is that the selectors were faced with a leap into the unknown, whoever they picked. None of the candidates is a proven performer, and aside from the fact that one can never guarantee a good performance, even from a Tendulkar or Ponting, this is especially true of all the prospective England selections for this test.
Marcus Trescothick was a non-starter, which never seems to have been rightly ignored by the selectors, who have observed simply that unless they hear otherwise, he is still retired. Moreover, any suggestion that he should put his health issues aside in the name of cricket is simply wrong. This is underlined by his own admission that the prospect was literally giving him nightmares.
Mark Ramprakash was a name that sprang to everyone’s minds immediately. One of the two most dominant county batsman of his generation (alongside Graeme Hick), a man with a good average against Australia, and who plays his cricket at the Oval. However, whilst Ramprakash did have a good case to be considered, he is far more of an unknown quantity that his supporters admit. His test career was a failure, thanks in no small part to mismanagement by various coaches and selectors, but nonetheless a failure. He has not played test cricket in seven years, although he does have that good average against the Australians, he was not consistently selected for Ashes series during his England years. Moreover, there are still question marks over his temperament. It may have significantly improved in recent times, but when the eyes of the country were on him last summer, his form dipped. Whether or not this is coincidence, only he knows, and whilst it may be unfair to draw conclusions from that, this point is merely raised to observe that his success would not be a foregone conclusion. He is as much an unknown quantity as the remaining candidates.
Jonathan Trott, the man who got the nod, has good form, but we know little else about his capabilities. His limited previous experience of international cricket was unsuccessful, but twenty over cricket must be a difficult place to get a feel for the international game, and told us little about him. Ultimately, only the selectors know if what they have seen of him compares to the qualities they see in other international cricketers. His selection is nothing if not consistent, and one can expect him to tour his native South Africa this winter, as the selectors seem to be keeping faith with their selections from one game to the next, a logical, and noble approach, although an easy target for criticism. Perhaps they hope that some Pietersenesque South African brashness will carry him through a tough debut.
Finally, assuming that Owais Shah was not seriously considered, given his mediocre form, Robert Key was in contention. Key has international experience, good form, and has played against Australia before, albeit in 2002-3. With his recent experience of the international setup, he was probably a more likely candidate than Ramprakash. However, despite some successes on the international stage, he has often been overlooked by the selectors, who must have their reasons, and there have been questions about his ability to score the pressure runs that are demanded of Ian Bell. His form in recent years, and his increased maturity since becoming captain of Kent merits another go at some stage, but again, he is an unknown quantity.
The point then, is that all the candidates had their merits, and still have them going forward into the winter. However, to portray any of those selections as a foregone conclusion is unrealistic. All of them carry huge question marks, and whomever the selectors chose, it was going to be controversial, and generate more criticism that praise. Ultimately, the result is all anyone will really care about, but in the absence of a clear-cut candidate, the selectors deserve some benefit of the doubt, and for their judgement to be trusted. Regardless, time will soon tell if they were right.

No comments: