What should Australia do now?

[Chimpdaddy]

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.

The jump from first-class to international level is definetely a big one. Once you are in the international side you are playing against some of the best players in the world. Not to mention, entire staff devoted to analysing your techniques, and flaws. Whilst, FC is an important stepping stone, and can sort out the riff-raff, ultimately the experience that you gain at the international level that decides if you are really good enough.

While Australia are in a rebuilding phase, it is important to recognise that we need to inject young talented players in the side. We are better off going with young players who have shown good promise, and though might not have alot experience, see how they perform at the international level. This is what *builds* a great side. We cannot simply continue down a path, introducing 28 - 30+ year old debutants and hoping that their FC record translates into the international scene quickly.

-Chimpdaddy-

 

[Richard]

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.

Some people might not believe it, but First-Class cricket does teach a player something. Plenty in fact. How much is often down as much to his own ability and perceptiveness as the calibre of opposition.

A really good batsman, if he plays 3 or 4 years of First-Class cricket, I'd say has a very strong chance of doing well from the start of their Test career. And really good batsmen can go through entire Test careers without any significant extended slump (ie, more than 3 or 4 matches).

 

[Richard]

The jump from first-class to international level is definetely a big one. Once you are in the international side you are playing against some of the best players in the world. Not to mention, entire staff devoted to analysing your techniques, and flaws.

Believe it or not, domestic First-Class cricket isn't full of duff nobodies who don't have a clue how to work-out a player if it's possible.

Domestic First-Class cricket is a level beyond which 99.9999% or so of those who will ever pick-up cricket bat and ball could possibly dream of reaching.

 

[Chimpdaddy]

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.

Yeah, I'm willing to give Lee another series. He has been playing with an injury, which I think is one of the reasons that he has lost his pace and consistency. Hopefully with some time off cricket he can get his fitness back up, and get his line going again. You need at least one experienced test bowler in the side. Clark might be an option, we'll just have to see how well he does when he comes back into the side.

The important thing is that Lee needs to lead the attack from the front. He's not doing that, but one feels he is only 1 good game away from regaining lost form. I would like to see a Johnson, Lee, Clark and Siddle pace attack, all in-form and injury free.

I honestly think that the tail is long enough that an all-rounder is unnecessary. Our batting line-up is still pretty strong and the tail shows potential. Why not play with 6 specialist batsman and 5 specialist bowlers (the pace attack above, and a spinner)? It is a solid team, that I think is our best chance to hold onto the Ashes. You can't win a test, unless you take 20 wickets.

-Chimpdaddy-

 

[Chimpdaddy]

Believe it or not, domestic First-Class cricket isn't full of duff nobodies who don't have a clue how to work-out a player if it's possible.

Domestic First-Class cricket is a level beyond which 99.9999% or so of those who will ever pick-up cricket bat and ball could possibly dream of reaching.

I completely agree. But there is no garuntee that says if you doing well at FC level equates to doing well at the international level. The stepping stone is from FC to international is necessary, but the experience you gain at the international scene (whether a good or bad performance) is worth much more.

-Chimpdaddy-

 

[NUFAN]

Why not play with 6 specialist batsman and 5 specialist bowlers (the pace attack above, and a spinner)? It is a solid team, that I think is our best chance to hold onto the Ashes. You can't win a test, unless you take 20 wickets.

Because you need a wicket keeper in your team.

 

[Chimpdaddy]

Because you need a wicket keeper in your team.

Well, I suppose Haddin is not exactely the number one batter going around, but the guy can hold his own. And he adds some useful runs towards the end with the tail. Heck, he probably was one of the better batters in the series against South Africa.

That still doesn't change the fact that they can play 5 specialist batters, Haddin (who can hold his own), Johnson, Siddle and Lee (rounds a long tail). I don't understand this obsession with finding a player who can bat a little, and bowl a little. A Flintoff or Kallis type player is an incredibly rare find.

-Chimpdaddy-

 

[NUFAN]

Well, I suppose Haddin is not exactely the number one batter going around, but the guy can hold his own. And he adds some useful runs towards the end with the tail. Heck, he probably was one of the better batters in the series against South Africa.

That still doesn't change the fact that they can play 5 specialist batters, Haddin (who can hold his own), Johnson, Siddle and Lee (rounds a long tail). I don't understand this obsession with finding a player who can bat a little, and bowl a little. A Flintoff or Kallis type player is an incredibly rare find.

-Chimpdaddy-

Siddle has been useful, but I wouldn't back him to make too many runs on a regular basis. At the moment his 20s have been very useful though.

BTW, when you say a long tail it really means that your bunnies/bad batsman start early, I think you mean Australia bats long.

 

[Richard]

I completely agree. But there is no garuntee that says if you doing well at FC level equates to doing well at the international level. The stepping stone is from FC to international is necessary, but the experience you gain at the international scene (whether a good or bad performance) is worth much more.

The fact that there is a gap between Test and domestic First-Class level means, to me, that a player needs to make maximum use of First-Class cricket (and be given the chance to) before he gets thrust into Tests.

Obviously being a good domestic First-Class player is no guarantee of being a good Test player. But clearly, not being a good domestic First-Class player means your chances of being a good Test player are exceptionally slim.

 

[Richard]

Because you need a wicket keeper in your team.

Haddin for me is Test-class as a batsman, or at least can be after he's played a good amount of said cricket. Not, obviously, one of the best six batsmen in Australia (though I don't honestly think he's a million miles off being), but Test-class purely based on his batting, yes, I think so.

Obviously not as good as the 1999/2000-2003 version of Gilchrist, but no competent wicketkeeper is ever likely to be that again.

 

[aussie]

The jump from first-class to international level is definetely a big one. Once you are in the international side you are playing against some of the best players in the world. Not to mention, entire staff devoted to analysing your techniques, and flaws. Whilst, FC is an important stepping stone, and can sort out the riff-raff, ultimately the experience that you gain at the international level that decides if you are really good enough.

While Australia are in a rebuilding phase, it is important to recognise that we need to inject young talented players in the side. We are better off going with young players who have shown good promise, and though might not have alot experience, see how they perform at the international level. This is what *builds* a great side. We cannot simply continue down a path, introducing 28 - 30+ year old debutants and hoping that their FC record translates into the international scene quickly.

-Chimpdaddy-

If their performances are the best in the Sheffield Sheild i don't see why they shouldn't be picked.

 

[aussie]

On the notion of Hadddin probably batting in the top 6 to accomodate 5 bowlers. Hell no.

The only keeper batsmen who have been able to do that in test history consistently with great success are Gilchrist, Sangakkara, Ames, Stewart, Lindsay, Parks.

Haddin isn't of that ability. Son is a #7 for life.

 

[Richard]

Currently, there's no compelling evidence to suggest he is. However, I think he could be.

Haddin really does strike me as very, very above-average among wicketkeepers as far as batting is concerned. Australia are remarkably lucky that they've had the best ever followed by one of the best ever.

BTW Jeffrey Dujon was for the first 2\3 of his career easily good enough to bat in the top six if required. He wasn't, though, because mostly he had Greenidges, Hayneses, Richardses, Gomeses, Lloyds and Logies above him.

 

[Chimpdaddy]

Siddle has been useful, but I wouldn't back him to make too many runs on a regular basis. At the moment his 20s have been very useful though.

BTW, when you say a long tail it really means that your bunnies/bad batsman start early, I think you mean Australia bats long.

Siddle can chip in here and there, but definitely don't expect that much. Johnson, when he gets going looks to be really handy.

Yes, you're right. I meant the tail has wagged often this series, and shows that they can hold their own.

-Chimpdaddy-

 

[Chimpdaddy]

If their performances are the best in the Sheffield Sheild i don't see why they shouldn't be picked.

Unless they are exceptional, there needs to be time to introduce them to the international scene. And it takes time to settle into the side. They are not all going to have remarkable starts, and it might take a while. There will be a few scratchy fifties, and the odd century before they really become great consistent players.
30 year old proven debutants are short-term solutions. In order to rebuild a side to something like Australias former glory takes years of experience at the international level and young players showing good potential.

-Chimpdaddy-

 

[Chimpdaddy]

On the notion of Hadddin probably batting in the top 6 to accomodate 5 bowlers. Hell no.

The only keeper batsmen who have been able to do that in test history consistently with great success are Gilchrist, Sangakkara, Ames, Stewart, Lindsay, Parks.

Haddin isn't of that ability. Son is a #7 for life.

So you would rather play an average all-rounder at 6, or have a 3 man pace attack? The problem continues to be Australia's bowling. It lacks venom, and can't break through the side. The way the pitch was breaking up on the last day at the SCG, meant Australia should have ripped through the South African batsman.

We can't win tests if opposition sides end up batting first, put 400+ runs in the first innings, and we end up behind the 8-ball.

Why can't Haddin bat at 6? He has shown promise, and potential. He can put quick fire runs on the board. He just needs to slow down sometimes when an innings like that is required off him.

-Chimpdaddy-

 

[Richard]

Unless they are exceptional, there needs to be time to introduce them to the international scene. And it takes time to settle into the side. They are not all going to have remarkable starts, and it might take a while. There will be a few scratchy fifties, and the odd century before they really become great consistent players.
30 year old proven debutants are short-term solutions. In order to rebuild a side to something like Australias former glory takes years of experience at the international level and young players showing good potential.

A 27\28-year-old debutant can easily have a 7-8-year Test career. There is absolutely no good reason to prefer a 23-year-old to a 27-year-old if the 27-year-old's credentials are even slightly better. None at all. To do so would be diabolical selection.

 

[aussie]

Unless they are exceptional, there needs to be time to introduce them to the international scene. And it takes time to settle into the side. They are not all going to have remarkable starts, and it might take a while. There will be a few scratchy fifties, and the odd century before they really become great consistent players.
30 year old proven debutants are short-term solutions. In order to rebuild a side to something like Australias former glory takes years of experience at the international level and young players showing good potential.

-Chimpdaddy-

But Australia aren't in such a desperate position ATM, in which a great influx of youth needs to be fast tracked intot the side. Australia could very well & still go to SA & ENG a win, with the current group of players.

Plus what Richard said..

So you would rather play an average all-rounder at 6, or have a 3 man pace attack? The problem continues to be Australia's bowling. It lacks venom, and can't break through the side. The way the pitch was breaking up on the last day at the SCG, meant Australia should have ripped through the South African batsman.

We can't win tests if opposition sides end up batting first, put 400+ runs in the first innings, and we end up behind the 8-ball.

Why can't Haddin bat at 6? He has shown promise, and potential. He can put quick fire runs on the board. He just needs to slow down sometimes when an innings like that is required off him.

-Chimpdaddy-

Looking ahead for the tour to SA & the Ashes mainly, with Watson out. I'd be picking 6 batsmen & 4-semaers. Easily the best balance for Australia right now.

Haddin no doubt is a very solid batsman & beyond your average keeper-bat, but surely # 6 in test cricket is a position too high for him.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

A 27\28-year-old debutant can easily have a 7-8-year Test career. There is absolutely no good reason to prefer a 23-year-old to a 27-year-old if the 27-year-old's credentials are even slightly better. None at all. To do so would be diabolical selection.

Depends on the circumstances, and the role in the side, and where the side is at and what you're looking for. If the 23 year old is still improving and only slightly behind in credentials, if the person in question is a fast bowler, or if you're in a rebuilding phase and looking for long-term solutions, there's justifications for picking the younger player.

Clarke was 23 when he was picked and there were more successful domestic batsmen around, and that worked out pretty well for Australia. Your age examples are pretty close though. It's a 23 year old compared to a 30 year old, there's a very strong argument IMO.

 

[Richard]

I know they are, that's why I said a 27\28-year-old rather than a 30-year-old.

Incidentally, the comment was aimed principally at batsmen, who mostly tend to retain the ability to be pretty good until the age of 35 or so and if you've got a batsman of Test standard you can generally hope, realistically, to have him around until about that sort of age. Seam-bowlers are notably different in that plenty of them are basically done by the age of 33 or so, so a 28-year-old debutant might well only be able to be expected to have a 4\5-year Test career.

Obviously though someone like Stuart Clark is a bit different as he pretty clearly looks like someone who could go on performing well into his mid-30s.