Top_Cat Iam not going to quote that whole post, but why are you suddenly gone off on a reply about England's injuries, when the part you quoted and the point Rik was making was when the Aussie's lose all their 30 odd years olds, will they still be as strong..as Australia haven't bought younger guy's in whereas other teams around the world have, meaning that Australia will still be developing a team for a few years while most of the other teams already have a regular and strong team.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Can England prosper without Gough?
- Thread starter jf2001
- Start date
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
1) Just because the Aussie team hasn't blooded really young players this year so far, doesn't suggest that they won't at all. Who's to say? We could see Hauritz in the side soon or Watson or Clarke. Who knows? Maybe Bracken will get a go or Maher etc. There are plenty of young faces waiting for their chance and they will get given a go. Maybe not this season but soon I would say.
2) Australia will still have a developing team, eh? People were saying the same when Mark Taylor retired and AB and Boonie etc. Seeing a pattern here? The Aussies blood their youngsters gradually so that what you're talking about won't happen. Clarke will be given his go soon (if he keeps scoring runs) as will Hauritz and Williams etc. It's just a matter of timing.
3) England won't have a regular and strong team because all of the young players now will be decrepid and worn-out before they're 25............. I think Pakistan have proven very conclusively what happens when you replace virtually their entire team with youngsters. Sure they did well in the first Test but thereafter...........well, we all saw the results.
Why do you think the selectors got rid of Mark Waugh before the start of the season and will look to do the same to Steve at the end of the series? To stagger their departures so that it's not the case where three players like Greg Chappell, Rod Marsh and Dennis Lillee all retire at once. When Glenn McGrath retires, Gillespie will probably be the leader of the attack etc. etc.
No kidding, people have been prophesising the death of Australian cricket for quite some time because at the time they might have said it, there weren't any obvious replacements. For example, people were wondering who was going to lead the Aussie attack when Craig McDermott went. On the 1995 tour to the WI, who suddenly emerged as the leader of the attack? Glenn McGrath. People were wondering who'd replace Boonie at number 3. After a few years, we've found Ricky Ponting, although it was always going to happen.
People were worried what would happen to the opening position when Mark Taylor retired. Did Australia panic and throw a youngster like Hussey at the wolves in the hope that by some miracle he'd suddenly turn into a world-class player overnight in a few years time? No they did not.
The point is, you look at Lehmann's selection as picking a player too old to play for any length of time, and that's fine. But who else would you pick? As I said, the selectors have never made it a habit of picking guys like Clarke before they're ready, regardless of how good they appear to be. Hell, Clarke was struggling to stay in the NSW side before this season.
Everyone likes to see a really young player do well but there's also nothing more tragic than a young player (such as Graeme Hick) who gets selected too early.
The simple fact of the matter is that guys like Clarke simply aren't ready. Lehmann and Clarke have both had potential in their lifetimes but Lehmann has performance and consistently so. That outweights any potential Clarke might have.
So whilst playing younger players is important, you also have to respect the performance of those who are a little older and give them their due. Lehmann has more than paid HIS dues so deserves his chance.
Bazza
International 12th Man
I fail to see how 1995 is relevant here? Also you said Australia coped without McGrath in 1998, well who cares? That was four years ago. It is completely different. McGrath's a better bowler now and the Aussies are more dependent on him. The rest of the make up of the side is different so it is irrelevant.
Respecting the older players is fine, but everyone except Ponting and Gillespie are on the wrong side of 30 and these two are 27. How old do you think a player has to be before they start playing test cricket? Is there some rule regarding that? 25, 26 maybe? India and Pakistan have consistently blooded players in their teens or early 20's(true, they sometimes go overboard with that, but still...) and a good percentage of them have gone on to become exceptional and even great players.
This is the best time for Australia to experiment with youngsters. After the 3rd test(by which they would have won the series), they should rest 2-3 seniors and give some of the more promising youngsters a go. This team is in awesome form and is winning everything in sight. So much in form that they have been carrying out-of-form senior players without even noticing it. Why can't they do that for some of the youngsters? They just might prove to be worth their weight in gold in the final analysis and the team will always have a blend of youth and experience.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
And how many others have been tried and had their careers damaged by being played far too early? Pakistan: Mohammed Wasim, Saleem Elahi and Mohammed Zahid come to mind. And how many new Indian faces have we seen in the past two years, for example? How many of them will we probably never see again? You could argue that they simply weren't good enough but considering how tough it is just to reach the level of being a Test player, I doubt it's as simple as that.
And most importantly, although some very good players have come out of the 'pick them VERY young' idea, how have the respective teams fared? Although India has underachieved for decades, the last decade, considering the talent at their disposal, has been a pretty barren time for the Indian teams of the 90's. Pakistan have done quite well but again, considering the talent at their disposal, they should have been the best team of the 90's. I've heard for years about the wealth of talent in the Pakistani ranks yet they've still underachieved and for quite some time. Constantly changing the team for the sake of playing youngsters wouldn't help. Pakistan and India have been guilty of this for many years and has it helped them as a team?
I agree but picking them TOO young before they've even had a chance to really perform consistently for their state is folly. I've been hearing everyone say that the Aussie team should pick Michael Clarke and I think that's beyond ludicrous. As I said, he was struggling to cement his place in his state team before this year so why should he even be considered for the Test side? He's scored two hundreds early this year? Big deal. Ricky Ponting did that, and at a younger age. Yet he didn't get picked until he was scoring consistently for Tasmania and then it took a few more years before he cemented his place in the Test side. Now look at the player we have today.
If there are any younger players who have a case for selection, it's guys like Mike Hussey, Jimmy Maher, Simon Katich etc. NOT Clark, Dighton, North etc.
Anyway, what's this fixation with age? Mathew Hayden has done his best work at age 30 and above as has Damien Martyn, Justin Langer, Steve Waugh, Glenn McGrath. Players are fitter and better looked after these days so being 30 isn't as much of a liability anymore. If anything you have the benefit of experience which makes you a much better Test player.
Sure, guys like Michael Clark have done well this season. But just like all the other before him, he has to get in line and wait his turn because there are players who are just as good waiting to play who have experience over him. All the sensationalism about him has been seen before with guys like Rick Ponting, Matthew Hayden and Damien Martyn. Just like them, he'll have to prove to the selectors he can score consistently and (in my opinion) for at least another season before he's seriously considered.
You don't just throw youngsters to the sharks and how they sink or swim, especially if the team is doing well. Guys like Katich have earned their time for the Test side and if Steve Waugh goes, watch for Katich to be his replacement. Clark won't even get a look in I reckon.
Rik
Cricketer Of The Year
I talk more sense than you give me credit for...anyway you would have to say that wouldn't you?:rolleyes:Originally posted by marc71178
Not compared to you it isn't.:frog:Originally posted by Rik
Its technically harder for you to talk sense... *DA DA!!!!*
[Edited on 12/11/2002 by Rik]