Should Australia select more youngsters??

[Perm]

No, the top allrounders would make it in on the basis of one of their suits.

Chris Cairns? If he couldn't bat, he wouldn't have made the team as a specialist bowler. His batting wasn't good enough to demand a place as a specialist batsman either. He's an example of a 'pure' all-rounder, somebody who is equally good in both disciplines. Watson isn't like this, he's a more of a batting all-rounder.

Unless you can make it into a side on the basis of 1 of your skills then you weaken a team and you cannot be a world-class AR. As I mentioned before, its something the top guys like Pollock, Kallis and Flintoff have done.

Who is to say Watson can't make the team as a specialist batsman? I think he potentially could, if he sorted his injuries and had a good season of domestic cricket under his belt.

What you describe is a downgrade at the number 6 position (ie there is someone better but not selected) which weakens the batting and a weak bowler that takes overs away from the top 4 guys. I cant think any team would be anything other than relieved if they saw Watsons name on a teamsheet as it gives a chink in the armour at #6 and takes 20 overs a game away from the more threatening bowlers.

The selection of an all-rounder is as much about team balance as anything else, and the situation within a team that could require the selection of Watson. Australia are going through a transition period, with a couple of already wayward bowlers in MacGill and Lee, as well as potentiall Shaun Tait (although it's likely to be Mitchell Johnson, still largely unproven) and they could do with the steadying influence of Watson to send down his 20 overs a game and conceed 30-40 runs, even if he doesn't take a wicket. Also, it's debateable in this situation if he will be weakening the top 6.

If a guy is to bowl some 'fill in' overs then it must be a player that is a specialist batsman (ie selected for that role) that can help out.

Michael Clarke could potentially fill this role, as could Michael Hussey, but Australia don't want that. They want 20 overs of steady bowling per game, some days he could take a bagful and others he won't take any, but he will always be a tricky prospect, where-as the part-timers like Clarke and Hussey will leak runs and ease the pressure.

If you want 5 bowlers then you must play 5 bowlers. Its a game you cant easily cheat. The inclusion of a Watson weakens both the batting and the bowling for a team like Australia.

Balance, by picking 5 bowlers they would have a very long tail, especially as Brett Lee is their best bowler who can bat. With an unproven opener and an inexperienced middle-order you are asking for trouble.

A team like NZ has always used players like Watson, but that is due to lack of depth and the need to fill holes. Australia with its depth and specialist talent doesnt have to try and do such things as it only downgrades both units.

Australia do have specialist depth and talent, I agree, but the selectors are looking for a class all-rounder to help improve the side, improvements and strengths I have informed you of, and in Watson they have a potential class all-rounder.

 

[Perm]

- Grant Lambert keep Moses out of the NSW side
- Greg Mail kept Ed Cowan out of the NSW side for two seasons

These guys do nothing to help the next generation, they are just crap players wanting their time in the sun.

I was talking about guys like Darren Lehmann, Michael Bevan etc, and I beleive vic_orthdox was aswell. Grant Lambert and Greg Mail are unlikely to earn $80,000-100,000 a year are they? I don't like having those guys in the Pura Cup ranks, but Bevan and Lehmann certainly do help develop the next generation.

Also, in the case of Lambert keeping Henriques out of the NSW side, that is probably a good thing.

 

[four_or_six]

Jammy bastard.

I would imagine, given the current situation, he wouldn't agree with you.

 

[chaminda_00]

There's a big difference between guys like them and the Blewetts, Elliotts, Bevans, Angels, Wilsons et al. If someone's performing crap, he should be dropped. If someone keeps someone not performing in the side ahead of someone with potential, that's just poor selection, simple as.

The thing is there is more Mails and Lamberts running around in the Pura Cup, who perform well enough to keep their spot. But will never play for Australia. Pura Cup has always been about performance over blooding youngsters. Most state sides don't blood youngsters until they have to.

Thats one of the reason why people thing Johnson, Watson, Hilf, Voges, Jaques etc are in their early 20s when they are in their mid 20s. Cus none of them have played much FC cricket cus they were held back by mediocre mature players.

 

[Perm]

Argh, comments like that really annoy me. I find it so unlikely that Watson was doing that, I thought he was told he had to do more weight work after his back injuries. Also, Kontouris has been quoted saying that Watson has a specific body type that means he puts on a lot of bulk when he does weights compared to others.

Just because he has the attitude to "make the most of what you've got" (as he put it so nicely in an interview I saw when he was asked about his undoing the top couple of buttons on his shirt) doesn't mean he has been doing weights to look good rather than help his cricket.

That was the story that was going around though, and it could well be the case. We know Watson is a buff-lad, but he seems very top heavy and his upper body is developed quite heavily, compared to his legs, which take a hammering when he's bowling with a heavy upper body.

 

[Richard]

I would imagine, given the current situation, he wouldn't agree with you.

Would still rather be in his situation than mine, TBH, and if he wouldn't he's an ungreatful bugger.

