View Full Version : Future of the Aussie's
It seems to me that the Australian cricket team is dominating at the moment but what is going to happen in 3 to 4 years time when players like Gillie, McGrath, Warne, Gillespie and Lee retire......the australian cricket boars should ease some youngsters into the team like micheal clarke so that the Australians dont have to go throug a extreme leam patch like England at the moment
Any one agree
ScouseCat
5 Aug 2003, 13:36
Brett Lee is only in his mid 20's isn't he??
Australia has one of the best programs in place for developing young cricketers with the Cricket Academy in Adelaide, so although the current players are starting to age a bit, I don't see any reason why we should bring young players into the team just because they're young players. They should have to earn their spot like every other Australian cricketer, and it is this reason why we will continue to remain at or near the top of the world cricket tree.
The perfect example of a country who overdoes playing the young players is Pakistan, and look where it's got them?? They always seem to have some very talented youngsters coming through, but the team struggles with consistency, and is either very very good, or very very bad.
Wicked Lester
5 Aug 2003, 13:52
Couldn't agree more Statman.
I look at the current series and the next against Zimbabwe and think what a great time it would have been to blood Michael Clarke.
I think its important he (and others) have played 20 or so tests before the next crop of retirements is on us.
But you're not going to find any of them sacrificing themselves (and I suppose when your'e on that kind of money why would you?).
I guess we can simply hope that there is not a rush of retirements. The over 30's are as follows:
Waugh 38
Gilchrist 32 in November
Bevan 33
Bichel 33 this month
Hayden 32 in October
Langer 33 in November
Lehmann 34 next Summer
MacGill 32
McGrath 34 next Summer
Martyn 32 in October
Warne 34 in September
Clearly not all will disappear from international cricket at the same time. The effects of ageing (eyesight, a minor slowing of reflexes) impact on people at different times. Some may lose their edge from 32 or thereabouts others will cruise through 36 or higher.
But the important thing for the Australian side is that a risk now exists that too many will go at or about the same time. The impact of say six of the above going (by retirement or axing) over a 1-2 year period would strip enormous depth out of Australian cricket.
All the more reason to have blooded a couple from the next generation sooner rather than later. Unfortunately I get the feeling we are going to hit turbulence in two to three years time. and then some questions will be asked....
Wicked Lester
5 Aug 2003, 14:05
Originally posted by ScouseCat
I don't see any reason why we should bring young players into the team just because they're young players. They should have to earn their spot like every other Australian cricketer, and it is this reason why we will continue to remain at or near the top of the world cricket tree.
But pensioning off one established player per year for much of the past decade is exactly the reason we have stayed on top for so long.
Lets not kid ourselves - Jones, Boon, Marsh, Healy, Hughes, McDermott, Mark Waugh, Border, Taylor (in no particular order) did not gracefully retire from international cricket. Each and every one of them, with the possible exception of McDermott, were axed, pushed, prodded or told to go or were relieved of that decision. All were reluctant to go, and some were still in pretty good form with no obvious younger replacement demanding a spot in the team.
The reason was to continually regenerate the side.
Take Healy for example - he was still in pretty good touch when he was given the boot. Perhaps not career best form but still very serviceable. While we knew Gilchrist was a good performer with the bat in ODI's nobody was certain he would be a hit in the test team. There was even some concern he may not have been up to Healy's standard with the gloves.
Its important to ensure we have managed change or there will be trouble ahead. Failure to phase the next generation into the team was part of the reason for the Windies current plight.
Gilchrist, Lee, Gillespie, Martyn and Hayden will all be playing in 4 years time.
Originally posted by statman
It seems to me that the Australian cricket team is dominating at the moment but what is going to happen in 3 to 4 years time when players like Gillie, McGrath, Warne, Gillespie and Lee retire......the australian cricket boars should ease some youngsters into the team like micheal clarke so that the Australians dont have to go throug a extreme leam patch like England at the moment
Any one agree
in that list, only two players have basically stated that they will not be playing in 2006 (Waugh and Warne), if McGrath keeps form, he wants to play in the next WC, and all other players there will be playing international cricket in 2006 unless the youngsters rightfully earn their place in front of them due to better form,
Bowling is the only real problem.
Mc Grath is so good that when he retires we will have a hole. Gilespie and Lee will take over but who else is there to come in?
Do we have any good spinners to come in?
Nathan Hauritz is being flagged by some as the next big thing. the next tier of bowling consists of Williams, Bracken, Noffke and others who i couldnt be bothered straining to remember.
Black Thunder
5 Aug 2003, 23:38
I reckon if we don't do anything to stupid we'll have a very strong team for the next decade or so.
Can't be bothered at the moment to show my reasons why (will do it tomorrow).
But with guys Marcus North, Martin Love, Simon Katich, Ricky Ponting, Michael Clarke, Sean Clingeleffer, Ashley Noffke, Paul Rofe, Nathan Hauritz, Shane Watson, Brett Lee and quite a few others still fairly young, it's a pretty formidable bunch of youngsters there.
And with the future including guys like Mark Cosgrove, Scott Brant (killing the county competition in 2003 - 3rd leading wickets or something like that), Aaron Bird, Michael Bright, Cleary (can't remember first name), Damien McKenzie, Crosthwaite and players like this all under 22 or 23 - they are 3 very good guys.
One guy who I reckon will have quite a succesful test career is Scott Brant....
