That’s a rhetorical question. We were experimenting with lots of ‘suck it and see’ type headings, but couldn’t find one that wouldn’t give rise to unsavoury comments.
We touched on the ‘suck it and see’ selection policy the other day. Essentially, we think England’s selectors take a look at players in international cricket, when really they should be damn certain about them before then.
Take any England wicketkeeper for example – Phil Mustard, say. Phil Mustard opens in one-day cricket and he’s a tidy keeper. He got picked for England.
If England’s selectors pick Phil Mustard as a keeper/one-day opener, then surely they do so because they think he’s the best man for the job. If they think he’s the best man for the job, they shouldn’t be dissuaded from this by a relatively mediocre performance in his first ten matches. They’d cut him some slack, knowing he was the best and knowing they were investing in the right player.
But no, they watch him play, they’re not impressed, they drop him. What did they learn in those ten matches that they didn’t learn through watching him in domestic cricket?
This happens with England wicketkeepers in both forms of the game. It also happens with one-day openers. Ian Bell, Luke Wright, Phil Mustard, Alastair Cook and now Matt Prior (again). Who are England’s best one-day openers?
We’d like to see two players given the job and left to it. It’s the dithering around and chopping and changing that maddens us. It’s almost like the selectors don’t know the players – or their own minds.