 

[Perm]

Thats one of the reason why people thing Johnson, Watson, Hilf, Voges, Jaques etc are in their early 20s when they are in their mid 20s. Cus none of them have played much FC cricket cus they were held back by mediocre mature players.

It could be a good thing ya'know? These players having to fight for their spot for NSW, Queensland or whoever and they will mature more by doing so. That's one of the reasons Australia have been so dominant for the last 15 years, they've had the domestic structure to build that success. You don't want your domestic competition full of promising 18 and 19 year olds, very few of whom will be ready for international cricket in their early twenties.

 

[chaminda_00]

It could be a good thing ya'know? These players having to fight for their spot for NSW, Queensland or whoever and they will mature more by doing so. That's one of the reasons Australia have been so dominant for the last 15 years, they've had the domestic structure to build that success. You don't want your domestic competition full of promising 18 and 19 year olds, very few of whom will be ready for international cricket in their early twenties.

As mentioned before Australia's success in the past has been on the back of blooding young 20yo, not mid 20 year olds. Its only been the recent players such as Hussey, Lehmann, Clark. But all the guys before where blooded when they were 20-23. People forgot that majority of the golden generation where blooded when they were in their early 20s except Gilchirst. If players only are making their FC debuts at 24, that type generation may not come through again.

 

[Goughy]

So with this issue of being unable to play FC cricket at a young age in Australia, do we think that Australia becoming a Kolpak nation will see a trickle/flood of players to the UK?

 

[Richard]

You really do have to hope not TBH. It's bad enough the possible jeapardy South African cricket has been thrown into by the thing. While nicking a load of good Australian prospects might seem tempting to the unwary, it's far more important that England vs Australia remains a good match-up than anything else.

I've said it before: the EU seriously need to look at this issue, because if they don't recognise soon that sport is incomparable to other forms of employment they're going to cause serious damage to all sorts of sporting ecosystems all over The World, and cricket worse than most.

 

[chaminda_00]

So with this issue of being unable to play FC cricket at a young age in Australia, do we think that Australia becoming a Kolpak nation will see a trickle/flood of players to the UK?

As I said before most players will do a Jaques, establish themselves and then come back to Australia and try and push for BaggyGreen. I don't think you will see many players choice England over Australia, unless they are not good enough to get a State spot.

 

[Matt79]

Do you reckon a requirement for a minimum number (say 2) of under 23s or 25s in each FC team would be an answer, or would that be too big a compromise of what FC cricket is meant to be?

 

[Richard]

Beyond a doubt, I think. I think it'd be tokenism in the extreme. What would a player feel like if he was completely out of his depth and knew he was only there due to his age?

The only true way to pick sport teams is, at least on the pretence of, pure merit.

 

[howardj]

Do you reckon a requirement for a minimum number (say 2) of under 23s or 25s in each FC team would be an answer, or would that be too big a compromise of what FC cricket is meant to be?

I'd like to see at least three under 25 players, without it being compulsory. As I say, I'm not advocating a quasi under age competition. It has to be a question of balance. However, a key way to develop young players is to give them exposure.

The same exposure Ponting, Martyn, Slater, Hayden, SWaugh, McGrath, Warne, Gillespie etc got at a young age. Yes, those guys had talent. But is anyone saying early exposure to FC and Test cricket harmed their games?

 

[Matt79]

Beyond a doubt, I think. I think it'd be tokenism in the extreme. What would a player feel like if he was completely out of his depth and knew he was only there due to his age?

The only true way to pick sport teams is, at least on the pretence of, pure merit.

Well even it was one under 23 player per team, there are certainly plenty of good kids out there, so to be the one selected to play in the big league would mean more than just tokenism - you'd at least know that you beat out all the other guys in that age bracket for the slot.

I don't think its anywhere near perfect, but I do think we need to start getting more younger guys into FC cricket.

 

[Matt79]

The alternative, rather than interfere with FC cricket, is to put in age quotas in the domestic OD comps, with a view to young players getting to compete against better players (ie the best in the age groups from other whole states, rather than district clubs, and the 'veterans') as well as a platform to get themselves known to state and even national selectors.

 

[brockley]

Moises will get his chances in first class cricket,would like him to be chosen in the A team on his potential.Hopes is too old for the team and butterworth is not a good one day player.
On greg mail good to have him in the squad an experienced campaigner who can still get runs potentially,cooper,hughes and khawajah are a little young.
Happy with lambert he averaged 40 last year,and very useful with the ball,i'd say other states would be jealous of his stats.

 

[vic_orthdox]

There are age quotas now for the Second XI competition. I think it's something like half of the side has to be 24 and under (they play 12 in Cricket Australia Cup). That's as far as those measures need to go, IMO.

 

[Richard]

So if it's 12-a-side, and there's quotas on this and that, it's fair to say Second XI cricket isn't a terribly serious business?

 

[NUFAN]

I do find this interesting, because some states are doing a better job at bringing in younger players.

QLD for instance are not, having good players like Perren, Maher, Love, Bichel, Kaspa taking up spots at the moment.

If you work out who the 11 best players are from each state, how many of those 66 players have the chance of playing for Australia? I think the number is currently a bit low.