What should Australia do now?

[Richard]

I think the South African selectors did this very well, guys like Amla, Smith, Duminy, Steyn, Prince, Morkel, De Villiers, are very good players and are the core of a very successful side now and that's because their selectors showed faith in them and developed the side around them, in Australia' case Andrew Hilditch comes out after the loss at Melbourne and says chopping and changing isn't going to help and we don't believe in it, when the truth is Australia haven't picked the same XI for as many as the last 15 tests now, so obviously they have failed to implement what they are saying.

Much of that is due to injury and ill-discipline though.

If no injuries had happened and form had gone as it has, you'd imagine there'd have been 9 names who'd played every single Australia Test for the last 14 months, and 1 other which experienced just the single name change:
Jaques
Hayden
Ponting
M Hussey
Clarke
Symonds
Gilchrist - Haddin
B Lee
Johnson
Clark
-----
The only position which would've changed hands would be the fourth bowler's slot - MacGill, Hogg, Tait, Casson, White, Watson, Krejza, Hauritz - they've all had dibs on it. MacGill and Hogg were only ever short-term options; Tait has taken himself out of the equation; and while Casson, White, Krejza and Hauritz are none remotely likely to be long-term options so therefore could all be argued to be bad selections, the clamour for a Bracken (the likeliest player to fill the void with some solidity) hasn't exactly been deafening.

And unfortunately, problems with unavailability have come when Australia can least afford them. Hayden got injured in 2008, that meant first Rogers then Katich came in (then Jaques was dropped after Hayden returned, which is entirely selectorial error). Clarke missed 1 Test due to family bereavements and was replaced by Hodge. Then Symonds had his brainfade and Watson came in. Then Clark's elbow got worse and Siddle replaced him. Now Brett Lee and Symonds (and Symonds' first-up choice as replacement, Watson) get injured and it's Bollinger and McDonald.

The more disappointing thing is that Aussie selectors knew all along that most Aussie players who have retired recently all fall in the same age-group, so they were bound to know it, that they may all retire in pretty close span of time, and therefore they should have had their prospective replacements ready to come in and replace their predecessors, but there too there has been a clear lack of planning which is clearly evident now.

As I've said so many times, though, you can't make bad players into good ones by planning. If a player isn't ready or isn't good enough, there's not a lot you can do about it. Had there not been so many players falling unfit of late, the problems would not be so acute now as they are.

 

[NUFAN]

The more disappointing thing is that Aussie selectors knew all along that most Aussie players who have retired recently all fall in the same age-group, so they were bound to know it, that they may all retire in pretty close span of time, and therefore they should have had their prospective replacements ready to come in and replace their predecessors, but there too there has been a clear lack of planning which is clearly evident now.

Young Australian talented Cricketers don't grow on trees though.

The amount of planning doesn't help that some of the players ear-marked for higher honours have struggled such as Mark Cosgrove, Dan Cullen, Luke Pomersbach, Shaun Tait etc.

The four names mentioned have all won Allan Border Young Cricketers of the Year and haven't kicked on in the First Class arena [4 day matches] yet.

 

[honestbharani]

Say what you like about Ian Chappell, but for an old dude, he knows his stuff. As he argues here, Australia need to go for youth, and needs to put more of an emphasis in its system, on young players. Just look back to the start of the golden era that just ended. Guys like Ponting, Slater, Martyn, Hayden McGrath, Gillespie Warne, Langer etc were all exposed to international cricket at a young age, and a few of those guys were plucked from relative obscurity. That is how you build a great team, and help develop a young player - expose them early. And just when this boofhead selection panel gets a chance to do just that (with Phil Hughes for Matt Hayden in a dead Test), what do they do? They cling to the past. Exposing young players early helps their development, it doesn't hinder it.

ROTFL... This is incredibly funny.. So many of us in India believe that the Australian policy of picking players who have done their time in FC cricket is the best way to go and here we have an Aussie fan saying perhaps the subcontinental style is the way to go..

 

[Richard]

Grass is always greener and all that.

Over here we've long tended to have a hopeless muddy water of the two, with the louder (not neccessarily greater in number, just more insistent) voices being those favouring the ridiculous bring-'em-in-as-teenagers\early-20s-ers style.

 

[pup11]

Young Australian talented Cricketers don't grow on trees though.

The amount of planning doesn't help that some of the players ear-marked for higher honours have struggled such as Mark Cosgrove, Dan Cullen, Luke Pomersbach, Shaun Tait etc.

The four names mentioned have all won Allan Border Young Cricketers of the Year and haven't kicked on in the First Class arena [4 day matches] yet.

Nope i understand that, and not for a moment am i saying that selectors could have developed the next McGrath or Warne with planning, all i am saying is that they should have made up their minds on who they would like to see replacing them on a long term basis.

My point is they should develop some sort of consistentcy when picking players, almost every spinner who is playing at the FC level in Australia atm has played a test, now what are they trying to do there, find the next Warne by giving every spinner a chance at the international level, the same can be said in reagrd to every half-decent fast bowler playing at the FC level in Australia atm, and this sort of thing is far from ideal.

 

[pup11]

Grass is always greener and all that.

Over here we've long tended to have a hopeless muddy water of the two, with the louder (not neccessarily greater in number, just more insistent) voices being those favouring the ridiculous bring-'em-in-as-teenagers\early-20s-ers style.

I mean its ridiculous to suggest that pick a younger player over a slightly older and more talented player, just because he is likely to give you more years of international cricket to squeeze out of him, but what's the problem with picking a bloke like Hilfenhaus or Hughes, who are not only young but also have the stats to back their selections.

 

[Richard]

Hilfenhaus over Bollinger has some merit, but Hughes is in his second season. It'd be plain madness to pick him now. He's had a whole 2 (very rain-affected) games for Australia A. With Rogers available, there's virtually no case to play Hughes now, IMO. He can wait; him waiting will do no plausible harm and could plausibly do some good.

 

[Chimpdaddy]

I mean it ridiculous to suggest that pick a younger player over a slightly older and more talented player, just because he is likely to give you more years of international cricket to squeeze out of him, but what's the problem with picking a bloke like Hilfenhaus or Hughes, who are not only young but also have the stats to back their selections.

This, I agree wih. Talent comes before age. Players who have proven themselves should be getting the oppotunities. That said, there are some talented and young players there. We should stick with Bollinger and Hilfenhaus. And bring in other young guns like Hughes. We need a mix of experience, with some fresh vitality injected into the side. A nice combination as seen in the Indian team.

-Chimpdaddy-

 

[pup11]

Hilfenhaus over Bollinger has some merit, but Hughes is in his second season. It'd be plain madness to pick him now. He's had a whole 2 (very rain-affected) games for Australia A. With Rogers available, there's virtually no case to play Hughes now, IMO. He can wait; him waiting will do no plausible harm and could plausibly do some good.

Well somebody like Clarke was picked ahead of the likes of Hussey brothers, Marcus North, Brad Hodge, despite all these blokes piling on far more runs than Clarke did at the domestic level, Clarke had his highs and lows in the first phase of his international career and now he looks to be settling into the mould of good mature batsman, who still has a lot of good years of cricket left in him to provide to his country, same can be said about Mitchell Johnson, and the same could hold true for Siddle in coming one or two years.

I think when you are looking at building a strong team which you wish would remain strong for a good period of time, then finding good young talent is paramount, there should be good mix of youth and experience in a strong side imo, and if the selectors see something special in a young bloke, then they should give him international exposure.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Hilfenhaus over Bollinger has some merit, but Hughes is in his second season. It'd be plain madness to pick him now. He's had a whole 2 (very rain-affected) games for Australia A. With Rogers available, there's virtually no case to play Hughes now, IMO. He can wait; him waiting will do no plausible harm and could plausibly do some good.

Australia would certainly be better off if they'd never picked Michael Clarke, right? Or Ricky Ponting?

Sometimes it's a good idea to pick a player with immense talent who could give you a stellar 15 year career rather than just going for domestic veterans on the tail end of their peak. Of course, picking every talented kid you see regardless of results and ignoring someone like Michael Hussey is stupid too, but there's a reason why most of the best and most successful test players make relatively young debuts.

Time in the international game improves a player, and talent is often evident before it turns into consistent results. Being a selector is an art that requires mixing the two approaches to finding good players, not mindlessly selecting based on stats.

Personally I wouldn't pick Hughes right now but if the spot becomes available next season and he's still scoring heavily, I definitely would. It's going to be far better for the team in the long run to pick up a prolific 21-22 year old than someone in their early 30s. Keeping in mind that Hughes is actually among the best performing batsmen in the country anyway. The idea that you should not pick someone because they're young even though they're making runs is totally arse-backwards. The fact that he's young is in his favour, and in the team's favour.

 

[pup11]

Australia would certainly be better off if they'd never picked Michael Clarke, right? Or Ricky Ponting?

Sometimes it's a good idea to pick a player with immense talent who could give you a stellar 15 year career rather than just going for domestic veterans on the tail end of their peak. Of course, picking every talented kid you see regardless of results and ignoring someone like Michael Hussey is stupid too, but there's a reason why most of the best and most successful test players make relatively young debuts.

Time in the international game improves a player, and talent is often evident before it turns into consistent results. Being a selector is an art that requires mixing the two approaches to finding good players, not mindlessly selecting based on stats.

Personally I wouldn't pick Hughes right now but if the spot becomes available next season and he's still scoring heavily, I definitely would. It's going to be far better for the team in the long run to pick up a prolific 21-22 year old than someone in their early 30s. Keeping in mind that Hughes is actually among the best performing batsmen in the country anyway. The idea that you should not pick someone because they're young even though they're making runs is totally arse-backwards. The fact that he's young is in his favour, and in the team's favour.

FAWTA...

 

[Richard]

Australia would certainly be better off if they'd never picked Michael Clarke, right? Or Ricky Ponting?

Sometimes it's a good idea to pick a player with immense talent who could give you a stellar 15 year career rather than just going for domestic veterans on the tail end of their peak. Of course, picking every talented kid you see regardless of results and ignoring someone like Michael Hussey is stupid too, but there's a reason why most of the best and most successful test players make relatively young debuts.

Time in the international game improves a player, and talent is often evident before it turns into consistent results. Being a selector is an art that requires mixing the two approaches to finding good players, not mindlessly selecting based on stats.

Personally I wouldn't pick Hughes right now but if the spot becomes available next season and he's still scoring heavily, I definitely would. It's going to be far better for the team in the long run to pick up a prolific 21-22 year old than someone in their early 30s. Keeping in mind that Hughes is actually among the best performing batsmen in the country anyway. The idea that you should not pick someone because they're young even though they're making runs is totally arse-backwards. The fact that he's young is in his favour, and in the team's favour.

Next year picking Hughes would be fair enough.

Obviously Australia wouldn't have been better if they'd never picked Clarke or Ponting, and it's pretty ridiculously obvious that such a thing would never, ever have happened. However, I do indeed think that both players, as well as Team Australia, would've done better had Clarke been ignored for Tests until 2006/07 and Ponting been either left at six or not picked until 1999/2000. Of course, both had their ups in the times in which they played before this but they had their downs and both were dropped at least twice. Australia would've been better with a better player in their place and both batsmen would be regarded more highly as their career averages would be higher. In the time the batsmen spent not in the international game, they'd have been accumulating stacks of runs at the domestic level and eventually they'd have an obvious case for selection. If Ponting and Clarke had been left at the domestic level they'd not have just been wasting away, they'd have been cashing-in, big-time.

Time in the international game doesn't improve a player really - what improves a player is practising and reviewing his game. You don't neccessarily have to have a bowler find a fault to eradicate it - those closest to Sachin Tendulkar have always said that he was fantastic at spotting - realising - a flaw in his game before pretty well anyone else, and this is why he was pretty well never worked-out.

There's really no reason whatsoever why a 15-year career where the first 3 years are pretty moderate is better than a 12-year career where the player takes like a duck to water to the international game. In fact it's worse in my book, for both player and team. Clarke was patently picked before he was ready, and it showed; Ponting I didn't really watch all that much until 2001 by which time he was already an established high-class batsman so I'm less sure about him but the fact that no-one ever seemed to dissent at any of the occasions of his being dropped suggests there were reservations there.

No-one is arguing for "veterans at the tail-end of their career" in the shape of moderate 35-year-olds, but picking a Darren Lehmann or a Michael Hussey always has a strong likelihood of paying rich dividends. Certainly it's better in my book than prematurely promoting some wonderkid who'll have a few iffy years before finally hitting his straps at the exact same stage he'd have finally hit them anyway and positively enforced his selection.

 

[howardj]

I hope we now move on, at least at the Test match arena, from Hayden, Symonds and Lee.

 

[Richard]

I hope we see some firm evidence that Symonds isn't a Test-class batsman before Australia move-on from him myself.

Think they're probably best-served moving-on from Lee pretty soon TBH but am still willing to give him the series in England before I denounce him as having become completely useless once again.

 

[howardj]

I hope we see some firm evidence that Symonds isn't a Test-class batsman before Australia move-on from him myself.

Think they're probably best-served moving-on from Lee pretty soon TBH but am still willing to give him the series in England before I denounce him as having become completely useless once again.

I think five Tests is a fair sample. In his last five he averages 24, and has an overall career average of 40. Now, for a 33 year old with a half-arsed attitude, I would submit that those figures are not compelling. This guy is not Warne or McGrath, he is not a walk up start.

 

[Richard]

Yet nonetheless, from 2006/07 onwards he still averages 50-odd (mostly down to luck with let-offs, admittedly).

I don't think there's a compelling "case against" yet, not at all.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

However, I do indeed think that both players, as well as Team Australia, would've done better had Clarke been ignored for Tests until 2006/07 and Ponting been either left at six or not picked until 1999/2000. Of course, both had their ups in the times in which they played before this but they had their downs and both were dropped at least twice. Australia would've been better with a better player in their place and both batsmen would be regarded more highly as their career averages would be higher. In the time the batsmen spent not in the international game, they'd have been accumulating stacks of runs at the domestic level and eventually they'd have an obvious case for selection. If Ponting and Clarke had been left at the domestic level they'd not have just been wasting away, they'd have been cashing-in, big-time.

Ponting made 96 on debut. His second test century was against Donald and Pollock at their peak, and he made 80 odd against Ambrose, Walsh and Bishop at the age of 21. Do you honestly believe experiences like that didn't help his development as a player? I mean, the point of playing domestic cricket is to hone your game via actual experience. It should be fairly obvious that even the most cerebral, least hands-on player would get a lot more out of facing an actual bowler rather than a bowling machine, and facing great bowlers and being exposed to the unique pressures and situations thrown up by international cricket is the best possible learning experience. That, as well as age, is why the majority of players improve as they go in test cricket rather than arriving as the finished product.

AFAIC Australia definitely benefited from Ponting coming into the side when he did. There's every chance for example that had his 2001 slump came early in his career when he hadn't had the opportunity to impress earlier, it could have been a crushing blow to him personally or to his career. I also doubt he'd have made the runs he did in 1999 if that was his first season.

Clarke you may recall made 150 on debut. Without that innings, it's entirely possible that Australia wouldn't have won the series in India, so I find the notion that he shouldn't have been picked a bit much. He also made a score later in the series, AND took 6/9. He made 90 odd at Lords which was, again, important to the result. His experience in being picked and then dropped when his performances fell away clearly improved him as a batsman too. I find it highly unlikely that Clarke would have made the runs he did against New Zealand and South Africa this summer if he'd made his debut in Brisbane. It's just incredibly rare that a player takes to international cricket like that without having been previously exposed.

Time in the international game doesn't improve a player really - what improves a player is practising and reviewing his game. You don't neccessarily have to have a bowler find a fault to eradicate it - those closest to Sachin Tendulkar have always said that he was fantastic at spotting - realising - a flaw in his game before pretty well anyone else, and this is why he was pretty well never worked-out.

Lots of things improve a players game. Every player will tell you though that test cricket is a different beast to anything they might have seen previously. The majority of players do not have immediate, sustained success at test level, but instead come in with flaws in their game or their approach that weren't crippling at FC level but may well be now. They learn from that, and they gain a lot from exposure to the unique environment of international cricket, and they improve, either in the team or through being dropped and re-called. That's been the pattern for most successful test cricketers in Australia in the last 20 years, and it's going to remain that way in the future.

