England NAT Potentials

A500
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2016 12:30 am

Re: England NAT Potentials

Postby A500 » Sun Apr 25, 2021 11:55 pm


Stomalomalus
Posts: 1146
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:20 am

Re: England NAT Potentials

Postby Stomalomalus » Mon Apr 26, 2021 4:54 am

A500 wrote:https://www.stumpedgame.com/player.php?Player=194868
42/49 17 def 16 attack 15 stamina


It's a tough position to get into - that #6 spot - but if you can get his attack up to 18 and his experience somewhere, he could be in with an outside chance.

But it might not be worth it for you. He's behind where I'd expect him to be on experience by quite a way and the lack of fielding is a problem considering he's up against some very, very good players for a squad spot.
Manager of Pest CCC English SOD Champions Season 25 and 26
Manager of Daft Serious CC
England National Team Manager

ashok36
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2016 12:30 am

Re: England NAT Potentials

Postby ashok36 » Tue May 11, 2021 2:03 pm

I have a very serious question regarding England National team's management. Several seasons ago, when Stellar and RTJ were there, they took in my player Malcolm Wright, for the sheer talent he had. Wright just turned 29. His SOD club status and T20 club stats are great. In fact, very few can match his records. At NAT level, he is arguably the best SOD batsman, his records will speak for him. But, till now, he is given chance only for 4 T20 internationals. This is after Stellar left and may be even after RTJ.

In the current England squad, there are six players and above, who are above 27. Two of them are 30 years old. Wright's skills went a bit down to 41, but he can be more than a match, to the bowlers of any international side.

Questions:
1. Even before one or two seasons, when Wright was still at his prime, why was he ignored? Just because his batting skills went down from 44 to 43? Huh? He was considered "too old" at 26-27, is it?
2. This second question is to all NAT team managers. Is there any favoritism among the repeated players whom I see in NAT scene, despite their middling performances? I can take lot of names, especially from the current England side. But I don't intend to hurt anyone. I can name five or six such useless players, in the current England squad.
3. A high-level analysis with other NAT teams show similar cases. Either it's lackluster scouting or it is prevailing favoritism, it's definitely either one of these reasons only.

I want all NAT managers to be reasonable in their scouting and final squad selection. It is really irritating to see people go gaga about mediocre players, in the NAT game forums. People like me can't dedicate time to NAT, otherwise I would have been part of the NAT set up much earlier. I am part of Stumped for more than five and a half years, and I am seeing such players steadily increasing in the NAT scene.

As I said already, I don't want to take the names of the players. So, my humble request for the present and future NAT managers is to consider people based on their talent; and not based on whether they are part of your team, or your friend's team.

I wish each and everyone of you are staying safe from the devastating Covid-19 pandemic. I wish and pray for everyone's health and safety.

Ashok.

rtj45
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2016 12:31 am
Location: Dorset

Re: England NAT Potentials

Postby rtj45 » Tue May 11, 2021 2:30 pm

Oh get over it

If you really care that much you can run for manager yourself.

If all you want to do is moan about it then go elsewhere.
Manager of West Row Wyverns and affiliate East Row Eagles
Winner of the grand slam in season 13 (Dev, T20, SOD, Cup, International)

Calvino
Posts: 232
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2016 12:30 am

Re: England NAT Potentials

Postby Calvino » Tue May 11, 2021 2:34 pm

ashok36 wrote:I
1. Even before one or two seasons, when Wright was still at his prime, why was he ignored? Just because his batting skills went down from 44 to 43? Huh? He was considered "too old" at 26-27, is it?

I'm not an international manager or anything but I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. What seasons do you think he was ignored? He played season 21, 24, 25. So, as far as I can tell he's only missed out on season 22 and this season. He averaged 20 in his previous national T20 season which is neither terrible nor amazing but does not exactly make him undroppable. I suspect his lack of fielding would weigh against him.

YVRK
Posts: 1042
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2020 5:05 pm
Location: Worcestershire, England

Re: England NAT Potentials

Postby YVRK » Tue May 11, 2021 2:37 pm

ashok36 wrote:I have a very serious question regarding England National team's management. Several seasons ago, when Stellar and RTJ were there, they took in my player Malcolm Wright, for the sheer talent he had. Wright just turned 29. His SOD club status and T20 club stats are great. In fact, very few can match his records. At NAT level, he is arguably the best SOD batsman, his records will speak for him. But, till now, he is given chance only for 4 T20 internationals. This is after Stellar left and may be even after RTJ.

