Good player. Would you pick him?

We finished the annual round of selections for our U13 squads just before Christmas. A new intake of 28 players to join 20 returning for a second winter training programme and summer season with us.

Selection took a couple of hours — some were obvious picks, but filling the final few slots took a lot of discussion.

I do think we have picked the right players, in the end. But, if it wasn’t already obvious, the inexactitude of the selection process was very apparent!

Who do you pick?

We saw over 100 players — a couple towering head & shoulders over most of the coaches; some looking like they should still be in primary school. Almost all could play, and to a more than decent standard.

Two weeks for each group of 20+ players, combining nets, batting against a bowling machine (and the coaches’ Sidearms), and a fielding session. 5 or 6 Coaches on each session, observing and making notes.

We picked one of the tall lads, and a couple of the shorter.

Some of the new selections already look players, and it is surprising they are not in a CAG squad. A few have maybe been selected more on potential. As many as 5 wrist spinners (if I counted correctly), so we should have some fun with them.

But selection is in no way a science.

Data entry — “what do you mean by that?”

I got to reprise my rôle as typist from 2022 — I suspect I am a long way below my old 30 wpm (almost) touch-typing, but I can still rattle through the forms quicker than my colleagues, and I get to read their comments and analyses.

I still don’t know quite how to characterise a player who has “good tech”, and I had to censor a few notes…even if the lad was “f…ing rapid” (he really was!), I think we could put that a little more elegantly…

But the language used, profound or profane, highlighted the challenges of selection.

What are we looking for? And how do we know we have seen “it”, when we often don’t have the words to describe what we have seen?

What does “good” look like?

Batting

I wrote recently about a workshop on “fundamentals” for pathway batters, that proposed four components of technique that might be considered non-negotiable — rhythm, alignment, balance, bat path.

Would you select a player who demonstrated all four? You might end up with a lot of technically competent players, but I suspect some might tick the fundamentals boxes but still lack something else.

Could you exclude a player in whom one or more of the fundamentals was perhaps sub-optimal, but who displayed higher order flair, or power, or innovation with the bat?

A batter middles everything he hits, times the ball seemingly effortlessly…and doesn’t move his feet except to pick the ball out of the net.

It can come down to the old “eye test” — two players have sound fundamentals, but one just “looks” better.

I do like the workshop fundamentals as a guide to why a batter might stand out (or miss out), but it still comes down to observation and analysis by the selectors.

Bowling

As bowling can be considered a more “closed” activity, selecting bowlers based on demonstrated skills seems easier.

• Is their action repeatable? And “safe”? (Although there must be a question over whether we really know enough to judge this.)
• Can they maintain and vary line & length to right- & left-handed batters?
• Do they have a reliable variation?

But, again, would you exclude a bowler who passed two tests with flying colours but, for example, did not have (controlled) variations. Or would you bring them along and help them to develop alternative deliveries?

More importantly, can they deliver when the batter is on the warpath? Or blocking for a draw? Or when the ball just isn’t doing anything?

Again, can you identify and quantify flair, innovation?

Jarrod Kimber, talking with Behram Qazi on a recent edition of the Foot Marks vlog, spoke about how teams tend to select on trends (frequently, pick the bowler with the most variations) rather than using data.

In T20, a bowler will get away with bowling lots of variations, for a while, but they will get found out. See Ashwin & Narine, who have had to reinvent themselves as spinners to remain relevant.

Interestingly, Kimber suggests a different approach when picking spinners, especially “orthodox” finger spinners — does their stock ball challenge the batter? Often true for the better leggies; less often the case for off-spinners and left-arm orthodox…but those who can get drift & bounce can still be very effective.

Data analysis — is there another way?

Do you really use the data you have?

Fascinating post by Dan Weston on the use of data analysis within the First Class game in England — How to succeed in county cricket.

Dan’s thoughts on what County “analysts” actually do, perhaps being restricted to coding videos, were interesting. If the people with “analyst” in their job title aren’t trained (or trusted) to provide actual performance-related analysis (what attributes contribute to on-pitch outcomes), is anyone really using the masses of data that are being collected?

I thought the recent interview with Mo Bobat, by Nagraj Gollapaudi on ESPNcricinfo, about the strategy employed by Royal Challengers Bangalore in the 2025 IPL draft was insightful.

Data was used to identify players who might fit well with the team’s preferred strategies — power batting through the middle order, wicket-taking capabilities with the new ball and (perennial) death bowling.

So they created a profile of the players they needed, then went looking for matches within the draft list (then held their nerve, and refused to overspend on a single player for fear of missing out later in the draft).

The inexorable rise of AI

A recent article in the Guardian suggested that football coaches could soon be calling on AI to identify prospects. Hundreds of junior players are being filmed and their movement profiles compared with that of the “ideal” player. Want a box-to-box midfielder? Look for the following characteristics

The article (written, uncritically, with the assistance of the people selling the AI analysis service), even goes so far as to postulate a future where “…AI analysis might start changing the style of footballer we see playing the top flight game.”

(No, I don’t actually believe this can work for any sport where there is close interaction with opponents and team mates…unless they are all selected by AI, as well…).

Any other clues?

Where do they come from?

A bit of background information can sometimes be helpful, but not always.

On several occasions, a coaching colleague has mentioned “oh, Player A is at XXX School with Coach Y — we should pick him”. Good cricketing school, well respected coach.

But does that provenance indicate a player’s potential to improve? Or that they are only where they are because of the prior support they have received?

Either could be true. Or neither. Or both.

“Coachability”

I have seen it argued that good players are “coachable”, which seems to mean “will take instruction from the coach”.

Personally, that selection criterion falls on two counts.

Good players (great players) become good (great) by finding their own way of playing. They’ll take advice, adopt what works for them, and discard the rest.

And a good coach should really be able to coach anyone.

Do they think about the game?

I do try to talk to the players to find out how (if) they think about their game.

Not over-thinkers, worrying about things beyond their control.

But players who watch the game, analyse what they see, and come up with an appropriate plan to counter the opposition.

Thinkers get a 👍 from me; independent thinkers get 👍👍.

(It is part of our job to help them refine their observation skills — beyond the banalities so often spouted by “experts” on TV commentary — and develop on-field responses appropriate to their own skills.

The sort of thing you might learn playing a season with the Sunday Bs, or Saturday 4s, but that these players might by-pass on their way to a County pathway.

A lot of talking at the back of the nets. Maybe even a little “homework”.)

So, who do you pick?

So much of selection will still come down to opinion, and the selector’s eye-test — does the player look right?

And, for me, do they think about the game?

We will see how this group develops over the winter.

Should be fun!