Anyway, the point remains that I would rather have a 22 year old be inconsistent for a season or two and then develop into a stellar player than pick someone on the tail end of their career, should the choice present itself. Someone like Clarke didn't have a lot of FC runs behind him but he did have a huge amount of talent, which was obvious enough if you watched him play, even in ODIs. The fact is that it was a good decision at the time to pick him and Australia is now reaping the benefits of that decision, to an even greater degree than when he played for the first time in India. There's every chance that in a few years time we'll be saying the same thing about Hughes and Siddle.

 

[Richard]

Ponting made 96 on debut. His second test century was against Donald and Pollock at their peak, and he made 80 odd against Ambrose, Walsh and Bishop at the age of 21. Do you honestly believe experiences like that didn't help his development as a player? I mean, the point of playing domestic cricket is to hone your game via actual experience. It should be fairly obvious that even the most cerebral, least hands-on player would get a lot more out of facing an actual bowler rather than a bowling machine, and facing great bowlers and being exposed to the unique pressures and situations thrown up by international cricket is the best possible learning experience. That, as well as age, is why the majority of players improve as they go in test cricket rather than arriving as the finished product.

AFAIC Australia definitely benefited from Ponting coming into the side when he did. There's every chance for example that had his 2001 slump came early in his career when he hadn't had the opportunity to impress earlier, it could have been a crushing blow to him personally or to his career. I also doubt he'd have made the runs he did in 1999 if that was his first season.

Clarke you may recall made 150 on debut. Without that innings, it's entirely possible that Australia wouldn't have won the series in India, so I find the notion that he shouldn't have been picked a bit much. He also made a score later in the series, AND took 6/9. He made 90 odd at Lords which was, again, important to the result. His experience in being picked and then dropped when his performances fell away clearly improved him as a batsman too. I find it highly unlikely that Clarke would have made the runs he did against New Zealand and South Africa this summer if he'd made his debut in Brisbane. It's just incredibly rare that a player takes to international cricket like that without having been previously exposed.

Lots of things improve a players game. Every player will tell you though that test cricket is a different beast to anything they might have seen previously. The majority of players do not have immediate, sustained success at test level, but instead come in with flaws in their game or their approach that weren't crippling at FC level but may well be now. They learn from that, and they gain a lot from exposure to the unique environment of international cricket, and they improve, either in the team or through being dropped and re-called. That's been the pattern for most successful test cricketers in Australia in the last 20 years, and it's going to remain that way in the future.

Anyway, the point remains that I would rather have a 22 year old be inconsistent for a season or two and then develop into a stellar player than pick someone on the tail end of their career, should the choice present itself. Someone like Clarke didn't have a lot of FC runs behind him but he did have a huge amount of talent, which was obvious enough if you watched him play, even in ODIs. The fact is that it was a good decision at the time to pick him and Australia is now reaping the benefits of that decision, to an even greater degree than when he played for the first time in India. There's every chance that in a few years time we'll be saying the same thing about Hughes and Siddle.

It's easy to claim they're reaping the benefits of it if you believed it was right - but as I say, there really isn't any substantial evidence to back it IMO. As you say, Clarke has plenty of basic ability and I'd say if left in domestic cricket until 2006/07, with the right coaching, could very easily have taken to Tests like a duck to water and done similarly well to how he's done the last 2 years. There's no evidence that a player needs to have had an iffy start to their Test career to flourish - there are more than enough players who are introduced at the right time and take to Test cricket like ducks to water. The reason so many struggle early on is because so many are introduced prematurely.

As for Clarke, he may have made 150 on debut, 150 on home debut and 90 in the 2005 opener, but you'd have to be stretching it considerably to say he wasn't exposed as substandard in his first stint in Tests. Ponting, well, he had more ups than downs 1995/96-1999, and if Australia's batting depth hadn't been so strong he mightn't have lost his place at all in that time. It's possible Ponting was one of those exceptionally rare cases of a player who's up to Test cricket at the age of 20. Clarke, though, plainly wasn't and I don't think there's any particularly good reason to believe that the stint he had when he wasn't up to it made him a better player. Players with his basic ability by-and-large tend to come good eventually regardless of almost anything.

Not all players follow the same pattern. And as I say, there are enough players who don't have an initial struggle to suggest (to me) that the attitude of "well if he struggles a bit initially it doesn't really matter" isn't a wise one. Test cricket isn't the place to be developing players, because there ARE better places, which benefit the player as much and don't handicap the team in the short-term.

