Rant

rtj45
Posts: 4574
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2016 12:31 am
Location: Dorset

Re: England NAT Potentials

Postby rtj45 » Tue May 11, 2021 3:42 pm

In short: Wright is a great player but he actually got more of a run than he should have because of good performances . He was lower skill than some other options and lower fielding.

I gave him a go in t20 due to lack of options but he certainly wasnt first choice.

He is now 41 skill and is nowhere near the nat team

I dont know who you are referring to in terms of oldies getting a good go, Aston perhaps?

If you had aston as a pick you would pick him too, I assure you that! He is attack skewed and high fielding plus bullet arm. Yum

Other players like abbott are 49 skill, which are at least 4 better than Wright in his prime, he isnt played for his fielding mate...once again I think very few wouldnt play a 49 skill bat?

So in all maybe have a think before you diss hard working managers who are trying to win games and work out yourself why Wright isn't playing.

He had a great career but he is done now.
Manager of West Row Wyverns and affiliate East Row Eagles
Winner of the grand slam in season 13 (Dev, T20, SOD, Cup, International)

ashok36
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2016 12:30 am

Re: England NAT Potentials

Postby ashok36 » Tue May 11, 2021 3:50 pm

Stomalomalus wrote:Do you really expect a 41 skilled bat with no fielding and no attack to get into a T20i squad? Ahead of, for instance, a 46 skill bat with fielding and plenty of attack who has missed out? Or a 46 bat with 18 attack who has missed out? Or a 44 bat with 16 attack who has missed out? Need I go on?

41 skill is laughable for an international cricketer.

And I'm sorry if I'm being harsh, but you dare accuse me of nepotism in selecting a team just because I refused to pick your 41!!! skilled player?

How many of my players did I pick, btw?


I don't want you to pick a 41 player now. Obviously, Wright is aging and losing his skillsets, he is already 29. If I were at your place, with 41 skills, I wouldn't have selected him, I agree.

This post was not specific to your tenure. It is something which I wanted to share for a long time, right from 16-17. And it applies to all NAT managers of all NAT teams, esp England, to do a status check. My Q was, why was he not given more chances, even earlier as well? So, this question is not for you.

But I have a specific question for you. Why there are several old aged players, who didn't perform that great, are still in the English NAT squad? One of them had 'late-bloomer' skills, but that should not be the only reason to keep them. This is not just with regards to Wright. This is a generic question to all NAT team managers. And such players exist in each NAT team. Other managers who read this post here, if interested, may explain to the larger Stumped community, about giving such long rope for less-achievers (Not in terms of skills; but in terms of no. of matches played and related stats), whereas there are so many youngsters waiting in-line in the lesser known, but well performing club teams.

I hope you get my point. Thanks for your response!

Stomalomalus
Posts: 1181
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:20 am

Re: England NAT Potentials

Postby Stomalomalus » Tue May 11, 2021 3:54 pm

ashok36 wrote:
Stomalomalus wrote:Do you really expect a 41 skilled bat with no fielding and no attack to get into a T20i squad? Ahead of, for instance, a 46 skill bat with fielding and plenty of attack who has missed out? Or a 46 bat with 18 attack who has missed out? Or a 44 bat with 16 attack who has missed out? Need I go on?

41 skill is laughable for an international cricketer.

And I'm sorry if I'm being harsh, but you dare accuse me of nepotism in selecting a team just because I refused to pick your 41!!! skilled player?

How many of my players did I pick, btw?


I don't want you to pick a 41 player now. Obviously, Wright is aging and losing his skillsets, he is already 29. If I were at your place, with 41 skills, I wouldn't have selected him, I agree.

This post was not specific to your tenure. It is something which I wanted to share for a long time, right from 16-17. And it applies to all NAT managers of all NAT teams, esp England, to do a status check. My Q was, why was he not given more chances, even earlier as well? So, this question is not for you.

