The selection of a cricket team is one of the most difficult jobs in sport, and anyone who has played that sport, at whatever level, anyone who has been involved in some other areas of sport, such as track and field, tennis, and table tennis, knows that.

In many other disciplines, including track and field, tennis, and table tennis, results, almost to the exclusion of everything else, are what count when it comes to selection of teams.

In cricket, however, and although it is important, results, performance with bat and ball and behind the stumps, are sometimes not so important.

In cricket, because of the nature of the sport, because of the difference a pitch can make to the performance of a batsman and a bowler, because of the difference a type of bowler can make to the performance of a batsman and vice versa, because batting in the first innings can be quite different from batting in the second innings, and because one batsman can get a chance, or two, sometimes even three and go on to score a century or two, many times if not all the time, result is secondary to performance when it comes to selection, and particularly, at all levels, in West Indies cricket.

On a number of occasions, a selector's personal preference is more important. On those occasions, a batsman is selected not so much because of the number of runs scored, a bowler is selected not because of the number of wickets taken but, more so because he looks good, technically, at the crease and because, having taken a few wickets, he looks a more gifted bowler with a few tricks up his sleeve.

Ratio of catches

Sometimes it is even worse when it comes to wicketkeepers. A player is often selected because, according to those who selected him and although his ratio of catches and stumps taken in relation to those that came to him was disappointing, although he has not proven that he is tough and competitive, "he has nice, soft hands".

Cricket is such a game that players may often miss out on selection although they have performed better than someone else, and even though that is sometimes understandable, that, however, may be one of the reasons why the game, and especially so in the West Indies, is not as popular to young people as it used to be.

It is difficult, for example, to explain to young people why a wicketkeeper/batsman like Desmond Lewis could have played in three consecutive Test matches, scored 81 not out batting at number seven, 88 and 14 opening the innings, 72 opening the innings and four not out batting at number nine for a total of 259 in five innings at an average of 86.38, and, even though he may not have performed as well behind the wicket as he did before it, never played another Test match.

The West Indies team is now in England; it will soon start a two-Test series, after that it will be engaged in a three-match one-day series. The team for the one-day series was announced a few days ago and left-arm spin bowler Nikita Miller is not in it, and after his performance in the regional competitions, after representing the West Indies in one-day cricket for 15 consecutive matches, doing quite well as a bowler, and only missing the last one due to injury, the question is: Why?

In their wisdom, the West Indies selectors have chosen another left-arm spin bowler, Sulieman Benn, for the one-day series, that makes him a member of the Test team, the one-day team, and the Twenty20 team, and the other question is this: is he, as a batsman, a fielder, and a bowler, so good, so much better than Miller and the other spin bowlers in the region that he should be selected for all three teams?

Performance<p>In spite of his success for Jamaica in the four-day game, I have always believed that Miller is too defensive to be a quality Test bowler, and that he would not fit into the hit-or-miss Twenty20 version of the game.

Apart from the fact that the three teams provide the selectors with the opportunity of selecting more players, apart from the fact that only a few players possess the necessary skills and deserve to be in all three teams, I have always believed that, despite his failure to bat as well as I believe he can, Miller, and especially so with the lack of slow-bowling skills in the West Indies, is a good slow bowler for the one-day version of the game.

On top of that, Miller's performance with the ball for Jamaica, his performance with the ball for the West Indies, his performance in the field in general, suggests that performance, or the lack of it, does not account for his failure to make the team to England and, in the process, earn some money.

A look at Miller's performance for Jamaica in first-class cricket over the past two season shows figures of 32 wickets, including four for six, at an average of 15.71 plus 10 at 12.10 in the final of the Carib Beer Challenge in 2008, 38, including eight for 41, at 16.34 in 2009, and in the last one-day tournament in 2007 it was five wickets at 22.50 with an economy rate of 3.70 and a strike rate of 36.

Benn's performance during that same period of time showed returns of 27 wickets at 23.22 with a best of four for 30; eight wickets at 35.75 with a best of four for 38; and two wickets at 34.50 with an economy rate of 3.45, and a strike rate of 60.

On top of that, the comparison while playing for the West Indies shows Miller with 15 wickets at an average of 34.92, an economy rate of 4.57, and a strike rate of 45 after 15 matches. Benn had four wickets at an average of 55.50, an economy rate of 4.93, and a strike rate of 67.5 after five matches.

Who is better, Miller or Benn?

Although I believe that Benn would get more wickets in Test cricket and that Miller would bowl better in one-day cricket, I really do not know.

What I do know is that over the past two years, Miller has outperformed Benn in the regional competitions. Statisti-cally, up to now, and regardless of what the selectors believe, Miller has been ahead of Benn while playing one-day cricket for the West Indies. And after selecting him for so many one-day matches in a row, after he was not selected the last time because of injury, it is surprising that the selectors have suddenly changed their minds and have decided that Benn is a better bet than Miller for one-day cricket.

The selection process in cricket is sometimes difficult to understand, but unless it has to do with his recent injury, then Miller deserves to be on the team.