In the current England squad, there are six players and above, who are above 27. Two of them are 30 years old. Wright's skills went a bit down to 41, but he can be more than a match, to the bowlers of any international side.

Questions:
1. Even before one or two seasons, when Wright was still at his prime, why was he ignored? Just because his batting skills went down from 44 to 43? Huh? He was considered "too old" at 26-27, is it?
2. This second question is to all NAT team managers. Is there any favoritism among the repeated players whom I see in NAT scene, despite their middling performances? I can take lot of names, especially from the current England side. But I don't intend to hurt anyone. I can name five or six such useless players, in the current England squad.
3. A high-level analysis with other NAT teams show similar cases. Either it's lackluster scouting or it is prevailing favoritism, it's definitely either one of these reasons only.

I want all NAT managers to be reasonable in their scouting and final squad selection. It is really irritating to see people go gaga about mediocre players, in the NAT game forums. People like me can't dedicate time to NAT, otherwise I would have been part of the NAT set up much earlier. I am part of Stumped for more than five and a half years, and I am seeing such players steadily increasing in the NAT scene.

As I said already, I don't want to take the names of the players. So, my humble request for the present and future NAT managers is to consider people based on their talent; and not based on whether they are part of your team, or your friend's team.

I wish each and everyone of you are staying safe from the devastating Covid-19 pandemic. I wish and pray for everyone's health and safety.

Ashok.


Ashok,

I have not been playing this game for nearly as long as you have and I am relatively new to the NAT scene, so by all means take what I say with a grain of salt.

First of all Malcolm Wright is a great player, nobody at all is denying that. He's easily an England legend at least in ODI. He was England's first choice SOD opener for the past few NAT seasons and has played his fair share of T20s too which unfortunately he didn't find as much success. You cannot claim that he has been ignored because he hasn't. He is successful in ODI and average in T20I, simple as that. There are plenty of players like that in real life who are phenomenally talented and have great success in domestic but can't fully translate it to the international stage for whatever reason. James Vince is one such real life example. But even then Wright has had a great career and most likely next season he will still be in high contention for England's ODI team with his stamina and skill balance.

Secondly, this whole business of "nepotism" is absurd. Yes it may seem that certain players churn out average performances and are persisted with, but you'd probably be surprised to know that they are probably all more skilled than Wright and therefore are more likely to get selected. England have much higher standards than other nations due to the larger talent pool and so can afford to be more choosy, and probably can select players on the basis of their fielding if there are a large portion of low 40s skilled players (and if I remember correctly Wright is an average fielder). If Wright had succeeded in T20Is then I'm sure that he would've been persisted with in that format as well over the others, but given that he too has given what you describe as "middling performances" in the shortest format, what logical choice do management have other than to persist with the higher skilled players who have a better chance of pulling out a big performance? And if you really think that England management are guilty of favoritism, take a look at the total number of English capped players in Stomalomalus' and elegantyak's squads. Zero - and I know for a fact that Stom has a very good English wristpinner in his squad who didn't make the cut. This lack of English capped players even holds true for the squads of the former England managers rtj45 and lightning. So I don't see a basis by which you can accuse them, and what would suggest to them that Wright would do better in T20I than say, Russel Abbot who is almost 50 skill? Sure he might succeed but he might not, especially given his ok record and more skilled batsmen than him as of now.

As for nations apart from England, I can only speak for South Africa. We have been very clear that our policy is to pick the highest skilled players who will give us the best chance of succeeding regardless of their club. Yes it is true that there are 3 players from KryptoKnights in our squad but only one is a guaranteed starter at the moment, one has only played a few games and the final one hasn't played at all and may not even get a chance this season. Given that Krypto is a long time supporter of South Africa and ex-SA manager you may see this as favoritism and preference, but I assure you that it is not as those 3 players are all 45+ skill and easily warrant a place in our squad. Team balance may also come into consideration when we pick our teams and there were a few good players who missed out on selection, and that's with us where the standards aren't as high, so I can perfectly understand a larger nation's selections. And I don't understand how you would be able to conduct a high-level analysis of NAT teams when most of the players aren't revealed. You can only go off records but as I explained before, if you have a lot of players banging out average performances then it is always the best option to stick with the higher skilled players.