But I have a specific question for you. Why there are several old aged players, who didn't perform that great, are still in the English NAT squad? One of them had 'late-bloomer' skills, but that should not be the only reason to keep them. This is not just with regards to Wright. This is a generic question to all NAT team managers. And such players exist in each NAT team. Other managers who read this post here, if interested, may explain to the larger Stumped community, about giving such long rope for less-achievers (Not in terms of skills; but in terms of no. of matches played and related stats), whereas there are so many youngsters waiting in-line in the lesser known, but well performing club teams.

I hope you get my point. Thanks for your response!


He was given plenty of chances!!! He played 37 times for the NAT team despite being poorly built for T20 and not actually that great skill-wise.

And as for the oldies...you mean some of our best players of the last few seasons? Of whom only 1 doesn't have LB...
Manager of Pest CCC English SOD Champions Season 25 and 26
Manager of Daft Serious CC
England National Team Manager

ashok36
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2016 12:30 am

Re: England NAT Potentials

Postby ashok36 » Tue May 11, 2021 3:56 pm

rtj45 wrote:In short: Wright is a great player but he actually got more of a run than he should have because of good performances . He was lower skill than some other options and lower fielding.

I gave him a go in t20 due to lack of options but he certainly wasnt first choice.

He is now 41 skill and is nowhere near the nat team

I dont know who you are referring to in terms of oldies getting a good go, Aston perhaps?

If you had aston as a pick you would pick him too, I assure you that! He is attack skewed and high fielding plus bullet arm. Yum

Other players like abbott are 49 skill, which are at least 4 better than Wright in his prime, he isnt played for his fielding mate...once again I think very few wouldnt play a 49 skill bat?

So in all maybe have a think before you diss hard working managers who are trying to win games and work out yourself why Wright isn't playing.

He had a great career but he is done now.


Agreed mate. I don't want Abbott to fail. As I said in my response to YVRK, no offence to Simes or his immensely skilled player. I really hope that he shines better than Wright or anyone. I'll be more than happy.

Yeah, you are right. Aston and some other old-timers, why are they still going mate? England is second-last in the table for this season. But we have so many cups to boast. Same with the other stronger teams like Aus, Ind or anyone. But this issue is predominant with other NAT teams, who are lesser-performing and hadn't even won a single cup, except some wins here and there.

So many managers are trying different strategies, but I want more youngsters from lesser known teams, to be more involved in the NAT scene.

Yeah, I agree that Wright is done now. Perhaps, I will also work on revisiting my strategy. Thanks!
Last edited by ashok36 on Tue May 11, 2021 4:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ashok36
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2016 12:30 am

Re: England NAT Potentials

Postby ashok36 » Tue May 11, 2021 3:58 pm

Stomalomalus wrote:
He was given plenty of chances!!! He played 37 times for the NAT team despite being poorly built for T20 and not actually that great skill-wise.

And as for the oldies...you mean some of our best players of the last few seasons? Of whom only 1 doesn't have LB...


Mate, my point was only with regards to T20Is, not ODIs. In T20IS, my guy made just 4 appearances. There are many such players of other teams, in other NATs as well, had met such fate. So that was the larger question from my side.

It's OK, I think Calvino and RTJ had analyzed it well. Thanks for your time and responses!

YVRK
Posts: 1081
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2020 5:05 pm
Location: Worcestershire, England

Re: England NAT Potentials

Postby YVRK » Tue May 11, 2021 4:15 pm

ashok36 wrote:
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


First of all I apologise if I came off as rude, that was certainly not what I was intending. As for your points:

1. Looking back at Wright's records he has only played 4 T20Is. If memory serves correctly he wasn't actually in the England squad for the first half of that T20 season but was then drafted in place of the struggling Des York. He didn't have a shocker of a season necessarily but didn't stand out that much, struggling especially in the final which England didn't win the end. Not that it's his fault that England didn't win and even if it was, I seriously doubt that England management would hold a grudge against a virtual player for the finals not going their way. Obviously with the lack of consistent NATs due to the business of Rob and Andy, Wright hasn't played as much as he should've and at the times where he has been available for T20I selection there were most likely better options than him. It is also to do with team balance, which I will address later in the post.

