8 Emerging Players

[ledge]

Re: 8 Emerging Players

But you're missing the point. Most of us whinging Vics don't really care one way or another if 90% of the Test side is made up of NSW kids anointed way way way too early who turn out to be largely shit and come back to rot in Shield cricket with their actions and techniques destroyed. (All those wonderful NSW youngsters you're touting that "enhanced" the Australian cricket side "enhanced" us all the way from no.1 to no.5 in the Test rankings -- I don't see what's so successful about their selection policy. They won shit at home and performed shit at Test level. Great selection policy that.)

It's when we (the Vics) keep winning stuff and the one or two younger or middle aged guns we have in our side don't even get a look in a la Wade, despite scoring a billion runs, whereas if he happened to be 16, blonde and lived in Sydney he would have been picked last year before he made a run. What the hell did Steve Smith do or have done to ever justify the caps he earnt other than prove what a shmozzle our selection policy had become? It was an absolute disgrace to the baggy green and insulting to every performing batsman in the country and far far more accomplished players who never got the same opportunities.

Also, we keep justifying keeping players who haven't performed, yet refuse to play players who are performing. The selectors go out of their way to justify strange selections, yet even in the shorter forms of the game we had the ridiculous situation of White being the 20/20 captain and yet not even considered for the 50-over game, and just flat out refusing to pick Hodgey for 20/20 despite being THE best 20/20 batsman in the world for half a decade. If that's not bias I don't know what is -- some can pretend it doesn't exist, but don't insult the rest of us.

ps. In case you haven't looked at the Test rankings recently, we ARE largely on par with NZ cricket. The selection policy of the last 5 years (and, according to your theory, the selection policy of the Test team's de facto assembly line in the NSW shield side), have clearly worked a treat. You seem to keep forgetting that Australia is no longer a cricket powerhouse that can afford to look down our noses at other teams. WE are now a lower ranked Test team, and anyone defending the selection policies of the last few years is defending the indefensible.

You hit the nail on the head Lantern, my sentiments exactly.

[ledge]

Re: 8 Emerging Players

They're really not good examples

White has a career first class batting average of 41, doesn't bowl, yet has played test cricket. I wonder how Jamie Siddons feel about that.

Elliot had a Test batting average of 33, had injury problems, and a host of off field indescretions. He was lucky to get as many tests as he did.

Greg Chappell, seriously? Second only to Bradman in batting average in Australian history. Also it was 4 in a row.

Lehman? You need to research that one again, that's not even close to correct.

Well there you go you just admitted the selections made are wrong with one name J.Siddons
And that is my point this cricket team over the last few years has been picked on freindships, past history and some sort of urge to pick people out of the blue than people performing.
Beer is an example of that, freind of mine opens the batting for a district club , smashed him everywhere thinks he is useless, the kid went to WA because he couldnt get a game , was playing second grade cricket and got picked to play for Australia!

[ledge]

Re: 8 Emerging Players

Now I am very happy that maybe the light has been seen, new selectors , some kids are getting picked but at the moment Haddin and Ponting are a mystery, why are they playing?

[Greystache]

Re: 8 Emerging Players

But you're missing the point. Most of us whinging Vics don't really care one way or another if 90% of the Test side is made up of NSW kids anointed way way way too early who turn out to be largely shit and come back to rot in Shield cricket with their actions and techniques destroyed. (All those wonderful NSW youngsters you're touting that "enhanced" the Australian cricket side "enhanced" us all the way from no.1 to no.5 in the Test rankings -- I don't see what's so successful about their selection policy. They won shit at home and performed shit at Test level. Great selection policy that.)

It's when we (the Vics) keep winning stuff and the one or two younger or middle aged guns we have in our side don't even get a look in a la Wade, despite scoring a billion runs, whereas if he happened to be 16, blonde and lived in Sydney he would have been picked last year before he made a run. What the hell did Steve Smith do or have done to ever justify the caps he earnt other than prove what a shmozzle our selection policy had become? It was an absolute disgrace to the baggy green and insulting to every performing batsman in the country and far far more accomplished players who never got the same opportunities.

