Do England's selectors need to alter their definition of talent?

Morning all

If you could take the trouble to read this slightly ranty blog I posted yesterday, I'd like to get your thoughts on the definition of talent in cricket.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/andrew-bloxham/englands-got-talent_b_2519673.html

Whilst we often hear the likes of Bopara and Dernbach referred to as talented, are they really talented if they don't possess the mental attributes or key attributes such as control within their game? Does this mean that those who wouldn't usually be mentioned as talented, i.e. Paul Collingwood, are actually more talented due to possessing the necessary unheralded attributes such as composure, grit, determination?

It has proved an interesting debate since posting this on Twitter - just what is talent when it comes to cricket, and is it about time that England ditched those they perceive to be talented that they have persisted with but have never paid off?

Thanks

Huff Po Fists? You don't work there do you?

No mate, just a bit of freelance.

England do partly select on attitude, and have been criticized fir it in the past.

I am a firm believer that big game players do exist though, and that some people are better wired to step up than others the big stage. How easy that is to identify is another question.

It's worth noting that with Bopara his stats, whilst limp, do stack up against the majority of players he's been dropped for at one time or another in all formats

Joe Root is an example - looks to have that big game mentality whereby he can isolate himself from the pressure. Cook and Trott were others.

Those that are naturally very gifted do of course deserve every chance to prove that they can cut it at the highest level, but there comes a time when they need to be cast aside. I feel we perhaps give them too long at the moment.

Very interesting read Fists.

I agree that the term "talent" is oft-misplaced. We all know what we mean by it, but the ability to perform under pressure and mental toughness are as much natural abilities as the gracefulness of a Gower in my experience.

I'll comment more on this later when I have time.

Thanks Mike, my thoughts exactly. Be interested to see your further comment.

I suppose Bell is a player who they kept patience with who has talent or natural ability.

Stella wrote:I suppose Bell is a player who they kept patience with who has talent or natural ability.

Yes, although his performances were never so frustrating (at least not in Tests). Even before 2009 he averaged above 40 and had a considerable number of centuries. In fact, I thought he was very poorly treated by the press who were confronted with a batting line-up that was underachieving as a collective, but in which all of the individuals were doing fine.

I've always had a bit of sympathy with Ravi's plight. However, the suggestion that he's more 'talented' than Colly is misplaced, as Fists rightly stated (particularly when you consider Colly's fielding). As a Test player he perhaps hasn't quite had the chance to nail down a place - he has only really failed twice (he would surely have kept his place at least for Lord's this summer had he not withdrawn for personal reasons). But his very consistent tendency to follow a succession of good performances with a succession of horrific ones perhaps explains that. In ODIs he's potentially our best option at No. 4 when one of the top 4 isn't playing: even last summer he did that job very well v Australia, whilst providing the additional seam-up overs that we need. But again consistency is the big problem. Having said that he will be deserving of one very last chance if he can find some form for Essex early in the season: he's still not yet 28, and may yet mature into a very good player.

Dernbach I have less sympathy with. I really do believe (to use the word again) that he has a 'talent': his slower balls are a very effective weapon at the death. But when he has to bowl normally he's inaccurate and not particularly penetrative. It should be noted that even in List A cricket his economy rate is above 6 - accepting that he plays at The Oval and in 40-over cricket, that simply isn't good enough. I though corporal's comments that in 4 matches you could expect him to bowl very well once, OK once, badly once and awfully once (to paraphrase) were very apt. As with Ravi I wouldn't dismiss him, but he wouldn't be in my thoughts for playing international cricket next summer.

I heard an interview on TMS early last summer regarding this. It was Geoff Miller and Michael Vaughan with Aggers.

From the interview it appears there was, and still is, a very clear template of what it takes to be an England player and that it is not just about talent. From what I remember it started with Bell's failures and he was sent away (with help), to look at the mental side of his game. They are now putting young guys in the Lions squad and assessing or looking for those with the mental capacity to succeed at international level.

Whether that is working or not I am not sure. I have an inklin that there is too much emphasis on the mental side - Dernbach comes across as a supremely confident individual with a bit of fight / will to win in him - the mental side England are presumably looking at - he's just not a good enough bowler at the moment

That's why I see their selection criteria as contradictory, Sean.

