On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 1:45:57 AM UTC+1, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 9:56:22 AM UTC+10, mike wrote:
> > Smith certainly deserved the sack for his part in the
> > fiasco which happened in the winter. 3 consecutive wins then he
> > turns up and 3 losses.
> Wow, that seems harsh.

Why? His selections were fanciful, for example that Buttler should play as a Test batsman

RH

On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 1:41:32 AM UTC+10, RH wrote:
> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 1:45:57 AM UTC+1, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 9:56:22 AM UTC+10, mike wrote:
> > > Smith certainly deserved the sack for his part in the
> > > fiasco which happened in the winter. 3 consecutive wins then he
> > > turns up and 3 losses.
> > Wow, that seems harsh.
> Why? His selections were fanciful, for example that Buttler should play as a Test batsman

Was Buttler's selection so controversial? His Test batting averages vs SL and India (was it 1 big tour or 2?) aren't that bad.
I thought the big issue was the rotations, including the pre-planned rotation of Moeen.
Besides, it's not really his fault that the Test-quality batsman cupboard is bare. But we've been over that little issue enough.

Weren't these decisions done by committee? He was just one vote, right? Do we know if he could have been out-voted by the others on Buttler? ie he voted no, the others voted yes?

Lastly, even if it is fair to lay blame at his feet... is that enough to fire him over? Was England expected to actually win in India? I think not.
If England fire selectors every time they have a poor series they'll need to expand their HR team.

On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 10:28:29 PM UTC+1, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 1:41:32 AM UTC+10, RH wrote:
> > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 1:45:57 AM UTC+1, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 9:56:22 AM UTC+10, mike wrote:
> > > > Smith certainly deserved the sack for his part in the
> > > > fiasco which happened in the winter. 3 consecutive wins then he
> > > > turns up and 3 losses.
> > > Wow, that seems harsh.
> > Why? His selections were fanciful, for example that Buttler should play as a Test batsman
> Was Buttler's selection so controversial? His Test batting averages vs SL and India (was it 1 big tour or 2?) aren't that bad.
> I thought the big issue was the rotations, including the pre-planned rotation of Moeen.
> Besides, it's not really his fault that the Test-quality batsman cupboard is bare. But we've been over that little issue enough.
>
> Weren't these decisions done by committee? He was just one vote, right? Do we know if he could have been out-voted by the others on Buttler? ie he voted no, the others voted yes?
>
> Lastly, even if it is fair to lay blame at his feet... is that enough to fire him over? Was England expected to actually win in India? I think not.
> If England fire selectors every time they have a poor series they'll need to expand their HR team.

The selection after England had won the first Test was crass. The treatment of Bess unforgivable .. RH

On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 4:53:13 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
> The treatment of Bess unforgivable ..

Bess had a go and failed. On a raging turner, too.

In message <863ed944-3e31-453b-ac07-040e610bacc1n@googlegroups.com>,
jack fredricks <jzfredricks@gmail.com> writes
>On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 1:41:32 AM UTC+10, RH wrote:
>> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 1:45:57 AM UTC+1, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 9:56:22 AM UTC+10, mike wrote:
>> > > Smith certainly deserved the sack for his part in the
>> > > fiasco which happened in the winter. 3 consecutive wins then he
>> > > turns up and 3 losses.
>> > Wow, that seems harsh.
>> Why? His selections were fanciful, for example that Buttler should
>>play as a Test batsman
>
>Was Buttler's selection so controversial? His Test batting averages vs
>SL and India (was it 1 big tour or 2?) aren't that bad.
>I thought the big issue was the rotations, including the pre-planned
>rotation of Moeen.
>Besides, it's not really his fault that the Test-quality batsman
>cupboard is bare. But we've been over that little issue enough.

I assumed that RH was talking more broadly rather than just about last
winter's tour since, IIRC, in all the Tests on the tour that Buttler
played he was the keeper rather than a specialist batman.

Personally, I'd have said that Smith's bringing Buttler back into the
side was one of his successes, even though it took some time to pay off.
Buttler (in partnership with Woakes) won us one Test last summer that we
had seemed certain to lose, for instance.

>
>Weren't these decisions done by committee? He was just one vote, right?
>Do we know if he could have been out-voted by the others on Buttler? ie
>he voted no, the others voted yes?

Those are good questions. We don't know whether Smith's views would have
prevailed over the wishes of the coach and captain. We may not find out
till one of those involved publishes his autobiography.

>
>Lastly, even if it is fair to lay blame at his feet... is that enough
>to fire him over? Was England expected to actually win in India? I
>think not.
>If England fire selectors every time they have a poor series they'll
>need to expand their HR team.
>
>

It was never likely that England could win in India, and if anything to
lose the series 3-1 was rather better than I was expecting. That said, I
don't think they gave themselves their best chance with some of their
selections or with who they rotated when. (I accept that rotation was
necessary. You can't keep players locked up in a bubble for months on
end if you want them to play well or if you have regard for their mental
health.)
--
John Hall "Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always
pays off now." Anon