1.8 Million Dollar Man
- May 31, 2006
- Jos Buttler's Nightmares
- Profile Flag
@blockerdave @Dale88 - So I've had a look through, and I'm honestly a bit confused why the selectors of the time had such a hard time selecting teams. I've come up with a sort of extended squad of players that would pretty much have done a job for the entire decade just fine.
View attachment 241334
It's obviously not a perfect squad - going into a Test with one spinner and that spinner being Robert Croft is genuinely terrifying - but it's pretty much the best use of resources that England had available at the time. It's also one that doesn't resemble real-life England in the slightest. There's no Ian Salisbury, for example. And really, if the cookie had crumbled this way, would 90s England have produced such magical moments as Richard Blakey trying to bat against Anil Kumble? And am I just leaning on hindsight a lot or were the selectors really that incompetent at the time? I know for instance that given the opportunity, Gus Fraser would likely have carried on beyond 1998 and done so perfectly well.
I also completely forgot Craig White existed in the spreadsheet but I'm including him here.
The general approach would be to select a team that looked something like this:
There are obviously some terrifying things about that side still, including Jack Russell, Test number 6 as well as Robert Croft, Test number 7 but those are the kind of sacrifices that I made to pick a team with the best chance of winning. Interested in what you guys think.
Often wondered about this since I started to notice just how random the selection seemed to be. And looking at it written like this, the selection policy makes even less sense.