They identify these players with the correct mental attributes to succeed, but then they also persist for a long long time with those that clearly don't have them.

Good point about Dernbach, but my argument against him was related to control, not the mental side as such.

Bit harsh on the selectors I think. They generally do a good job and have done for a few years, selecting players based on a range of attributes. Some of these fall into the "naturally talented" bracket, but a lot don't e.g. Cook, Root, Compton, Trott, Bresnan.

The two examples you can highlight, I think Bopara is persisted with as he could/should be a useful allrounder in ODIs, certainly better than bits and pieces and we are crying out for those. He was coming good before the personal issues came along.

Dernbach I think is one of the rare ones they have got wrong. Maybe the worst pick since Darren Pattinson. He always seems to get hit for at least one boundary every over! But you can see why he was chosen in the first place.

I think this is interesting in relation to the seemingly never ending wicketkeeper saga.

In my view Prior has both the mental aptitude and techical ability to play in all forms. Kieswetter certainly comes across as confident and having the right mental attitude but does he has enough natural ability and skill?

Looking at others Davies was dropped two years ago because England seemd to take the view he wasn't mentally tough enough to play, but then a few weeks later decided he was tough enough to, and helped him come out the closet to the whole world!

Of the next breed, both Bairstow and Buttler so far seem to have all the right attributes.

Keissweter is actually an example of a player whos been picked specifically because he has a specific natural skill. Theyve talked quite a bit about the englands selectors views on him on TMS recently, hes apparently rated as the best clean powerhitter in English cricket...and thats the role hes been drafted into the side for, england have lacked players who can clear the ropes late on and under the new rules in ODIs they need that.
That Prior is stronger mentally and a better all round player is another argument. Id also question is keiswetter is too poor in other aspects of his batting and too rarely gets the chance to use his hitting for him to be a sensible selection

Very good and interesting article, Fists.

I think that as well as individual talent, the blend of team talent needs to be considered.

Brian Clough said more than once that a great football team needed a mix of piano tuners and piano shifters. That was correct and continues to apply to most team sports. As well as the player with natural born flair and artistry, you need someone to tough it out when the chips are down and cancel out the best of the opposition or at least stop them getting further on top.

In cricket you ideally want your players to switch from tuner to shifter mode as demanded by the situation. However, in reality they will nearly always have a preference for one of those two modes. It may appear somewhat disrespectful to put Collingwood in the shifter bracket but that is how I tend to think of him. I actually don't mean any disrespect at all - in my view, he was not a great of our game but he was immensely valuable and very often exactly what was required (far more, say, than Gower would have been in the same circumstances). Whilst not having an array of shots, Collingwood had a mental toughness that is such an essential ingredient for any winning team.

As for Dernbach, there is a natural skill within him but too often he lets himself down - and, more importantly, the team - through a lack of control. Inconsistency now appears mighty close to being a regular feature of his game. I suspect that in part is down to over confidence and, continuing the above analogy, attempting to undertake the role of the piano tuner when he has insufficient experience to assess the keys. Whilst Dernbach is better than some posters suggest, he is too unreliable. In my view, we don't have enough spare bowling resources in the team to be able to continue selecting someone who displays his 'talent' too infrequently.

Thanks gents.

I think the issue with Kieswetter isn't mental, and whilst he is a skilled batsman it is very slightly skill related.

It's the singles. He simply isn't all that good at knocking singles about, rotating the strike and releasing pressure. His ability to clear the ropes isn't in question - he can whack sixes as well as the best of them. It's a great shame and something that England should really be working on with him because the boy can play. I've seen him play many incredible knocks at county level, and despite his big hitting prowess it is perhaps the case that he is slightly more suited to the longer format where strike rotation is of less importance and the bad ball can be waited on.

Completely agree with the assessment's of Dernbach.

I think this is a very interesting question, worth another visit, so thanks to Fists for a thought-provoking article.

I guess the word "talent" is often mis-used, but people generally know what they mean by it. Really though, there are numerous ways in which we habitually say someone is "talented". I guess with batting we can mean any combination of the following 3 elements:

1) technical skill/range of shots. This is the most commonly used, for someone like Bell, or Ramprakash. We mean his technique corresponds to what we think it should do, and that he has all the shots available. For me, this is the most contentious use of the word talented, because range of shots is something you can achieve, although clearly for some it comes easier than others. Take Cook: even 3 years ago he didn't sweep or hit down the ground against the spinners, and now look at him. I have paired "range of shots" with "technical skill" because for me there is no reason why unless your technique prevents you you shouldn't be able to play all the shots. I do think more and more in the modern game, range of shots is important - it's doubtful Thorpe could have got away with effectively only 3 boundary options in today's game, but Thorpe I'm sure (like Cook) would have worked on it and worked it out.

2) hand-eye coordination and speed of execution: someone like Lara or at a lesser level Owais Shah (or to a lesser extent Ricky Ponting) overcome any technical deficiencies because of amazing hand-eye coordination and hand speed. You see this often, and coaches have a saying "his hands get him out of trouble". You then have to make a judgement call whether the player can get away with his technique at a higher level, or whether you should tinker with it. Thankfully nobody tinkered with Lara or Ponting, but Shah and Phil Hughes (first part of career) are good examples where perhaps their hand speed didn't quite overcome their technical flaws at the highest level (Shah had his other problems of course).

3) Elegance/effortlessness: the likes of Gower, M. Waugh, Damien Martyn. These guys seem to have longer to play the ball than others, and are seemingly capable of not needing to hit the ball hard to make it go fast and/or far. In fact there is a very good scientific reasoning for this: first of all, these players tend to play the ball a fraction later than most players - and as such use the pace of the ball a fraction more, so can hit it a fraction less hard; secondly, some research was done recently, and those players who look like they have longer to play the ball literally do, because they read the flight of the ball a fraction earlier than their colleagues. So M. Waugh litterally saw the ball earlier than his twin, and played it later - no wonder it looked like he had more time to get into position, he did!

In any case this is slightly besides the point of the article, which is wondering whether the word talent is the wrong one to use.

Again I draw from personal experience somewhat. At the end of each tour and season I write an extensive report, which includes individual analysis from each player, with the view very much being to determine which ones we think have a future at senior level. The attributes I look at include (sometimes I add others, but these are always there):
- technical ability
- tactical awareness
- fitness
- mental strength
- courage

You may think that courage comes under mental strength, but there is physical courage as well, not only in facing up to fast bowlers without wandering towards square leg, but also if someone is say willing to put in a dive on an abrasive outfield.

Now there used to be an orthodoxy that of those 5, technical ability is the most important - the rest could be worked on, but if someone doesn't have it, he doesn't have it (nobody seemingly stopped to wonder what "it" was). This has now more or less been turned on its head, with work by scientists, and the famous book by Matt Syed suggesting that anybody can learn any skill if they practice enough. Whilst I wouldn't go that far, it is certainly clear to me (and there is general agreement) that most of top-level sport is effectively mental rather than physical or skillful. Cricket perhaps more so (along with Golf I would rank cricket as the most mental sport there is).

I disagree with Syed in that I think you can have people who simply aren't technically proficient enough to progress (using the guides 2 and 3 above, hand-eye and judgement essentially) - I don't think you can coach someone to pick the flight of the ball earlier (or rather, I think there is a limit there) but I do think you can teach anybody to play a perfect forward defence. More importantly perhaps, I don't think anybody needs to be able to play a forward defence - they need a surefire way of blocking a pitched-up delivery which they can do with their attributes and weaknesses.

Tactical awareness you can teach to a big extent also, although some people are tactically more intuitive than others (so not everybody is captaincy material clearly). this is stuff like moving back to the edge of the circle when the batsman is looking for a big shot, taking on the weaker arm in the opposition, NOT taking on their best fielder, bowling different deliveries depending on the batsman, etc. A lot of the coaching I do is tactical, perhaps more than technical (at the level I operate at, and very similar to TV cricket you can only make minor changes to someone's technique).

Fitness is vital, and perhaps more natural than people realise. Or more precisely, by the time people reach a certain age, as with technique, there is only so much you can do. However obviously anybody who puts in enough work at the gym and in training can reach an acceptable level of fitness - one of our juniors was about 10 Kilos overweight (all fat) and in a year turned it around to be one of the fittest guys we had. I think fitness is under-rated by some as a component of a cricketer - Alastair Cook's fitness is what allows him to stay concentrated for (literally) days at the wicket without making a mistake; Anderson's fitness means he can return for a 3rd or 4th spell in a day and still bowl at 85+; on the flip side, Ashwin's poor levels of fitness means he can't spin the ball as much in his 20th over as his first. Fitness is vital, and actually is a component of mental strength, in that the fitter you are the better you will usually feel. For the record, our junior is at last starting to realise his potential with the bat, and may make the senior squad this year.

However for me, by far the most important attribute is "mental strength" - it is also perhaps the one you can do the least about. Mental strength comes in different disguises, but essentially I would say it is the ability to step it up when you step up a level, and the ability to perform your best under pressure - in short the reverse of choking. You can work on someone's mental well-being (positive attitude, etc.), and you can also undermine someone's confidence (England did this with Ramprakash - more on that later) of course.

For that of course it is important to know and understand the psychology of your players: some do better under pressure and some do a bit worse; for those who play better you need to put pressure on them, and for the others try and take pressure away. But undoubtedly the guys who perform their best under pressure will be those who ultimately have the more successful careers.

I am not sure that I agree with (I think) PSW who said it is hard to tell - I think it can actually be quite easy to tell that someone will respond to pressure, although the converse is of course much harder (first of all you need to create pressure, then be certain that the pressure is why they're not performing, then be certain that it isn't other external factors, but actually the pressure of the situation and only that - tricky).

I finish with a couple of anecdotes. Many on here have already read me extoling the virtues of young leggie Zika Ali. At just 17 in 2011 Zika finished joint top-wicket taker in the senior European championship (T20, not the easiest format for a leggie either) which involved the likes of Denmark (against who Zika got 2 wickets in his only over BTW) - for those looking for a comparison, Denmark would give most county 2nd XIs more than a run for their money. I spent most of 2011 trying to convince the senior coach that he needed to bowl Zika a lot more (until the championship he'd never bowled his full quota of overs - how that was to change). The general response was that they were trying to protect him, they didn't want him damaged by getting smashed around whilst he was still so young.

Admirable sentiments but I was sure they were misplaced. I was certain that given more pressure Zika would perform. Why? Well, during a junior warm-up match earlier, we were playing a (senior) club side. Our junior team was very good (we were to finish 3rd later that year), but a couple of our bowlers were missing so that we were quite reliant on Zika and our captain (and opening bowler) with the ball. Skipper promptly took a couple of early wickets, but their numbers 4 and 5 were their best players, and included Arun, the best batsman in France. Gradually they got on top, and Zika was proving ineffective (first 4 overs for 20odd). Then came a drinks break; as it was a warm-up, I wandered onto the field for a few words. In front of everyone, I looked at Zika and said "you're our best bowler, we need this wicket". 2 overs later, Zika got Arun out with a wonderful piece of bowling (a couple of leggies outside off to drag Arun across his stumps, then a quicker top-spinner which Arun misread and was bowled attempting a sweep). Job done.

For the record, in the first game of the senior tournament, with Belgium needing 10 to win, Zika bowled the penultimate over for just 2 runs and got out the Belgium captain and big-hitter. So much for protection. Zika is now trying to get onto the Kent books - whether he is good enough or not to play professional cricket I won't offer an opinion, but of one thing I am sure: if he does ever play for Kent, the first time he bowls for them will be the best he's ever bowled.

My point is that some players do thrive on added pressure, and don't need or want protection. To protect these players is actually counter-productive. Even if they fail first time around they are worth persevering with because ultimately they will respond to the challenge, come back better players, and perform at the hoped standard. This was the case with Cook certainly, and I think Bairstow and Root (and Hughes of Australia) show similar mental qualities. Some need a bit of protection early on in their career (Bell).

With Hick and Ramprakash I think England got it completely wrong - they threw Hick in at the deep end, and then tried their best not to do that with Ramprakash. Of course none of this was helped by the fact that both knew one failure would be the end - not matter how good you are under pressure, that is the kind of external pressure (not linked to the situation of the match) which can only be unhelpful. But I do wonder if whether they'd made Ramprakash the main man at number 4 say, the story may have been entirely different.

Sorry for boring you, but I think it's fascinating topic.

Mike

Not boring at all - I agree with a lot of what you say.

Of the three points you raise under 'talent', I think #2 (hand speed / coordination) and #3 (rapidity of judgement) are to a large extent inherited or intuitive (I'd also add 'balance', which kind of relates to both points). Technical proficiency (i.e. 'proper' shot production) is something that can largely be taught, although you will probably have more success if the player you are starting with has more of abilities 2 and 3.

However, the two things that you simply can't coach for are mental strength and courage.
If a batsman isn't prepared to stay in line to a quick bowler, it doesn't matter how well grooved his technique is in theory because he'll be in the wrong position and off balance.

Mental strength - it's something England have become quite good at identifying. Plenty of batsmen in the last 15 years or so have come into the side with only moderate county records but have gone on to be very successful Test players (Tresco, Vaughan, Colly, Strauss). Perhaps less good with the bowlers, as Swann should have been picked a long time before he was.

dummy_half wrote:Mike

Not boring at all - I agree with a lot of what you say.

Of the three points you raise under 'talent', I think #2 (hand speed / coordination) and #3 (rapidity of judgement) are to a large extent inherited or intuitive (I'd also add 'balance', which kind of relates to both points). Technical proficiency (i.e. 'proper' shot production) is something that can largely be taught, although you will probably have more success if the player you are starting with has more of abilities 2 and 3.

However, the two things that you simply can't coach for are mental strength and courage.
If a batsman isn't prepared to stay in line to a quick bowler, it doesn't matter how well grooved his technique is in theory because he'll be in the wrong position and off balance.

Mental strength - it's something England have become quite good at identifying. Plenty of batsmen in the last 15 years or so have come into the side with only moderate county records but have gone on to be very successful Test players (Tresco, Vaughan, Colly, Strauss). Perhaps less good with the bowlers, as Swann should have been picked a long time before he was.

But Tresco, Vaughan,Colly and Strauss had the huge advantage over guys like Hick and Ramprakash in that they didn't have to face a West Indian pace bowling battery of Ambrose, Walsh, Marshall, Bumper Patterson,Bishop in their prime. I'm not sure that if Tresco,Vaughan,Colly and Strauss had played in the 1990's as opposed to the millenium era whether they would have gone on to become successful test players.

GBN

A reasonable point, although I would say that no-one has ever accused any of the four I listed of being afraid of the quick stuff. Admittedly, knowing that if you see of Brett Lee or Shoaib Akhtar you're going to be getting fast-medium or spin next is a bit different from knowing that if you survive Marshall, chances are that Patterson will take your head off (of all the West Indies quicks, I think Patterson was probably the one who stretched the legitimacy of their tactics the most - the others would at least sometimes aim at the stumps or bowled for legit outside edges, Patterson just tried to kill you).

dummy_half wrote:GBN

A reasonable point, although I would say that no-one has ever accused any of the four I listed of being afraid of the quick stuff. Admittedly, knowing that if you see of Brett Lee or Shoaib Akhtar you're going to be getting fast-medium or spin next is a bit different from knowing that if you survive Marshall, chances are that Patterson will take your head off (of all the West Indies quicks, I think Patterson was probably the one who stretched the legitimacy of their tactics the most - the others would at least sometimes aim at the stumps or bowled for legit outside edges, Patterson just tried to kill you).

In 2000 when Trescothick and Vaughan played for England V West Indies which still had Walsh and Ambrose, both striggled with the bat against these 2 fast bowlers who were then past their prime somewhat so it could be argued that both Trescothick and Vaughan would have gone the same way as Hick and Ramprakash had they started their test careers in 1991 V the West Indies with Walsh and Ambrose in their prime and Marshall past his prime but still dangerous enough with the ball.