Hussey's average - How long do we have to wait?.......

[SJS]

Umpteen other examples. Here are a few more.

Worrell : Avg 86.7 after 954 runs - career avg 49.5

Herbie Collins : Avg 63.4 after 1144 runs - career avg 45.1

Thilan Samraweera : 70.2 after 840 odd, 63.5 after 950 odd and 45 currently

Doug Walters : 74.2 after OVER 1700 test runs and yet a career avg in the 40's.

Neil Harvey : avg 103 + after 1000 odd runs and ended with avg in 40's !

 

[Matt79]

Doug Walters is god.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Hell, even in today's Aussie side, if you had a 17 year old with 2 years experience at FC cricket and averaging 50+ with the bat, he too would get slotted ahead of one of the off-form/outgoing players (such as when Martyn was droppd/Clarke was dropped/Mark Waugh was dropped/Steve Waugh retired/Lehmann was dropped, etc. etc.)

That's the point though - you wouldn't. There's heaps of examples out there.

There are guys like Jaques, Lehmann, Hussey, Cox, Siddons and many others who dominated for long periods in domestic cricket from a young age without ever being picked.

For a more relevant example, try Ponting. Ponting's debut first class season was when he was 18 - he averaged 46. His second season he averaged 48. His third season he averaged 64. That sounds like he was sitting firmly within the par for good players despite being significantly younger than them, right? He then played a season in England for the Young Australians and averaged 46, and then after a good start to his fourth Australian first class season he was picked for his debut test against Sri Lanka, aged 21. This is all after being recognised from a very young age as a future superstar of Australian cricket and never putting a foot wrong at any time in youth cricket or his early first class career. He was fast-tracked into the Australian team and still didn't debut until his early 20s, because that's how cricket is structured in Australia.

It's doubtful that a 17 year old like in your scenario would even be playing first class cricket in Australia in the first place. It's possible of course, but if you look at Australian domestic cricket right now there are very, very few guys of that age playing. You have to earn your stripes in grade and youth cricket before a state will even look at you. Take Moises Henriques for example - a current prodigy of Australian cricket. This guy has played in two U-19 world cups, and in the most recent one he was the captain, the leading bowler and one of the leading batsmen in the side. He's been marked by many people as a potential star all-rounder, and people have even suggested he could play in the 2007 World Cup, and yet at the age of 19 he is yet to make his first class debut. He's played two one dayers and that's it. For further evidence, consider that he was the only player in the recent U-19 world cup team for Australia that had played for his state (in the first team) at all in any form of the game.

It's simply a different philosophy to how you should treat young players. There are lot of different reasons for it, but the point is that if you're 16 years old and a massive talent in Australia you'll get put in youth teams, sent to the academy, maybe play a few games for your state, and if you're 18 you'll be expected to have a few solid first class seasons before you get a look-in for the test team. In India or Pakistan, you'll play first class cricket and if you do well and there's a spot available in the test side you'll be in there, and you can earn your stripes in test cricket or you can fail and go back to the first class game. Thus, "prodigies" in Australian cricket will debut in their early 20s, and in the subcontinent they could debut in their teens.

 

[TT Boy]

Umpteen other examples. Here are a few more.

Worrell : Avg 86.7 after 954 runs - career avg 49.5

Herbie Collins : Avg 63.4 after 1144 runs - career avg 45.1

Thilan Samraweera : 70.2 after 840 odd, 63.5 after 950 odd and 45 currently

Doug Walters : 74.2 after OVER 1700 test runs and yet a career avg in the 40's.

Neil Harvey : avg 103 + after 1000 odd runs and ended with avg in 40's !

You can have one more if you like, Jimmy Adams whose average was 87.7 after scoring 1132 runs in twelve test matches, ended up with a average in the low 40s.

 

[honestbharani]

You can have one more if you like, Jimmy Adams whose average was 87.7 after scoring 1132 runs in twelve test matches, ended up with a average in the low 40s.

But I think Hussey looks a better player than those in that list that I Have seen.

 

[SJS]

But I think Hussey looks a better player than those in that list that I Have seen.

Oh you can be sure that Gavaskar, Harvey, Walters and Worrell in the early stages of their careere looked like supermen.. They did by all accounts.

I am not sure Hussey is in the same bracket as these four.

 

[Matt79]

Certainly not with Harvey or Worrell - yet. He may yet prove that he can be named along them, but it will require continued brilliance against some sterner opposition.

He can't be considered as good as Walters til he does it with a blood alcohol content that would kill a mule.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Oh you can be sure that Gavaskar, Harvey, Walters and Worrell in the early stages of their careere looked like supermen.. They did by all accounts.

I am not sure Hussey is in the same bracket as these four.

He may well be better than all of them in one day cricket.

Really though, he might not be in that bracket, but we can't really say that he isn't with any certainty yet either. He's certainly got a good record in first class cricket, and his performances so far in both forms of the game for Australia have been excellent. We'll see how he goes in the next year or two.

 

[C_C]

For a more relevant example, try Ponting. Ponting's debut first class season was when he was 18 - he averaged 46. His second season he averaged 48. His third season he averaged 64. That sounds like he was sitting firmly within the par for good players despite being significantly younger than them, right? He then played a season in England for the Young Australians and averaged 46, and then after a good start to his fourth Australian first class season he was picked for his debut test against Sri Lanka, aged 21. This is all after being recognised from a very young age as a future superstar of Australian cricket and never putting a foot wrong at any time in youth cricket or his early first class career. He was fast-tracked into the Australian team and still didn't debut until his early 20s, because that's how cricket is structured in Australia.

For one i think you are seriously devaluing the concept of a prodigy here.
Guys like Ponting, Henriques, etc. all showed talent in their teens- talent worthy enough to mark em as potential future greats and no different from several great players in their teens. Neither of them can be considered prodigies like Tendulkar or Sobers were.
You can compare Tendulkar's performance in his teens to that of Ponting or Henriques and he significantly outstrips them. And Australia too, has a tendency to fast track players that they perceive to be 'future greats' (such as Clarke). Maybe not to the extent of the caribbean/subcontinental teams but at most, it would've been a year's delay given the era (late 80s) we are talking about.
There is a significant difference in doing excellently in your level and being marked as a future superstar and absolutely annihilating attacks while playing with players 3-4 years your senior. That sorta thing Ponting/Henriques etc. didnt do and Tendulkar did.
He didnt just get a sugardaddy to fast-track him to the team- he just annihilated in school level and earnt a callup in the FC side, where he again dominated at an unbelievably young age and earnt his test callup.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

But I think Hussey looks a better player than those in that list that I Have seen.

Worrell > Hussey.

Adams looked a model of beauty in his early days. He then go hit in the head and was never the same batsman. But that's well documented. Thilan Samaraweera had the great benefit of smacking the West Indies around early in his career. I don't think he's much more than a late 30s batsman.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Hell, even in today's Aussie side, if you had a 17 year old with 2 years experience at FC cricket

Hence the difference here - it'd never happen in Aus.

 

[vic_orthdox]

There is a significant difference in doing excellently in your level and being marked as a future superstar and absolutely annihilating attacks while playing with players 3-4 years your senior. That sorta thing Ponting/Henriques etc. didnt do and Tendulkar did.

Simply put, they don't allow kids in Australia to be too far "fast tracked".

However, Moises was the leading wicket-taker in the Sydney grade competition till Christmas as a 16 year old one year, before he had to go away and play in Bangladesh. Ponting holds numerous underage records for Tasmania when he was two or three years younger than the other players.

Now, I'm not saying that they were (are) in the Tendulkar/Sobers league of prodigies. My point is that "prodigy" is hard to define in cricketing terms, IMO, and that the progression in Australia is relatively a lot slower.

Also, when talking about cricket prodigies, because the game has such a mental aspect to it, it's difficult. A lot of kids who seem like the next "child prodigy" don't make it because they have too many people blowing up their tyres.

 

[C_C]

Simply put, they don't allow kids in Australia to be too far "fast tracked".

However, Moises was the leading wicket-taker in the Sydney grade competition till Christmas as a 16 year old one year, before he had to go away and play in Bangladesh. Ponting holds numerous underage records for Tasmania when he was two or three years younger than the other players.

Now, I'm not saying that they were (are) in the Tendulkar/Sobers league of prodigies. My point is that "prodigy" is hard to define in cricketing terms, IMO, and that the progression in Australia is relatively a lot slower.

Also, when talking about cricket prodigies, because the game has such a mental aspect to it, it's difficult. A lot of kids who seem like the next "child prodigy" don't make it because they have too many people blowing up their tyres.

I dont think its as much a question of 'prodigies arnt fast-tracked' as the case where prodigies are extremely rare. True, not many 19 year olds play for OZ but most of their 'awesome alltime greats' debuted around 20/21 or so. Border, Waugh,Chappell, etc etc.
And i would say that the difference between prodigies and someone who is an alltime great is that a prodigy does it much much younger...almost all alltime greats stamped their class in their respective leagues and held records of all sorts in the junior levels when they were at it. But prodigies transcend that and they make records at the senior level.
The way Tendulkar played in his younger days, he would've debuted at the age of 18 or so in almost every single nation at any point in their cricketing history. Tait was pretty fast tracked and so was Lee. But the point is, prodigies begin so early that fast-tracking them similar to what happened to Ponting/Tait/Lee/Clarke etc. ends up happening to them in their mid/late teens. People forget - Tendulkar was lighting up the scene at an age where guys like Ponting, Lara, etc. were nothing more than another young kid with some promise. Dravid's career progression is no different than that of Ponting, Lara, etc. - made their mark at late teens in the FC system and got their breaks in their early 20s. But Tendulkar ( who is the same age as Dravid) was playing at a level Dravid could only dream of in their teens.
People overlook the prodigal aspect in sports largely because sports fans also tend to be quite known for their short attention spans and memories.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Hussey's jist zis guy, you know?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I dont think its as much a question of 'prodigies arnt fast-tracked' as the case where prodigies are extremely rare. True, not many 19 year olds play for OZ but most of their 'awesome alltime greats' debuted around 20/21 or so. Border, Waugh,Chappell, etc etc.

I think you're missing the key point here, which is that the cricketing authorities in Australia actively prevent young players from being exposed to first class and international cricket too early, no matter how good they are. As Jack said, Ponting and Henriques were performing well above the level expected for mature players when they were in their teens, because they were prodigal talents. I mean, the standard in Sydney grade cricket is extremely high, and for Henriques to be leading the bowling at 16 is remarkable, and if he was to achieve a comparable feat in India he would certainly be playing first class or possibly even international cricket. Yet, despite the fact that he was playing that well three years ago, Henriques still isn't playing first class cricket for New South Wales. He's playing in youth teams and being sent to the academy and so on instead, presumably to ensure that he's ready for first class cricket when he gets there.

So, a situation like Tendulkar's where he was performing well in first class cricket at 16 and 17 simply wouldn't happen in Australia, because players that age aren't play first class cricket. And if they were about that age and playing it (like Ponting at 18), they would be held back until they had a few years experience before being exposed to test cricket. That would be true of the next Bradman or Warne or whatever.

Incidentally, I don't think Lee or Tait were fast tracked at all. Tait was playing a relatively low level of grade cricket in Adelaide not long before his breakthrough domestic seasons in 03/04 and 04/05, and then got into the test side because he did so well for South Australia. He wasn't seen as a big talent from a young age. Henriques and Ponting are different cases.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Incidentally, I don't think Lee or Tait were fast tracked at all. Tait was playing a relatively low level of grade cricket in Adelaide not long before his breakthrough domestic seasons in 03/04 and 04/05, and then got into the test side because he did so well for South Australia. He wasn't seen as a big talent from a young age. Henriques and Ponting are different cases.