Frankly I take high offence at your accusations of lackluster scouting or favouritism upon NAT management of all the teams. A lot of us give up our free time to try and ensure the highest quality of international matches, and posts like this almost make it seem like you are constantly complaining even though that may not be your intention. So please, chill out and ponder over what I've outlined. It's a cricket management game for god's sake, most of us are playing to enjoy and escape the stresses of real life for a while, and I think that getting too heated about it just makes it less enjoyable.
YVRK
Leader of the mighty penguins (The Penguin Squad) as well as their South African affiliate based in the Americas (Rockhoppers CC)

South African NAT assistant (Season 27)

ashok36
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2016 12:30 am

Re: England NAT Potentials

Postby ashok36 » Tue May 11, 2021 2:42 pm

rtj45 wrote:Oh get over it

If you really care that much you can run for manager yourself.

If all you want to do is moan about it then go elsewhere.


RTJ, sometimes, the truth hurts. Just like how you make posts and be vocal about your own views, what's wrong with I doing the same?

If you think it's moaning, I can't help it. And I am sorry, I can't go elsewhere and talk about Stumped game, my friend. I think I am in the right place and at the right forum. :D

Yeah, running for NAT is a good idea. I will consider it, if my time permits me to do so. If everyone who asks a valid question should run for NAT to be qualified enough to criticize, that's what I don't agree with. I CHOSE NOT to run for NAT. And as I said, if my time allows in the future, I will do it.
Last edited by ashok36 on Tue May 11, 2021 3:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.

ashok36
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2016 12:30 am

Re: England NAT Potentials

Postby ashok36 » Tue May 11, 2021 2:48 pm

Calvino wrote:
ashok36 wrote:I
1. Even before one or two seasons, when Wright was still at his prime, why was he ignored? Just because his batting skills went down from 44 to 43? Huh? He was considered "too old" at 26-27, is it?

I'm not an international manager or anything but I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. What seasons do you think he was ignored? He played season 21, 24, 25. So, as far as I can tell he's only missed out on season 22 and this season. He averaged 20 in his previous national T20 season which is neither terrible nor amazing but does not exactly make him undroppable. I suspect his lack of fielding would weigh against him.


Agreed. My question, why only four games? Why not at least a few more to see if he really makes an impact or not? I agree with your other point on fielding as well. But, the players whom they tout as the best ones are having poor records, but they still continue to play. The same should have been applicable to Wright as well, till he had the prime batting skillsets. That's all my point is, Calvino. Thanks!

ashok36
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2016 12:30 am

Re: England NAT Potentials

Postby ashok36 » Tue May 11, 2021 3:12 pm

YVRK wrote:
Ashok,

I have not been playing this game for nearly as long as you have and I am relatively new to the NAT scene, so by all means take what I say with a grain of salt.

First of all Malcolm Wright is a great player, nobody at all is denying that. He's easily an England legend at least in ODI. He was England's first choice SOD opener for the past few NAT seasons and has played his fair share of T20s too which unfortunately he didn't find as much success. You cannot claim that he has been ignored because he hasn't. He is successful in ODI and average in T20I, simple as that. There are plenty of players like that in real life who are phenomenally talented and have great success in domestic but can't fully translate it to the international stage for whatever reason. James Vince is one such real life example. But even then Wright has had a great career and most likely next season he will still be in high contention for England's ODI team with his stamina and skill balance.

Secondly, this whole business of "nepotism" is absurd. Yes it may seem that certain players churn out average performances and are persisted with, but you'd probably be surprised to know that they are probably all more skilled than Wright and therefore are more likely to get selected. England have much higher standards than other nations due to the larger talent pool and so can afford to be more choosy, and probably can select players on the basis of their fielding if there are a large portion of low 40s skilled players (and if I remember correctly Wright is an average fielder). If Wright had succeeded in T20Is then I'm sure that he would've been persisted with in that format as well over the others, but given that he too has given what you describe as "middling performances" in the shortest format, what logical choice do management have other than to persist with the higher skilled players who have a better chance of pulling out a big performance? And if you really think that England management are guilty of favoritism, take a look at the total number of English capped players in Stomalomalus' and elegantyak's squads. Zero - and I know for a fact that Stom has a very good English wristpinner in his squad who didn't make the cut. This lack of English capped players even holds true for the squads of the former England managers rtj45 and lightning. So I don't see a basis by which you can accuse them, and what would suggest to them that Wright would do better in T20I than say, Russel Abbot who is almost 50 skill? Sure he might succeed but he might not, especially given his ok record and more skilled batsmen than him as of now.

As for nations apart from England, I can only speak for South Africa. We have been very clear that our policy is to pick the highest skilled players who will give us the best chance of succeeding regardless of their club. Yes it is true that there are 3 players from KryptoKnights in our squad but only one is a guaranteed starter at the moment, one has only played a few games and the final one hasn't played at all and may not even get a chance this season. Given that Krypto is a long time supporter of South Africa and ex-SA manager you may see this as favoritism and preference, but I assure you that it is not as those 3 players are all 45+ skill and easily warrant a place in our squad. Team balance may also come into consideration when we pick our teams and there were a few good players who missed out on selection, and that's with us where the standards aren't as high, so I can perfectly understand a larger nation's selections. And I don't understand how you would be able to conduct a high-level analysis of NAT teams when most of the players aren't revealed. You can only go off records but as I explained before, if you have a lot of players banging out average performances then it is always the best option to stick with the higher skilled players.

Frankly I take high offence at your accusations of lackluster scouting or favouritism upon NAT management of all the teams. A lot of us give up our free time to try and ensure the highest quality of international matches, and posts like this almost make it seem like you are constantly complaining even though that may not be your intention. So please, chill out and ponder over what I've outlined. It's a cricket management game for god's sake, most of us are playing to enjoy and escape the stresses of real life for a while, and I think that getting too heated about it just makes it less enjoyable.


First of all, I appreciate your well-written and passionate reply. It had anger, point of arguments and respect as well.

Secondly, let me answer to your counter-points.

1. You said Wright had his 'fair share' in T20Is. Playing just four games isn't a fair share, at least according to me. And having 20.00 avg is not too bad in the context of T20Is. You yourself know his records in ODIs. Considering that, why wasn't he given just a bit more longer rope? I see players who are really aged playing in English NAT today, and you must accept the the fact that their numbers doesn't look great. Fielding is a problem with Wright, but most of the best batsman barring a few, has one or the other shortcoming.

2. Check out Russell's records. Not so impressive even in club cricket, for my liking. And he is carrying just 6 points in fielding, just one greater than Wright. He already played 3 T20Is and scored nothing. So, as per the scale set for Wright, can he also be thrown out of the NAT side, if he doesn't score at least a 50 in the next game? I know I am being harsh on him. I don't want such a good player to be out of NAT and no offence to Simes. I am just countering only your point.

3. As I said, I don't want to take names. But you can check the old NAT players of many teams. Though they performed considerably well, who will go out soon, or who will be given a long rope, that's where my point lies.

4. As you rightly pointed out, my analysis was based purely on statistics.

5. As with your last point, if I had offended hardworking friends like you, I apologize. But my point is to create a level playing field for any team's player, who comes into NAT. And as you are new, you have to observe the past a bit. But that's not important now. I agree that everyone wants to relax. But what's relaxing, without a bit of heated argument? To enjoy pleasant weather fully, one must be aware of how horrible it can be. :D So, as you said, take this kind of my so-called 'Complaining' as well, with a pinch of extra salt. :lol:

Thanks for your response.

Ashok

Calvino
Posts: 232
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2016 12:30 am

Re: England NAT Potentials

Postby Calvino » Tue May 11, 2021 3:15 pm

ashok36 wrote:
Calvino wrote:
ashok36 wrote:I
1. Even before one or two seasons, when Wright was still at his prime, why was he ignored? Just because his batting skills went down from 44 to 43? Huh? He was considered "too old" at 26-27, is it?

I'm not an international manager or anything but I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. What seasons do you think he was ignored? He played season 21, 24, 25. So, as far as I can tell he's only missed out on season 22 and this season. He averaged 20 in his previous national T20 season which is neither terrible nor amazing but does not exactly make him undroppable. I suspect his lack of fielding would weigh against him.


Agreed. My question, why only four games? Why not at least a few more to see if he really makes an impact or not? I agree with your other point on fielding as well. But, the players whom they tout as the best ones are having poor records, but they still continue to play. The same should have been applicable to Wright as well, till he had the prime batting skillsets. That's all my point is, Calvino. Thanks!


I suspect that he only got 4 games (and I think that's somewhere between a third of a season and half a season) because of the fielding and the relatively low strike rate.

Someone like Abbott hasn't got off to the best start and has subsequently been dropped (or maybe rested). Maybe he'll get longer to perform because he is a 49 current skilled batter or maybe he won't. It seems to me like the players who haven't performed that well with the bat have been dropped from the team with, perhaps, the exception of Aston who has a good T20I record before this season.


Return to “England”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest