2024–25 Australian Domestic Season

[Qlder]

For Qld vs SA at Allan Border Field, SA has Jake Lehman, Wes Agar and Harry Conway back. Head out having a baby.

For Qld Jack Wildermuth is out injured and Tom Straker is being "managed". So a 19 year old bowler being rested after one FC match in his career. Seems extreme to me?

Huge game for Renshaw after the A game snub.

 

[Burgey]

Head out having a baby.

 

[the big bambino]

I think they are thinking Konstas is a test option. We’ve seen how little they think of the failed 3 when they picked Smith to open.

Admittedly they may reconsider now green is out and smith back at 4. But they’ve signalled their lack of faith and if Konstas keeps impressing they might do a Puc (though I know Puc had more of a record) and pick him.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

I think they are thinking Konstas is a test option. We’ve seen how little they think of the failed 3 when they picked Smith to open.

Admittedly they may reconsider now green is out and smith back at 4. But they’ve signalled their lack of faith and if Konstas keeps impressing they might do a Puc (though I know Puc had more of a record) and pick him.

Yeah, because that totally worked out so well for him


While obviously there were other issues at play in Pucovski's specific case, to me at least he is a good example of exactly why NOT to try to get players in to international cricket too soon

 

[Qlder]

The shortlist for naming of the one-day Cup is Michael Bevan, Dean Jones and Andrew Symonds.

Final decision to be made by the CA Board after a reccomendation from the Hall of Fame Committee.

I'm not sure why the Hall of Fame is involved as Dean Jones is the only member of the 3 (maybe they thought all 3 of the shortlist would be in Hall of Fame?)

 

[Spark]

Thing is though, it's looking like the opening spot is the one up for grabs right now in the Test side. And he's going to be opening in an A game. It sends a message, intentional or not. And what happens if he makes twin tons again and all the other batsmen fail? There would be a lot of pressure to pick him

I don't think he's actually going to be opening in those games, he's going to bat 3.

I think they are thinking Konstas is a test option. We’ve seen how little they think of the failed 3 when they picked Smith to open.

Admittedly they may reconsider now green is out and smith back at 4. But they’ve signalled their lack of faith and if Konstas keeps impressing they might do a Puc (though I know Puc had more of a record) and pick him.

This is spot on IMO. The question of picking on merit gets more cloudy when the bar is so low.

 

[Spikey]

who is the best batter available

 

[Qlder]

who is the best batter available

McSweeney, then Davies and Hardie (one should be the spare bat in squad after they pick an opener)

That approach of "best 6 bats" was just an excuse to get Green in the side. I see they've doubled down now though by saying they don't need an allrounder and they'll only be picked if best 6 bats. If Green and Marsh are out and they don't pick Hardie as like-for-like replacement then they are idiots.

 

[the big bambino]

Yeah, because that totally worked out so well for him


While obviously there were other issues at play in Pucovski's specific case, to me at least he is a good example of exactly why NOT to try to get players in to international cricket too soon

There are a number of issues and incidents. The selectors may well be encouraged by the Puc precedent. You can completely discard the concussion issues. It’s simply a matter of a young man batting well when there isn’t an established hierarchy of experienced players.

Let’s face it. If you were at a restaurant and the menu had options that you knew of and didn’t like wouldn’t you try the offer you haven’t seen before? You can’t get up and leave either. It’s the diner your lady likes.

The selectors are in the same position with our openers. They have to pick someone. I can see them being tempted.

I’m kind of wondering if the press talk is an indicator? Sometimes selectors foreshadow intent through friendly journos. I saw an article saying Konstas is on trial and Boland will be test he has to pass. An analogy was then drawn between Mark Taylor seeing off Merv Hughes.

So idk but it’s getting suss. It’s either the new guy, the merry go round of proven failure or something out of the box like press ganging a middle order bat into opening. Could be Whiteman …

Who would you pick?

 

[Spark]

Yeah I can't see at all how the Pucovski example proves anything one way or another with regards to picking players early. He wasn't a failure at Test level, he simply got concussed and that was that.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

There are a number of issues and incidents. The selectors may well be encouraged by the Puc precedent. You can completely discard the concussion issues. It’s simply a matter of a young man batting well when there isn’t an established hierarchy of experienced players.

Let’s face it. If you were at a restaurant and the menu had options that you knew of and didn’t like wouldn’t you try the offer you haven’t seen before? You can’t get up and leave either. It’s the diner your lady likes.

The selectors are in the same position with our openers. They have to pick someone. I can see them being tempted.

I’m kind of wondering if the press talk is an indicator? Sometimes selectors foreshadow intent through friendly journos. I saw an article saying Konstas is on trial and Boland will be test he has to pass. An analogy was then drawn between Mark Taylor seeing off Merv Hughes.

So idk but it’s getting suss. It’s either the new guy, the merry go round of proven failure or something out of the box like press ganging a middle order bat into opening. Could be Whiteman …

Who would you pick?

Trying a new meal and not liking it isn't going to be something that risks doing permananent damage, selecting a cricketer before they are ready most certainly could however.

If someone who has been tried and failed before like a Bancroft and Harris gets picked and fails again, then they would just go back to domestic cricket and absolutely nothing is lost for the future. If Konstas gets picked and fails however, that is 100% the sort of thing that could absolutely set his career back years if not scupper it entirely.

There is absolutely no situation in this whole entire universe in which that would be a risk I would even be the most miniscule bit willing to take




As for who I would pick, as much as I have been critical of him here on numerous occasions I would almost have to go Bancroft, although with absolutely no enthusiasm. While I still don't trust his technique at all I do think he is marginally less worse than Harris as an opener and is a considerably better fielder as well. I do quite like the Whiteman idea it must be said, him not being in the frame for the A team game probably makes it a non starter though

 

[Qlder]

Hardie back for WA vs Tas. He'll play as a batsman only though. Good news for Aus in that Marsh says he's fit to bowl this game. Riley Meredith back for Tas

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Shield dayboo for Tom Whitney for QLD today

EDIT: meanwhile NSW seem to have reverted back to their old habit of picking more bowling options than are really needed

 

[Spark]

I think this idea that picking a talented young cricketer who fails at Test level is more likely to damage his career than it is for anyone else is really a thesis in sore need of actual substantiation tbh. Are there actual recent examples of this that meet the standard, of a guy who dominated Shield in his youth, got picked early as a long-term prospect (say before turning 24), and then got dropped and became a nondescript journeyman?

Meanwhile you have examples of guys who got picked "too early", got dropped, but were better for the experience and became top class international batsmen - Smith, Khawaja, Clarke come to mind immediately.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

I think this idea that picking a talented young cricketer who fails at Test level is more likely to damage his career than it is for anyone else is really a thesis in sore need of actual substantiation tbh

How many currently active Test bats have started out that young and have actually developed into genuinely class players?

While every individual case is clearly different, you can look at people like Prithvi Shaw and Haseeb Hameed and how they are doing. Both picked super young, both absolutely nowhere now. It just so obviously is a recipe for disaster, and honestly I am stunned that you, someone I otherwise regard quite highly on their cricketing opinions, can think it is an idea even remotely worth considering

EDIT: Yeah of your examples I guess Smith is kind of a valid one, although he was picked more as an allrounder than a specialist bat in the early days so it isn't 100% like for like. Khawaja not though as he was significantly more experienced than Konstas is now, and as for Clarke, I am probably a little too young to remember his early domestic career in detail so I can't really comment there

 

[Spark]

How many currently active Test bats have started out that young and have actually developed into genuinely class players?

While every individual case is clearly different, you can look at people like Prithvi Shaw and Haseeb Hameed and how they are doing. Both picked super young, both absolutely nowhere now. It just so obviously is a recipe for disaster, and honestly I am stunned that you, someone I otherwise regard quite highly on their cricketing opinions, can think it is an idea even remotely worth considering

Shaw is mostly just being squeezed out by the absolutely insane level of top order depth India have right now. He would walk into almost every other Test team on the planet (certainly ours). Haseeb Hammed is a better example but I think his problems were technical more than "he was ruined by Test exposure".

Meanwhile you do have quite a few active Test bats who started out very young and turned out to be stars. Steve Smith debuted just before his 21st birthday, Kohli at 21 (and really should have been picked before then), Williamson at 20. Right now we have Jaiswal tearing it up at 22. The closest analogue is probably Phil Hughes and I will absolutely say his problems were technical rather than mental.

If we're going to quibble over picking at 21 vs 19, well then okay but we don't have many 19 year olds getting picked full stop. The post-war list of batsmen who debuted for Australia before the age of 21 includes Ponting, Steve Waugh, Neil Harvey.

Quality is the principal indicator of success. This "ruining" mechanism doesn't even make sense to me, cricket is a fundamentally skill-based sport and you either have the talent or you don't. This is not to say Konstas should be picked - he's literally had three good innings in his Shield career - but age should not be counted against him, they should pick whoever they think are the best batsmen and commit to it.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Shaw is mostly just being squeezed out by the absolutely insane level of top order depth India have right now. He would walk into almost every other Test team on the planet (certainly ours). Haseeb Hammed is a better example but I think his problems were technical more than "he was ruined by Test exposure".

Meanwhile you do have quite a few active Test bats who started out very young and turned out to be stars. Steve Smith debuted just before his 21st birthday, Kohli at 21 (and really should have been picked before then), Williamson at 20. Right now we have Jaiswal tearing it up at 22. The closest analogue is probably Phil Hughes and I will absolutely say his problems were technical rather than mental.

If we're going to quibble over picking at 21 vs 19, well then okay but we don't have many 19 year olds getting picked full stop. The post-war list of batsmen who debuted for Australia before the age of 21 includes Ponting, Steve Waugh, Neil Harvey.

Quality is the principal indicator of success. This "ruining" mechanism doesn't even make sense to me, cricket is a fundamentally skill-based sport and you either have the talent or you don't. This is not to say Konstas should be picked - he's literally had three good innings in his Shield career - but age should not be counted against him, they should pick whoever they think are the best batsmen and commit to it.

It's as much about FC experience as it is about age though, if you are 21 but have already played about two years of domestic FC cricket with success, than yeah you are right that isn't unreasonable, but Konstas is literally playing his 6th ever first class game (of which he has only genuinely starred in one of them), that just simply isn't anywhere near enough of a body of work for the idea to be one even worth considering. Pretty much all of the other names both of us have mentioned weren't quite THAT raw and inexperienced

I am a staunch believer in FC cricket being absolutely critical when it comes to player development, Greg Chappell thinking is and always has been a absolute cancer on Australian cricket

 

[Spark]

It's as much about FC experience as it is about age though, if you are 21 but have already played about two years of domestic FC cricket with success, than yeah you are right that isn't unreasonable, but Konstas is literally playing his 6th ever first class game (of which he has only genuinely starred in one of them), that just simply isn't anywhere near enough of a body of work for the idea to be one even worth considering. Pretty much all of the other names both of us have mentioned weren't quite THAT raw and inexperienced

I am a staunch believer in FC cricket being absolutely critical when it comes to player development, Greg Chappell thinking is and always has been a absolute cancer on Australian cricket

I mean sure I don't want to pick him, like I keep saying. But that's not because I'm worried about "ruining" him or whatever, it's because we need more evidence that he's actually good enough. That's a very different argument to make!

 

[GoodAreasShane]

I mean sure I don't want to pick him, like I keep saying. But that's not because I'm worried about "ruining" him or whatever, it's because we need more evidence that he's actually good enough. That's a very different argument to make!

Yeah I don't think we are ever going to agree on that side of it, I just can't buy that the mental aspect of playing so little cricket at that that level isn't a factor at all, but it's not worth continuing to go in circles about.

The more evidence is needed comment is absolutely 100% a valid one that at it's core I agree with entirely

 

[Spark]

Yeah I don't think we are ever going to agree on that side of it, I just can't buy that the mental aspect of playing so little cricket at that that level isn't a factor at all, but it's not worth continuing to go in circles about.

The more evidence is needed comment is absolutely 100% a valid one that at it's core I agree with entirely

It's not so much that the mental aspect doesn't matter, it's that it's totally unpredictable and not at all consistent. Some players are overawed and struggle thereafter (I would mention that I suspect most of these sorts of players would struggle regardless of when they were picked). Some players are galvanised by the exposure to the higher level and it's the best thing that ever happened to them long-term because they now have a concrete idea of what it really takes. It's just not at all something we can predict in advance without knowing him personally.

And at the end of the day it's a distant second to skill and talent.