I'd disagree to a slight extent - Lee didn't ever have a real FC season behind him, but Steve Waugh liked how quick he bowled. And then Tait was to an extent fast tracked, more from the 3rd grade cricket in SA up to the state squad, rather than into the Australian team.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'd disagree to a slight extent - Lee didn't ever have a real FC season behind him, but Steve Waugh liked how quick he bowled. And then Tait was to an extent fast tracked, more from the 3rd grade cricket in SA up to the state squad, rather than into the Australian team.

I guess it depends on your definition of fast-tracked. What I meant was, nobody saw them from their early teens and marked them as future Australian players. I'm not too sure about Lee, but Tait never really got the youth teams/academy sort of treatment that the "future star" players all got in Australia, he just got spotted when he was playing grade as a mature player and seen as a talent. Lee's case is more like McGraths, in that he played a few first class games and got shoved into an opening in the test team quickly because he had attributes that the selectors liked.

 

[C_C]

I think you're missing the key point here, which is that the cricketing authorities in Australia actively prevent young players from being exposed to first class and international cricket too early, no matter how good they are. As Jack said, Ponting and Henriques were performing well above the level expected for mature players when they were in their teens, because they were prodigal talents. I mean, the standard in Sydney grade cricket is extremely high, and for Henriques to be leading the bowling at 16 is remarkable, and if he was to achieve a comparable feat in India he would certainly be playing first class or possibly even international cricket. Yet, despite the fact that he was playing that well three years ago, Henriques still isn't playing first class cricket for New South Wales. He's playing in youth teams and being sent to the academy and so on instead, presumably to ensure that he's ready for first class cricket when he gets there.

So, a situation like Tendulkar's where he was performing well in first class cricket at 16 and 17 simply wouldn't happen in Australia, because players that age aren't play first class cricket. And if they were about that age and playing it (like Ponting at 18), they would be held back until they had a few years experience before being exposed to test cricket. That would be true of the next Bradman or Warne or whatever.

Incidentally, I don't think Lee or Tait were fast tracked at all. Tait was playing a relatively low level of grade cricket in Adelaide not long before his breakthrough domestic seasons in 03/04 and 04/05, and then got into the test side because he did so well for South Australia. He wasn't seen as a big talent from a young age. Henriques and Ponting are different cases.

I disagree- like i said, Ponting did nothing different than the Dravids, Laras, Richards of the world- extremely talented people who were not prodigal talents. And yes, it takes a couple of years to break into FC games. But if Henriques was doing the same thing in grade cricket at age 13, he would've made FC debut by 15. Thats the whole point you miss - Tendulkar was not just lighting up the scene - he was doing it consistently at levels that were 4-5 years his senior from the age of 10. Yes, the OZ system is harder for younger players, but history shows - prodigal talents almost always get fast-tracked and the diffrence between one place or another is a year or two at most. And if Tendulkar was an Aussie, he too would've debuted in 1989/1990- like i said, the 4th best middle order batsman wasnt exactly doing pulling good enough numbers to keep a prodigal talent averaging 50+ in FC cricket out of the team. You are missing the point by calling Ponting a prodigal talent, when infact, the progidal talent of the last 20-30 years is Tendulkar- no one comes close to him in that department. Ponting's junior level feats are no more spectacular than the ones accomplished by lara, dravid, viv, greg chappell etc. But Tendulkar- his feats were extraordinary.

 

[NZTailender]

Hussey's jist zis guy, you know?

That made me LOL.

 

[cricketboy29]

I thought Ponting had just come into his own, these last few years. I wasnt aware of any special perfomances before that..I mean if you want to compare to Tendulkar that is.