The last three cricketers to be given their Test debuts by England have been, in order, Rehan Ahmed, picked in Karachi in December 2022; Josh Tongue, selected for the Ireland Test last June, and Tom Hartley, given his first cap in Hyderabad last week. Each of them made a flying start, taking five wickets or more in an innings, an unlikely pattern given the rarity of that achievement for debutants.
Perhaps the most notable aspect of these selections is how left-field each was. Ahmed had played only three first-class games before his elevation the national team, aged 18. Tongue’s record in domestic cricket for Worcestershire was good, but in the previous two years he had taken only 19 wickets, while Hartley’s form in domestic cricket in 2023 was a modest 19 wickets at 44.
There were spinners with far better records than Hartley last year, not least the leading English-qualified spinner in Division One, Liam Dawson, who took 49 wickets at an average of 20 for Hampshire. Yet the selectors had been gently dropping hints about Hartley’s suitability for India for some time, their impression having been bolstered by his experience with the Lions, both last winter in Sri Lanka and in Abu Dhabi before Christmas.
This trend of immediate success, then, merits some attention, and the process behind it deserves some unpicking. At the heart of it is the attention to detail that goes into modern-day selection, a process so far removed from what it was when, say, I was appointed captain of England 30 years ago and when the first selection meeting I attended involved subjective opinion, the County Championship averages and, well, not much else.
Since then, there has been a gradual overhaul in the way England teams are selected, made possible by, in turn, funding, technology, globalisation, a greater understanding of what it takes to win and some enlightened thinking. The result is a more robust system that involves a combination of empirical data and intuition to help improve decision-making, something the 400-odd professional cricketers in England deserve.
The stages of this improvement have been gradual. The scouting system was overhauled, with a greater number of scouts, of a variety of ages and experience, providing reports based on a model of players being watched “multiple times” by “multiple eyes” to steer away from potential bias.
Averages were unpicked, and “weighted” averages, which is to say a more meaningful appreciation of the circumstances surrounding performance, began to be noted. When Joe Bloggs scores his tenth hundred of the season for Bloatedshire, the selectors want to understand its context: what was the pitch like; what was the quality of the bowlers he faced, and what was the state of the game?
They seek a rounded picture of players’ unique physical capabilities and requirements, as well as developing a psychological profile. When a player moves upwards, as Gus Atkinson, say, did last year, thus passing from being under the responsibility of the pathway to the full England team management, this profile is passed on. The human element is paramount.
These days, selection works backwards, which is to say the selectors start with two questions in mind: what does the team need, and what does it take to win in the conditions before them? They then look for players to fit those requirements. In the past, they may have started by simply asking themselves who does best in county cricket and selected accordingly.
Depth charts are designed to ensure the team’s medium and long-term needs are profiled. iHawk technology, with umpires carrying mobile cameras in every county game, allows selectors to understand a little more precisely what they are looking for. This technology records every ball bowled in domestic cricket, allowing for millions of data points on speeds, height of delivery, swing, seam movement, consistency and so on.
The requirements for success in international cricket — high pace, spin etc — often run counter to those needed for domestic cricket, with the County Championship played predominantly early and late season in seamer-friendly conditions. So the iHawk technology gives the selectors information they feel is more trustworthy and relevant than county averages alone.
Hartley’s selection can be understood in this context. Having watched India’s success at home over the past decade or so, the selectors felt the requirement was not for flighty spinners, who are slow through the air, but for those who can bowl quickly and from a height, driving the ball into the surface. Hartley fits this mould.
Having identified him as a possibility for the subcontinent a while ago, they set about trying to broaden his experiences via the Lions programme in Sri Lanka (Tongue was also on that trip). He added a Lions camp in Abu Dhabi in November, which had a particular focus on red-ball skills for Asian conditions, a similar experience to the ten-day camp that preceded this tour.
Two more aspects are worth noting. The first is the bravery of those making such decisions. When you make a decision that goes against the grain — such as with Hartley or indeed with the preparation for this tour, which involved no competitive cricket in India — you know criticism will fly if things go wrong. It takes courage, then, to stick by your convictions.
The second is that none of this preparatory work is of much use if the environment with the senior England team is not conducive to managing the talent well. New players coming into the set-up are very well catered for in the caring environment created by Brendon McCullum and Ben Stokes and with the clarity and straightforward messaging that is provided.
It is possible, of course, that these three selections are flukes — three random picks that came off — whose success may prove to be short-lived. Clearly, it is very early days for Ahmed — who, to my mind, looks a better batsman than bowler right now — and Hartley, in the context of their careers and this tour. The selections may carry a very different look in six weeks’ time.
If they do go pear-shaped, no doubt you’ll be reading a piece here that says the selectors are prone to over-thinking and, indeed, who is to say that Dawson would not have done as well in the same circumstances? Nevertheless, domestic cricketers (and supporters) can at least be reassured that the present process is a robust one, even if there will always be scope for debate and disagreement in an area of decision-making that can never be perfect, given that it combines both objectivity and subjectivity, both art and science.