 

[Ikki]

Ponting made 96 on debut. His second test century was against Donald and Pollock at their peak, and he made 80 odd against Ambrose, Walsh and Bishop at the age of 21. Do you honestly believe experiences like that didn't help his development as a player? I mean, the point of playing domestic cricket is to hone your game via actual experience. It should be fairly obvious that even the most cerebral, least hands-on player would get a lot more out of facing an actual bowler rather than a bowling machine, and facing great bowlers and being exposed to the unique pressures and situations thrown up by international cricket is the best possible learning experience. That, as well as age, is why the majority of players improve as they go in test cricket rather than arriving as the finished product.

AFAIC Australia definitely benefited from Ponting coming into the side when he did. There's every chance for example that had his 2001 slump came early in his career when he hadn't had the opportunity to impress earlier, it could have been a crushing blow to him personally or to his career. I also doubt he'd have made the runs he did in 1999 if that was his first season.

Clarke you may recall made 150 on debut. Without that innings, it's entirely possible that Australia wouldn't have won the series in India, so I find the notion that he shouldn't have been picked a bit much. He also made a score later in the series, AND took 6/9. He made 90 odd at Lords which was, again, important to the result. His experience in being picked and then dropped when his performances fell away clearly improved him as a batsman too. I find it highly unlikely that Clarke would have made the runs he did against New Zealand and South Africa this summer if he'd made his debut in Brisbane. It's just incredibly rare that a player takes to international cricket like that without having been previously exposed.



Lots of things improve a players game. Every player will tell you though that test cricket is a different beast to anything they might have seen previously. The majority of players do not have immediate, sustained success at test level, but instead come in with flaws in their game or their approach that weren't crippling at FC level but may well be now. They learn from that, and they gain a lot from exposure to the unique environment of international cricket, and they improve, either in the team or through being dropped and re-called. That's been the pattern for most successful test cricketers in Australia in the last 20 years, and it's going to remain that way in the future.

Anyway, the point remains that I would rather have a 22 year old be inconsistent for a season or two and then develop into a stellar player than pick someone on the tail end of their career, should the choice present itself. Someone like Clarke didn't have a lot of FC runs behind him but he did have a huge amount of talent, which was obvious enough if you watched him play, even in ODIs. The fact is that it was a good decision at the time to pick him and Australia is now reaping the benefits of that decision, to an even greater degree than when he played for the first time in India. There's every chance that in a few years time we'll be saying the same thing about Hughes and Siddle.

Great post.

 

[pup11]

It's easy to claim they're reaping the benefits of it if you believed it was right - but as I say, there really isn't any substantial evidence to back it IMO. As you say, Clarke has plenty of basic ability and I'd say if left in domestic cricket until 2006/07, with the right coaching, could very easily have taken to Tests like a duck to water and done similarly well to how he's done the last 2 years. There's no evidence that a player needs to have had an iffy start to their Test career to flourish - there are more than enough players who are introduced at the right time and take to Test cricket like ducks to water. The reason so many struggle early on is because so many are introduced prematurely.

As for Clarke, he may have made 150 on debut, 150 on home debut and 90 in the 2005 opener, but you'd have to be stretching it considerably to say he wasn't exposed as substandard in his first stint in Tests. Ponting, well, he had more ups than downs 1995/96-1999, and if Australia's batting depth hadn't been so strong he mightn't have lost his place at all in that time. It's possible Ponting was one of those exceptionally rare cases of a player who's up to Test cricket at the age of 20. Clarke, though, plainly wasn't and I don't think there's any particularly good reason to believe that the stint he had when he wasn't up to it made him a better player. Players with his basic ability by-and-large tend to come good eventually regardless of almost anything.

Not all players follow the same pattern. And as I say, there are enough players who don't have an initial struggle to suggest (to me) that the attitude of "well if he struggles a bit initially it doesn't really matter" isn't a wise one. Test cricket isn't the place to be developing players, because there ARE better places, which benefit the player as much and don't handicap the team in the short-term.

I don't think there is anything to suggest that playing a lot of FC games and then making your international debut would provide you with instant success, because every player has to go through the hard yards in international cricket at some point in his career, FC experience definitely helps at the test level, but still the player has to be talented to eventually do well at the international level.