When England take on the West Indies in a series of One-Day Internationals (ODI) and Twenty20 (T20) games starting October 31 in the Caribbean, one player who will line up with the visiting team is Barbadian-born Jofra Archer. The tall pacer is menacingly quick, capable of consistently propelling a cricket ball at speeds pretty close to a hundred miles per hour.

In 2013 he played for the West Indies at under-19 level. A year or so later, however, he was flabbergasted at being left out of the squad for the 2014 Youth World Cup, so much so that he decided, having an English father, to await eligibility to represent England.

He made his England debut on May 3, 2019 in an ODI against Ireland in Dublin, and despite trouble with injuries, which have significantly limited his appearances, he remains a speedster of the highest calibre, capable of wreaking significant havoc.

“No, I’m fine thanks,” was Archer’s terse response years ago when asked if he’d be open to a change of heart regarding his decision to seek to represent England instead of the West Indies. The then 22-year-old fast-bowling sensation went on to say this: “I was angry with the West Indies, so that helped me with my decision to come and try to play for England. I wasn’t selected, so I had to think about what to do next. Once I knew it was an option, it was an easy decision to move to England.”

We do not know what would have happened were the English path unavailable to him. We could reasonably assume that his quality is such that he’d have quickly convinced the West Indies selectors of his worth, and it is unfortunate for the struggling Caribbean side that a player of his skills chose to offer his services to others who didn’t need them quite as much.

Looking on, and going by what he has already achieved, it would certainly appear that the West Indies selectors erred at the time in leaving out Archer for the under-19 World Cup, especially since he is currently far ahead of those who were chosen ahead of him.

But this is an argument that can only be made in the clear view of hindsight. It is safe to assume the selectors thought the fast bowlers chosen surpassed Archer in ability. He clearly thought otherwise and was, therefore, peeved by their decision.

This brings into sharp focus the thorny issue of selection. What makes for a good selector? And what are the issues to be pondered when selecting a team?

Many of us who follow cricket closely, or any sport for that matter, are often convinced and will often boast of our ability to identify talent. But aren’t we only fooling ourselves? Deciding who should be chosen and who will miss out is a tricky affair. It is mostly hit or miss, almost like a lottery. Conveniently, we point to the successful players we claimed to know would’ve made it from the moment we laid eyes on them and forget the picks we made that never amount to much.

Without a doubt there is a fair degree of subjectivity in the selection process. A player’s record matters, of course, but selectors rely heavily on their observations as well. That is where it gets problematic. Studies have found that we cannot always rely on what we think we see, and researchers have shown how unreliable human perceptions are. Furthermore, errors and distortions will result from selectors unwittingly bringing their biases to bear on the process.

Some players just look the part. Some batters, for instance, fit readily into the selectors’ preference for attractive players who make it look as if batting is the simplest thing in the world. Such players are more likely to seduce selectors into giving them a shot, even at the expense of the more productive, more deserving, but more workmanlike alternatives.

If you knew nothing of their record – or even if you did – and had to make a choice between Carl Hooper and Shivnarine Chanderpaul after viewing them at the crease for half an hour, chances are you’d have picked Hooper based on the ease and poise of his strokeplay. And yet it was the left-hander who was the more productive player. It was Chanderpaul who averaged over 50 in Tests, as opposed to Hooper who averaged in the mid-thirties.

Another issue worth contemplating is the maturity of talent with age. Not every child star will become an adult star. Alternatively, there are athletes who were thought to be mediocre as youngsters and yet became quite excellent as adults.

Jamaica’s Asafa Powell, on the other hand, never accomplished much as a schoolboy athlete. But in the days before Usain Bolt took over track and field it is he who was Jamaica’s standard-bearer in sprinting, breaking the 100m world record twice and going below 10 seconds a record 97 times. The next person on the list is Justin Gatlin, who did it on 44 fewer occasions.

We find examples such as these in all sports. We all know of athletes who promised much as kids and delivered little as grown-ups, much to their distress and to the disappointment of fans intensely invested in their progress.

Many of us seem to expect selectors to be clairvoyant. We expect them to be almost unerring in their predictions of who will make it. Archer was understandably hurt and disappointed, but his omission is likely nothing more than the cut and thrust of the normal selection exercise. There was likely nothing sinister or particularly incomprehensible about their preferences.

Archer, of course, has the right to decide when, where and for whom he plays. But he should not remain angry at the West Indies authorities for what he perceived as unjust treatment. The selectors might simply have chosen what they honestly thought was the best squad available.

garfield.v.robinson@gmail.com

Garfield Robinson