Also, we keep justifying keeping players who haven't performed, yet refuse to play players who are performing. The selectors go out of their way to justify strange selections, yet even in the shorter forms of the game we had the ridiculous situation of White being the 20/20 captain and yet not even considered for the 50-over game, and just flat out refusing to pick Hodgey for 20/20 despite being THE best 20/20 batsman in the world for half a decade. If that's not bias I don't know what is -- some can pretend it doesn't exist, but don't insult the rest of us.

ps. In case you haven't looked at the Test rankings recently, we ARE largely on par with NZ cricket. The selection policy of the last 5 years (and, according to your theory, the selection policy of the Test team's de facto assembly line in the NSW shield side), have clearly worked a treat. You seem to keep forgetting that Australia is no longer a cricket powerhouse that can afford to look down our noses at other teams. WE are now a lower ranked Test team, and anyone defending the selection policies of the last few years is defending the indefensible.

You're making out like this NSW push to play young players in the view to them becoming test players started 3 years ago. Players like Slayer, Taylor, S Waugh, McGrath, Lee, and Clarke were handled the same way over the past 20 years and were a primary reason we got to number one. The reason we've dropped to number 5 in the rankings is due to the selectors refusing to stagger the retirements of veterans, and the general lack of talented players coming through. States like Victoria stacking their teams full of solid state cricketing veterans to win domestic titles rather than trying young potential Test players has only exacerbated the problem.

Have a look at Evan Gulbis, a young batsman with some potential moved to Tasmania this year because he was tired of rotting away on the fringes of state cricket behind the likes of Rogers, Hussey, Quiney, and McDonald, none of whom will ever player another test match.

[Greystache]

Re: 8 Emerging Players

Well there you go you just admitted the selections made are wrong with one name J.Siddons
And that is my point this cricket team over the last few years has been picked on freindships, past history and some sort of urge to pick people out of the blue than people performing.
Beer is an example of that, freind of mine opens the batting for a district club , smashed him everywhere thinks he is useless, the kid went to WA because he couldnt get a game , was playing second grade cricket and got picked to play for Australia!

That's all you took from my response? One player from SA who had a serious illness and couldn't get a game in the strongest era of Australian cricket as proof the selectors are biased against Victoria. You've completely lost me.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: 8 Emerging Players

Have a look at Evan Gulbis, a young batsman with some potential moved to Tasmania this year because he was tired of rotting away on the fringes of state cricket behind the likes of Rogers, Hussey, Quiney, and McDonald, none of whom will ever player another test match.

Evan Gulbis' 1st class record looks like the front badge of an Audi

0000


Batted 4 times and is yet to make a single run!

[LostDoggy]

Re: 8 Emerging Players

You're making out like this NSW push to play young players in the view to them becoming test players started 3 years ago. Players like Slayer, Taylor, S Waugh, McGrath, Lee, and Clarke were handled the same way over the past 20 years and were a primary reason we got to number one. The reason we've dropped to number 5 in the rankings is due to the selectors refusing to stagger the retirements of veterans, and the general lack of talented players coming through. States like Victoria stacking their teams full of solid state cricketing veterans to win domestic titles rather than trying young potential Test players has only exacerbated the problem.

So now we're going back 20 years to justify NSW's selection policy over Victoria's (even though I'm pretty sure the criticism of the Vics selection policy only stretches back the past 8 years or so?)

Also, I am almost 100% certain that an Australian Test team stuffed full of 'solid state level veterans' would have been more consistent than the nonsensical team of the last few years and certainly not dropped to the no.5 ranking. That's the definition of a state level competition: it's a feeder for the Test team, so top performers should be picked (with very few exceptions), not just some on some rubbish 'potential' tag. We all know that with AFL drafting less than 20% of the players picked on 'potential' make it, the Australian Test team shouldn't be an incubation pod or de facto 'drafting' exercise for 'potential' where over 80% of the selections tank. It should be a reward for PERFORMANCE, where your best-performed domestic players go and prove that they can beat the best domestic players of other countries. The 'best young players' can develop where young players develop best -- in state cricket.

It seems that a lot of people suffer from the same delusion that the former selectors did, that 'young players' would be good if only they were given a chance. The best young players demand that chance with performances, not astrological horoscopic predictions about their ability (and if anyone uses Warnie as an example I'll spew -- he's the exception that proves the rule). If a young player is good enough, he'll get picked, fullstop, and if he isn't, then it's not because of some mystical 'Victorian selection policy' blocking him, it's because he's a little bit shite (as is generally proven when they actually get their chance at some point).

ps. General 'lack of talent coming through'? How would we know? We only ever got to see old blokes past their use-by-date and raw-as-hell kids play Tests these past few years, so we have no idea if some of our best performing batsmen would ever have made good national players since they never got picked. And are we seriously saying that our Shield competition is worse than half the other Test nations'?

[Greystache]

Re: 8 Emerging Players

I can't follow your logic, who's needing to go back 20 years to justify anything?

The section method has been the same for the past 20 years, nothing has changed in the past 5 years that's suddenly caused us to drop from first to fifth other than the players being brought in haven't performed immediately, and that we've had to bring in too many inexperienced players all at the same time because veterans won't retire anymore due the the explosion in cricketing salaries in recent years. If you want the names to continue to roll from outside NSW, Ponting, Warne, Gillespie, Watson, Siddle, Johnson, all had done little to earn a test call up, but all had been identified very young that they had the talent.

Do you honestly think test players are unknown quantities who graft their way into state cricket, then over the years hone their skills to one day improve enough to develop into a test level cricketer?

If you do I can tell you that's a million miles from how it works. Every test player has been monitored through the system since they were about 14 years old, the talent is there intrinsically, with the exception of some fast bowlers who take until their later teens to step out from the rest. No one who's 16 and not already a gun will every be a test regular, players don't suddenly get to 24 and come from nowhere. The good solid state performers are blokes at their peak years who are just good enough to have solid seasons, none of these older players are actually belting the door down, and in a couple of seasons will be on the downward slope again.

When I was in the national under 17 system, before the national carnival the powers that be had already developed the belief that only one player had the ability to be a gun test match player, that was Shane Watson. Sure enough he dominated the carnival, was made Australian U19 captain and 2 years later was in Queensland's shield team. The only other player they thought was a chance but probably unlikey was a young Victorian batsman named Michael Klinger. The rest were already perceived as at best "good solid shield" players.

Everyone was given equal treatment, but as 10-15 years later that's exactly how it turned out.

[LostDoggy]

Re: 8 Emerging Players

I can't follow your logic, who's needing to go back 20 years to justify anything?

The section method has been the same for the past 20 years, nothing has changed in the past 5 years that's suddenly caused us to drop from first to fifth other than the players being brought in haven't performed immediately, and that we've had to bring in too many inexperienced players all at the same time because veterans won't retire anymore due the the explosion in cricketing salaries in recent years. If you want the names to continue to roll from outside NSW, Ponting, Warne, Gillespie, Watson, Siddle, Johnson, all had done little to earn a test call up, but all had been identified very young that they had the talent.

Do you honestly think test players are unknown quantities who graft their way into state cricket, then over the years hone their skills to one day improve enough to develop into a test level cricketer?

If you do I can tell you that's a million miles from how it works. Every test player has been monitored through the system since they were about 14 years old, the talent is there intrinsically, with the exception of some fast bowlers who take until their later teens to step out from the rest. No one who's 16 and not already a gun will every be a test regular, players don't suddenly get to 24 and come from nowhere. The good solid state performers are blokes at their peak years who are just good enough to have solid seasons, none of these older players are actually belting the door down, and in a couple of seasons will be on the downward slope again.

When I was in the national under 17 system, before the national carnival the powers that be had already developed the belief that only one player had the ability to be a gun test match player, that was Shane Watson. Sure enough he dominated the carnival, was made Australian U19 captain and 2 years later was in Queensland's shield team. The only other player they thought was a chance but probably unlikey was a young Victorian batsman named Michael Klinger. The rest were already perceived as at best "good solid shield" players.

Everyone was given equal treatment, but as 10-15 years later that's exactly how it turned out.

Yep, everything you said is true.

Thus, the Don Argus report.

Everyone is acknowledging that 'the way it works/worked' (that you seem to think is somehow gold standard) is essentially shite (or may have been great once but turned to crap because we don't have Warney tying up one end and taking wickets). I don't know why anyone is still trying to defend 'the way it works'. I'm glad at least Don Argus doesn't think it's just because talent magically dried up, but that there's a deeper systemic flaw to the way you seem to think selection is supposed to work in the 21st century.

ps. my comment about 20 years ago was in response to your examples of Waugh et al.

pps. Johnson. Perfect poster boy for why the previous selection policy was shithouse. It's probably always been shithouse but we had two of the greatest bowlers of all time and the best ever wicket-keeper batsman saving our arses time and time again so we didn't know how nonsensical pigeon-holing players in their teens as 'future test stars' or 'solid state cricketers' (and worse, being unable to actually acknowledge real-time evidence to the contrary once their collective minds were made up) was.

[LostDoggy]

Re: 8 Emerging Players

When I was in the national under 17 system, before the national carnival the powers that be had already developed the belief that only one player had the ability to be a gun test match player, that was Shane Watson. Sure enough he dominated the carnival, was made Australian U19 captain and 2 years later was in Queensland's shield team. The only other player they thought was a chance but probably unlikey was a young Victorian batsman named Michael Klinger. The rest were already perceived as at best "good solid shield" players.

Everyone was given equal treatment, but as 10-15 years later that's exactly how it turned out.

ppps. You probably don't even realise that what you described is precisely the problem. The same 'process' decided who was already going to be stars, gave them the opportunity, then claims credit for those that succeeded. The very same process also identified a whole bunch of 'future stars' that turned out to be duds, but hey let's pretend they didn't exist so we can pretend that the process is still perfect.

Conversely, the process already decided who was not going to be good enough long in advance, so despite knocking the door down at Shield level they never get picked, then the same process says "look, they never got picked, so by definition they are ONLY solid shield players and not Test cricketers so clearly we were right all along".

Am I the only one who sees the ludicrous flaw in this self-fulfilling prophecy logic?

--

Then the same people complain that no one who isn't identified as a gun at 16 wants to play cricket and there's a dearth of up-and-coming talent because they're all going to play football.

(Finally, your point about Shane Watson is precisely my point too -- he picked himself through his performances and was already a good young Shield player, he wasn't plucked out of some 3rd grade side without a run or wicket to his name simply because he was young.)

[Greystache]

Re: 8 Emerging Players

ppps. You probably don't even realise that what you described is precisely the problem. The same 'process' decided who was already going to be stars, gave them the opportunity, then claims credit for those that succeeded. The very same process also identified a whole bunch of 'future stars' that turned out to be duds, but hey let's pretend they didn't exist so we can pretend that the process is still perfect.

Conversely, the process already decided who was not going to be good enough long in advance, so despite knocking the door down at Shield level they never get picked, then the same process says "look, they never got picked, so by definition they are ONLY solid shield players and not Test cricketers so clearly we were right all along".

Am I the only one who sees the ludicrous flaw in this self-fulfilling prophecy logic?

--

Then the same people complain that no one who isn't identified as a gun at 16 wants to play cricket and there's a dearth of up-and-coming talent because they're all going to play football.

The process you're suggesting of picking the most in form state league players at any one time regardless of previous ability demonstrated is exactly what England did from the 80's until early 2000ish, when Rod Marsh came in and changed the method. It's a great way to ensure we get to 5th and stay there long term, we could have a never ending run of players like Crawley, Ramprakash, Butcher, Irani, Knight, Fairbrother etc, average state players that have a good season or two in their otherwise unexceptional careers and are rewarded with higher honours. It was only when they started picking players like Cook, Broad, Pietersen etc young and persisted with them that they could finally get a core group of players that were good enough and would stay together long enough to form a top team.

We could have a test batting line up of Quiney, Mail, Birt or whoever else made runs that summer, but God i hope we don't. You think we have collapses now, it would be just as bad except when we didn't collapse we'd still only make 250.

[BulldogBelle]

Re: 8 Emerging Players

Just on the young local boy James Muirhead, he made his debut in the futures league against the Queenslanders and returned figures of 5.1 overs, 5 maidens 1/0, picking up the scalp of Luke Feldman. Keep in mind this is a kid doing his year 12 exams, playing in a game featuring the likes of Alex Keath, Chris Lynn and Chris Swann

Muirhead just been signed by Adelaide Strikers for t20 BBL. Great effort!!

[LostDoggy]

Re: 8 Emerging Players

The process you're suggesting of picking the most in form state league players at any one time regardless of previous ability demonstrated is exactly what England did from the 80's until early 2000ish, when Rod Marsh came in and changed the method. It's a great way to ensure we get to 5th and stay there long term, we could have a never ending run of players like Crawley, Ramprakash, Butcher, Irani, Knight, Fairbrother etc, average state players that have a good season or two in their otherwise unexceptional careers and are rewarded with higher honours. It was only when they started picking players like Cook, Broad, Pietersen etc young and persisted with them that they could finally get a core group of players that were good enough and would stay together long enough to form a top team.

We could have a test batting line up of Quiney, Mail, Birt or whoever else made runs that summer, but God i hope we don't. You think we have collapses now, it would be just as bad except when we didn't collapse we'd still only make 250.

Hi, been away so have just seen this reply.

A couple of points:
- I have no problems with kids who have performed somewhat getting chances. Watson, as I've said before, at least had some form in Shield cricket. It's no point throwing a kid with no experience whatsoever into the test arena. It would be the AFL equivalent of picking a team of first round draft picks with no experience to play against experienced teams. An example actually exists -- Gold Coast. GWS will also be battered from pillar to post this year.

Secondly, the evidence of the last five years suggests that picking Shield players on sustained form (more on this below) is a better gauge of Test quality than picking on potential regardless of Shield performances. Using the former yardstick we picked players like Katich, Hussey, Hodge and Stuart Clark (some of our best Test level performers). Using the potential yardstick we picked players like Smith, Beer and Hughes (some of our worst). Going back another couple of years, players picked (or reinstated to the Test side after being dropped) on Shield form included guys like Lehmann, Langer, Hayden, and even Ponting. Guys who got a free ride regardless of Shield performance were the likes of Symonds, who would predictably fail in the Test arena (if you're not scoring runs against Tasmania you're not going to score runs against India).

It's a great way to ensure we get to 5th and stay there long term ... We could have a test batting line up of Quiney, Mail, Birt or whoever else made runs that summer, but God i hope we don't. You think we have collapses now, it would be just as bad except when we didn't collapse we'd still only make 250.

The thing about these statements are, once again, the insistence of arguing against reality, which so many defenders of the Test selection process seem to be doing. Your hypothetical about Shield players collapsing is just that, a hypothetical, but the failure of the Test team as has been selected over the last 5 years isn't hypothetical, it's real: we ALREADY ARE 5th, and have been for over a year, so the method you're defending HAS ALREADY PROVED TO BE a great way to ensure we get to 5th and stay there long term. We also just lost a test to the 8th ranked team. Anyone still defending the previous selection process is clutching at straws, and we really need to get away from the idea that we're still a great Test nation just in a slump. The first step to fixing the problem is admitting that one exists.

ps. I never said just pick form players based on one season of Shield form (although it seems at Test level Mitchell Johnson has been picked for the past three years based on a couple of innings), but sustained form over several summers should be looked at seriously... there is such a thing as blooming late (just as there is such a thing as peaking early), which is why predicting future performance based on potential is such a fraught science. In AFL the success rate of drafting a competent player from kids is less than 15%, in the NFL less than 25%.. why would cricket selectors assume themselves to be any better at plucking out future stars? Can you imagine India dropping Sehwag or Dravid or because they were just boring, solid Test performers, for 'the next hot young thing' with no track record, as we did with Katich? For every Shane Watson I can give you a hundred kids who were absolute monties to be 'the next star' who have disappeared, never to be seen again. The Australian Test squad shouldn't be hostage odds so low as to be indistinguishable from gambling.

[ledge]

Re: 8 Emerging Players

The process you're suggesting of picking the most in form state league players at any one time regardless of previous ability demonstrated is exactly what England did from the 80's until early 2000ish, when Rod Marsh came in and changed the method. It's a great way to ensure we get to 5th and stay there long term, we could have a never ending run of players like Crawley, Ramprakash, Butcher, Irani, Knight, Fairbrother etc, average state players that have a good season or two in their otherwise unexceptional careers and are rewarded with higher honours. It was only when they started picking players like Cook, Broad, Pietersen etc young and persisted with them that they could finally get a core group of players that were good enough and would stay together long enough to form a top team.

We could have a test batting line up of Quiney, Mail, Birt or whoever else made runs that summer, but God i hope we don't. You think we have collapses now, it would be just as bad except when we didn't collapse we'd still only make 250.

Englands problem is they go straight from club cricket to Test cricket, they will make a few errors its a huge step. but in Australia there is another step up in shield cricket, so a lot of players are found out but unfortunately at the moment we pick players on one or two games, not solid performers.

[lemmon]

Re: 8 Emerging Players

Englands problem is they go straight from club cricket to Test cricket, they will make a few errors its a huge step. but in Australia there is another step up in shield cricket, so a lot of players are found out but unfortunately at the moment we pick players on one or two games, not solid performers.

Thats taking a lot away from the county competition, second division is fair way behind but I would have the two primary competitions in the Shield and First Division as on just about par as far as standards go