Selection policy: potential or current ability.

It seems at times the selectors pick players who they identify as having the potential to grow into international standard players, with the belief that the player will improve as they learn on the job. Current examples of this would be Broad and Finn, who both could be described as green when making their debuts. A slightly older example would be Flintoff, who lets be honest was nowhere near international test match standard when he made his debut against SA in the late 90's.

My question is related to this policy. Would it not be better to let players such as the previous examples above develop a bit more in county cricket before thrusting them into the higher level of international cricket? It seems to me that a test match is not neccessarily the best place to be learning the basics of the game such as consistent line and length, seaming and swinging and reverse swing of the ball.

Is this policy a reflection on the selectors opinion of the standard of county cricket?

Do other nations, who have a similarly developed club structure, adapt a similar selection policy?

Which players in particular do you think were picked purely on their potential, and which had to prove over many seasons in county cricket that they had the required ability?

I'm not sure you are making a distinction which exists in the real world. Aren't both current form and future potential things selectors think about?

It is also said that there is a definite step up in quality between County and Country, and the pressure of playing in front of a packed Lords is different from eg an empty Grace Road. There is a limit to the extent a player can develop in the County game, and the issue for the selectors is to see that point and if needed and possible, move the player into the Country set up.

The selectors DO occasionally do a horses for courses thing. The most notable I can remember is David Steele coming into the England set up when the Windies were just blowing us away, because he was the best player of fast bowling in England, but pretty average at everything else.

Regarding Flintoff, Broad and Finn in this light I would say that yes, they were/are a bit raw when they first came in, but probably weren't going to get much better in the County game. I think the selectors are trying to identify and nurture talent earlier and better than they used to.

To follow on Cowshot's point, I remember Darren Patterson coming into the Test side at Edgbaston against South Africa in 2008 as horses for courses.

I remember Cook making his Test debut before being fully established at county level. Sometimes players can evolve at Test level and serves their game better on the county circuit. Mark Ramprakash as a classic example of player being picked on form and he never really made an impact at Test level.

Broad and Finn are young and no doubt can go on to become much better players.

Apologies, maybe I didn't explain myself well. I was meaning that if you look at the selections of people like Flintoff and more recently Finn and Broad, when they were picked they wouldn't have been near the team on their then current form. They weren't even certain of a starting place in their county team on a regular basis. Hence they were picked purely on a potential ability, and over a period of a few years they developed, or are developing into test match players. Is the international place the best place to develop.

In the case of Ramps, his weakness was a mental issue, which unfortunately he could probably not have overcome regardless of whether he had been managed in a different way.

Since you put it like that LII, it depends on how they fare at international level. If they succeed the critics applaude it, yet when it fails, they criticise it. It is somewhat of a double edged sword.

Ramps it was a mental issue, but it didn't take away from the fact that at international level he couldn't transfer his club form to it.

if you look at the selections of people like Flintoff and more recently Finn and Broad, when they were picked they wouldn't have been near the team on their then current form. They weren't even certain of a starting place in their county team on a regular basis. Hence they were picked purely on a potential ability, and over a period of a few years they developed, or are developing into test match players.

Oh right, I see what you are getting at.

I wasn't aware that F, B and F were quite that raw, though I'll take your word for it. And I'd say you wouldn't pick someone for their England debut at a time when they were badly out of form because I can't think of a worse thing to do to the confidence of a young player.

Interesting old Ramps is mentioned. I think there was a period of particularly bad man management by England, and it was at its worst around the time of Atherton's captaincy. Ramps, Hick, Tresco were all around then, and there were others. We wasted a lot of talent, with new players so terrified by what they had been told about the nature of Test Cricket they just froze at the crease. I suspect the more recent, individually tailored - basically more caring - approach has a lot to to with England's improved performances recently.

That's not to say the EWC is now a nursery school, but it does now seem to take more account of the nature of the individual; it does seem to try to identify talent quicker and nurture it more and so yes, I think it does try to fast-track some people into the England set up based on potential rather than current form