2. Abbot hasn't had the best start to his international career either and as Calvino pointed out, even he has been dropped because of his mediocre performance so far. However with all due respect he is more skilled now than Wright ever was (which is saying a lot, because both are excellent players) and as logic dictates, he has more of a chance of succeeding. It's what I would do if I were to make an objective choice as of now. I don't believe for one second that anyone in the England camp has anything against you or your player.

3. Well I agree that in the past, mistakes have been made. Sometimes players have been persisted with too long for some reason or the other. Or maybe some NAT sides in the past have lacked all-rounders for example which is why you may see former ,players who at their prime had only 30 bat skill and 38 bowling skill, and yet still played many games for their country, and I imagine this has been exacerbated by how certain countries did not used to have large pools of players to choose from which is why there used to be such an imbalance.It may be true that in the past that a few NAT managers haven't taken their job too seriously, or else were too busy to fully commit. However in the present day I do not think that any of the NAT managers want anything other than the success of their teams rather than trying to please their friends. It's why the elections system exists: so that the community as a whole can choose those who would take responsibility - as I know that there are a few managers who would not have committed fully, which is why they weren't voted for. Going back to possible mistakes made when managing, perhaps it would've been a good idea to give Wright some England T20I games earlier on when he was 45 skilled but maybe there were better options or those with better fielding who edged him out. I'll admit that he has been unlucky that he hasn't played more. I do respect that you're not calling out particular teams or players for malpractice though, whether that was in the past or even possibly in the present day.

4. And as I pointed out, statistics don't necessarily tell the full story when it comes to team selection. Team balance is a massive factor which I've learned about while helping out with SA management. Given that this is a T20 season one needs players with good attacking skill more than good defensive skill. Heck, even SA have a 45 skilled batsman who has been benched more than he should've been because our other top order options are better and his terrible fielding would bring our already low team fielding crashing down even more. If we look through England's batsmen, the "ageing" players like Aston and Millard are in fact still incredibly skilled batsmen, when Aston was temporarily revealed he still has 44 batting skill heavily skewed towards attack, 15 fielding skill with a bullet arm, and a good NAT record to back him up, at the age of 30. Top order batsmen in T20 NAT have to be exceptionally skilled to merit their spot, and I presume that Jawad, Mcrea and Millard are indeed so. You can't afford to stack your T20 side with too many accumulators, which is why while Wright is suited for SOD, because of the sheer number of top order options , and that coupled with his lack of fielding makes it hard for him to push for a spot in T20I. Just like in real life, NAT teams seem to have an excess of top order bats and a lack of finishers it seems :P

5. I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments about a level playing field and I am not trying to say that I am objectively right and you are wrong, far from it. And yes, it is always good to have some passionate and balanced debate about the things that we love doing, so long as negativity is not in excess. It is just that it seems that you have frequently complained about Malcolm Wright not being England's first choice batsman in all formats - and while I appreciate your passion, doing this too often just starts to get on people's nerves. I myself got a little annoyed hence why you may have perceived some anger in that previous post, but it's nothing personal at all, and I do hope just like you that NATs will remain fair and incredibly competitive!

Also I'm sorry if this discussion is starting to go slightly off topic.
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: 112
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2016 12:30 am

Re: England NAT Potentials

Postby ashok36 » Tue May 11, 2021 4:28 pm

YVRK wrote:
5. I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments about a level playing field and I am not trying to say that I am objectively right and you are wrong, far from it. And yes, it is always good to have some passionate and balanced debate about the things that we love doing, so long as negativity is not in excess. It is just that it seems that you have frequently complained about Malcolm Wright not being England's first choice batsman in all formats - and while I appreciate your passion, doing this too often just starts to get on people's nerves. I myself got a little annoyed hence why you may have perceived some anger in that previous post, but it's nothing personal at all, and I do hope just like you that NATs will remain fair and incredibly competitive!

Also I'm sorry if this discussion is starting to go slightly off topic.


Agree with all points except for the fifth one. Yes, I did frequently complain about Malcolm Wright not being first choice player for England. Because, as soon as he was scouted, I trained him for NAT. Similarly, I trained many players. But he grew more than that and broke several records in ODIs. I am still training some good players, for respective NATs. They may or may not make it. But, all the NAT managers of all countries, should ask these questions.

I take your view as current SA's as well. England guys already answered. Let this be a chance for other managers also, only if they are interested, to clarify. As I reiterate, there should be a level playing field. There is not just one Wright, or Abbott, or anyone for that fact. It's everyone from everywhere.

It's a good discussion. Thanks for your responses!

conradij
Posts: 901
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2016 12:31 am

Re: England NAT Potentials

Postby conradij » Tue May 11, 2021 4:54 pm

ashok36 wrote:
It's a good discussion. Thanks for your responses!


To be fair, it's not a good discussion. It's a rant: I like my player, I want my player to be in nats, why isn't my player in nats, why isn't my player in more nats, what isn't my player in all nats, my player's not in nats its therefore a conspiracy.

If you don't intend it to be a rant, that's a shame, because that's definitely how it comes across.
Main team: Pro Crastinators (and Tobe Determined CC)
http://www.stumpedgame.com/club.php?Team=126
Cup winners season 22
England DEV champion seasons 16, 23 and 25
Season 26: Runner-up, in everything

SM-xmarra
Posts: 996
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2016 4:40 pm

Re: England NAT Potentials

Postby SM-xmarra » Tue May 11, 2021 5:13 pm

ashok36 wrote: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.

Ashok.


Firstly before i answer your questions, i wanted to state I think your comments have been out of order and you've taken a decision some people made to leave your player out the NAT team personally and let it impact on this thread!

Now to the questions:
2. From my perspective there is zero favouritism, why would any NAT manager want to harm their teams chances?
Also i would love to know the names and skills of these 'useless' England players, i can assure you some of these would fly into squads like mine (NZ) or other supposed smaller nations.

3. Please please share this 'high level analysis' that shows other cases, i'm sure all NAT managers would love some high level analysis of their squads they could use...... On that note if you have time to do that, you have time to run for NAT selection. Although i doubt this 'rant' of yours will have gained you many supporters!

As for your final comment.... i believe all managers are reasonable in their scouting and squad selection, if they weren't then many managers before you would have raised the issue long ago.
Manager of Durham Elite, Wearside Lankans & New Zealand

Winners of SOD 1.1, season 16, 17 & 21
Winner of T20 1.1 season 21 & 24

Winner of International T20 - Season 12 & 22
Runner up of International SOD - Season 17

mike778
Posts: 1314
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: England NAT Potentials

Postby mike778 » Tue May 11, 2021 6:26 pm

This looks pretty straight forward to me ..

He isn't a T20 player

England have the biggest player pool in the game so can afford to be very picky and select players that suit the format. T20 renders his stamina close to irrelevant and potential of 14 attack isn't particularly good for a T20 NT player. He can do a perfectly good job as a T20 batsman of course but when you throw into the mix that he is a bad fielder then I'm surprised he has played 4 times in the format. Bad fielding and mediocre attack isn't going to cut it for a nation with England's resources.

Defensive skewed skills alongside fantastic stamina make him a prototype 50 over player.
Leader and supreme commander of Chester Ducks .... (and SA Ducks)

SOD Champions - S19, S20, S21 (England), S27 (Euro-Africa)
2020 Champions - S25 (England), S26, S27 (Euro-Africa)
DEV Champions - S24 (England)
Short League Champions - S19, S20


Return to “England”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest