User Blog Riverina Pub - NZ Cricket needs to fix selection process

Blog Topic

1. Sports

Tim Southee is 35 and turns 36 in December and is one of a number of odd selections for NZ Cricket in the current test series.
You can argue that Hadlee was 39 when he retired, but Hadlee had long since been off a short run and hadn't been express since his early twenties.
Regardless Tim is 35, soon to be 36, and should not be selected any more.

I looked into it tonight and was alarmed to find this article. We no longer have a selection committee.

Former Otago Volt Sam Wells appointed Blackcaps Selector

Sam Wells appointed BLACKCAPS selection manager

www.otagocricket.co.nz

"Former Otago Volts player and selector Sam Wells has been appointed BLACKCAPS selection manager, taking over from Gavin Larsen ahead of the start of the domestic season.
The role is full-time in the summer with reduced hours in the winter and will see Wells work in conjunction with BLACKCAPS head coach and chief selector, Gary Stead."

Gary Stead is the chief selector with no equal on the committee to hold him to account and debate with him.
The problem is not Gary Stead the problem is the decision by New Zealand Cricket to walk away from its tried and tested model of having a selection committee to debate who gets selected.

Wake me up when this situation is rectified. I don't mind Stead. He is an ok coach. Not spectacular. But he is ok. The problem is expecting any one person to be intelligent or wise enough to pick a national cricket team by themselves. Whenever we make decisions at work we do it through a process of discussion. It is well documented that the IQ of an intelligent person is 115 points (one standard deviation above average). The IQ of a 3 or four person group is estimated to be over 400 points. Because of the opportunity to talk it out and spot outlier decisions.
Most of Stead's selections are pretty good. Including having faith in Rachin while he finds his game at international level. O'Rourke was picked based on potential and Ben Sears was a great hunch in the test against Australia.
To finish this post - I probably could criticise him for picking two seamers for a test against Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka. I might have opened the bowling with O'Rourke and a spinner at the other end and played another specialist spinner. I think we relied too much on having Phillips and Rachin in the side.

I have decided this flaw of selecting the team and movement away from using a selection committee deserves its own blog post in the Riverina.

Wake Up New Zealand Cricket.

 

[jonesy101]

Interesting summation and totally agree a selection committee needs to happen. Two with a head selector just doesn't cut it. I feel that Southee still has something to offer in the test arena for a couple more seasons - but in a similar vein to how England used Anderson in his latter years - only when the conditions are right. Currently Henry is the more effective bowler and should not have been carrying the drinks. They're hamstrung themselves by making Southee captain and it's only the captaincy that is granting him selection at present.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

View attachment 9737

Tim Southee is 35 and turns 36 in December and is one of a number of odd selections for NZ Cricket in the current test series.
You can argue that Hadlee was 39 when he retired, but Hadlee had long since been off a short run and hadn't been express since his early twenties.
Regardless Tim is 35, soon to be 36, and should not be selected any more.

I looked into it tonight and was alarmed to find this article. We no longer have a selection committee.

Former Otago Volt Sam Wells appointed Blackcaps Selector

Sam Wells appointed BLACKCAPS selection manager

www.otagocricket.co.nz

"Former Otago Volts player and selector Sam Wells has been appointed BLACKCAPS selection manager, taking over from Gavin Larsen ahead of the start of the domestic season.
The role is full-time in the summer with reduced hours in the winter and will see Wells work in conjunction with BLACKCAPS head coach and chief selector, Gary Stead."

Gary Stead is the chief selector with no equal on the committee to hold him to account and debate with him.
The problem is not Gary Stead the problem is the decision by New Zealand Cricket to walk away from its tried and tested model of having a selection committee to debate who gets selected.

Wake me up when this situation is rectified. I don't mind Stead. He is an ok coach. Not spectacular. But he is ok. The problem is expecting any one person to be intelligent or wise enough to pick a national cricket team by themselves. Whenever we make decisions at work we do it through a process of discussion. It is well documented that the IQ of an intelligent person is 115 points (one standard deviation above average). The IQ of a 3 or four person group is estimated to be over 400 points. Because of the opportunity to talk it out and spot outlier decisions.
Most of Stead's selections are pretty good. Including having faith in Rachin while he finds his game at international level. O'Rourke was picked based on potential and Ben Sears was a great hunch in the test against Australia.
To finish this post - I probably could criticise him for picking two seamers for a test against Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka. I might have opened the bowling with O'Rourke and a spinner at the other end and played another specialist spinner. I think we relied too much on having Phillips and Rachin in the side.

I have decided this flaw of selecting the team and movement away from using a selection committee deserves its own blog post in the Riverina.

Wake Up New Zealand Cricket.

I’ll play the devils advocate.

Wouldn’t 4 high IQ people revert to the mean rather than adding together? Isn’t this how democracy works - rounds off the outliers to get the average view?

Which flows onto: a dictator with a vested purpose can get better results in a narrow area of interest than a committee. Eg from business - Bill Gates, Musk, Jobs, etc. It’s the same reason a single coach chooses his team. He knows his vision, the players strengths and weaknesses and how they fit into his game plan, how he wants to play the game. He holds the most information and is best placed to pick his team. More opinions would water down the vision and give a worse team, ill suited to the coaches vision.

Isn’t this the same with selectors? A man with a mission can select just as well as a committee if he’s intelligent enough and understands his role? It appears to me the man on a mission is just a dud… a blind man can see Southees been past it for years!

 

[Wrighty]

I’ll play the devils advocate.

Wouldn’t 4 high IQ people revert to the mean rather than adding together? Isn’t this how democracy works - rounds off the outliers to get the average view?

Which flows onto: a dictator with a vested purpose can get better results in a narrow area of interest than a committee. Eg from business - Bill Gates, Musk, Jobs, etc. It’s the same reason a single coach chooses his team. He knows his vision, the players strengths and weaknesses and how they fit into his game plan, how he wants to play the game. He holds the most information and is best placed to pick his team. More opinions would water down the vision and give a worse team, ill suited to the coaches vision.

Isn’t this the same with selectors? A man with a mission can select just as well as a committee if he’s intelligent enough and understands his role? It appears to me the man on a mission is just a dud… a blind man can see Southees been past it for years!

I read that in one of my commerce textbooks that a group has a much higher IQ than an individual.
However the book disgraced itself two pages later. It earnestly reported rave reviews on a company in the US who made their workers where pyramid shaped egyptian hats on their heads in meetings with the goal it would make everyone think smarter. And it has a photo of guys and women in suits have a discussion with these hats on. I would have resigned rather than wear it.

 

[Inruin]

View: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DAhhkSYyhvU/?igsh=djlpcGJmenV3NWU1