I think 'attributes' could be more predictive with bowlers and measured easily via data and metrics. You can look at what does work in int, ernational cricket and identify talent that ticks the right boxes. I get the impression when it comes to Bashir they think with his natural attributes and he can be crafted into an international bowler over time. To be fair it's far more likely to happen than have him plugging away in county cricket, look at the fate of several other spinners who have been close to or even played for England. With the pace bowlers I think they just have what it takes to succeed already even if the county record does not back it up.
I would definitely agree with this: bowling is pretty much completely deterministic: if you run in exactly the same way and then bowl exactly the same way then you should be bowling exactly the same ball. While the results will obviously vary, especially once you start getting batters involved, it is much more of a controllable.
I'm
broadly in favour of the selection policy for bowlers, although I do also think that it would have been far more reasonable for Bashir and
particularly Hull to have proven themselves much more successfully before reaching the Test level.
And there are some huge structural issues with county cricket that definitely need to be addressed in the near future if it's going to be fit for any purpose, because currently it's trying to do three things at once and not doing a great job of any of them. But until those things start to happen, it will never be a hotbed for effectively developing Test quality bowlers.
With batters I'm not so sure. Of course it depends what a team is looking for, obviously as much as England want to talk about 'freedom to play their own way' that level of freedom didn't suit their method when it came to Ben Foakes. They clearly have a 'type' based on who they pick but all of those are players who have proven records.
I do hold Ben Foakes quite responsible for this actually. I still think Foakes should be playing, but I think it's Foakes' own fault for not doing the work on his batting. If he's good enough to score Test 100s, he's good enough to learn a bit of power hitting from the rest of the lads. It might not be his natural game, but it'd be a damn sight easier for a batter of his quality to learn how to be explosive than it would be for an explosive batter to learn how to keep to his standard.
Bethell feels a bit unique, he's been talked up by for a while. Had a bit of a breakthrough in The Hundred and then showed he has a bit about him in the international team. He seems like the sort of player that you look at his record and think 'what's so special?' then you watch him and you instantly know why they want to fast track him into the squad at least. Jordan Cox's misfortune has been to his benefit.
You make a really good point here. Jordan Cox was obviously the guy in possession of the place on the back of having exactly the sort of county season that would normally benefit selection, but I don't think anyone could watch how both Cox and Bethell handled Test-class fast bowlers in the West Indies and say honestly that out of the two Bethell wouldn't be the better bet against New Zealand.
And such is England's policy with wicket-keepers, I would certainly say that Pope's glovework stands up really well against Smith or Bairstow or Buttler out of the recent non-Foakes keepers. So Pope being the squad's backup keeper long-term isn't really a problem at all.
I do remember Harry Brook was averaging about 25, having played more matches than Bethell has until he kicked on 2021 and 2022. I think when players are so talented they probably get chances before others would do, which can make their record look a bit wonky. It does feel a bit unfortunate that he will miss the start of the season due to IPL. Hopefully England and Warwickshire can find a way to ensure he gets played in a position that suits him and the team. Will Rhodes is leaving Warwickshire so that might open up the number 3 spot.
Yeah, Brook was talked about a lot even before his county record backed up his talent - but he didn't get picked until he had that ludicrous period of averaging over 100 against Darren Stevens & Co in early May. Obviously not every player has that sort of breakout moment: a more comparable example would be Joe Root, who I think averaged about 32 with two or three hundreds when he first got picked for England. Obviously 150 Tests later he's more than backed that up.
And then for every Root where that works, there's a Crawley where it arguably doesn't: in his first 18 Tests he made 903 runs @ 28.21 which were
greatly massaged by his 267 against Pakistan - without it, his average at that point would've been 20.51. Picking him before he was ready didn't do anyone any good at all - shortly after that, his poor form became so sustained that his first-class career average spent several months below 30.
I'm certainly not saying any of this to prove any sort of point: I don't know any more about cricket than any of the very experienced cricket people making these decisions, and I think a lot of my post history on here goes to show that a lot of my thinking if I were a selector would be quite formulaic and cautious;
certainly compared to the present England set-up.