Originally posted by Black Thunder
I reckon if we don't do anything to stupid we'll have a very strong team for the next decade or so.
Can't be bothered at the moment to show my reasons why (will do it tomorrow).
But with guys Marcus North, Martin Love, Simon Katich, Ricky Ponting, Michael Clarke, Sean Clingeleffer, Ashley Noffke, Paul Rofe, Nathan Hauritz, Shane Watson, Brett Lee and quite a few others still fairly young, it's a pretty formidable bunch of youngsters there.
And with the future including guys like Mark Cosgrove, Scott Brant (killing the county competition in 2003 - 3rd leading wickets or something like that), Aaron Bird, Michael Bright, Cleary (can't remember first name), Damien McKenzie, Crosthwaite and players like this all under 22 or 23 - they are 3 very good guys.
One guy who I reckon will have quite a succesful test career is Scott Brant....
Black Thunder, there are lots of players I thought would go on to good careers that have faltered, so assuming you are not a selector, what are basing you opinions on? With the exception of a couple of the players you mention, we have no idea how any of these guys will stack up in top level cricket, and to be as good as we are now, at LEAST two of the bowlers and 2-4 of the batsmen need to be absolute champions. Now I hope I'm wrong, but that would be less rather than more likely.
In my opinion (which may or may not be as good as yours), apart from the guys already there, the only player of that bunch that looks a certainty to be able to make it in tests is Clarke. None of the bowlers have given me the impression that they will burst onto the scene. Nofke and Rofe seem servicable at best, and Hauritz is certainly no Ashley Mallett (our last really good offie).
Which is all the more reason that they should be playing them now! We have just had a test series against the Bangers and we've got one against Zimbabwe. I still can't believe that we didn't chuck in some young guys - what a perfect scenario for them to learn what test cricket is about.
Originally posted by P76
. I still can't believe that we didn't chuck in some young guys - what a perfect scenario for them to learn what test cricket is about.
i think the domestic scene is more akin to what test cricket is about than blooding them v Bangladesh
Originally posted by nicko18
i think the domestic scene is more akin to what test cricket is about than blooding them v Bangladesh
That may be true, but if you've played 5 tests, and got a century under your belt, you "have the monkey off your back", and are on your way.
Originally posted by nicko18
in that list, only two players have basically stated that they will not be playing in 2006 (Waugh and Warne), if McGrath keeps form, he wants to play in the next WC, and all other players there will be playing international cricket in 2006 unless the youngsters rightfully earn their place in front of them due to better form,
Fiirstly medical experts have told brett lee that he has one of the worst bowling actions in international cricket....they said that ""they cannot see him playing on untill his late thirties""" his back will be ruined.....Mcgrath on the other hand has one of the most seteld bowling actions going around, so he may be a change to play in the WC but what effect is he going to have???
To earn a regualar spot in any sporting side you must perform with in that particualar competetion not the reserves or state cricket so we must give them ago
it will be another 12-15 years before Lee is in his late 30's, so i'm not sure what relevence that has to this thread about incumbent retirements.
Originally posted by nicko18
it will be another 12-15 years before Lee is in his late 30's, so i'm not sure what relevence that has to this thread about incumbent retirements.
Well Brett Lee is 27 and he has been told he wont bowl at his current pace for much passed his Thirties, what use is a bowler who cant bowl line and lenght, that rellies on his pure pace, with out pace????
As soon as Brett Lee can no longer bowl 150 Plus he will be dropped faster than a Micheal Vaughan catch..
Originally posted by statman
As soon as Brett Lee can no longer bowl 150 Plus he will be dropped faster than a Micheal Vaughan catch..
:D
larrikin
7 Aug 2003, 03:53
Originally posted by statman
Well Brett Lee is 27 and he has been told he wont bowl at his current pace for much passed his Thirties, what use is a bowler who cant bowl line and lenght, that rellies on his pure pace, with out pace????
Well thnkyou for your change of argument, but which source has quoted this? He's 26 BTW.
Jusyt had a glance over Wicked Lester's list, and to my eyes that leaves only Ponting, Gillespie and Lee from the current test line-up. Something like this:
Hayden (32 in October)
Langer (33 in November)
Ponting (28)
Martyn (32 in October)
Lehmann (34 next Summer)
Waugh (38)
Gilchrist (32 in November)
Lee (26)
Warne (34 in September)
Gillespie (28)
McGrath (34 next Summer)
Bevan, Bichel, Hogg and MacGill, immediate replacements, are in their thirties.
Martin Love, Michael Clarke, Shane Watson and Nathan Hauritz are probably the next in line. Love turns 30 next year. We also have Symonds (28), Harvey (31), Maher (29) and Bracken.
Marcus North, Sean Clingeleffer, Ashley Noffke and Paul Rofe are rough bets at this stage. There's also Cameron White, still learning the leg spinners craft but taking wickets at state level.
Simon Katich has had chances and not done much, but may be required sooner rather than later.
I think the conclusions you can draw from this are:
1) The current test players are so good they are keeping the rest of this country's (younger) talent out of the side.
2) The younger talent is not good enough to press for a test spot.
The two do not necessarily contradict each other. There may just be a fair gap between our best and the rest.
And remember that by 'younger' we're not talking about kids - it's almost everyone playing cricket under the age of 28. The only one I'd seriously look at putting in this current team (apart from Lee of course) is Clarke.
We'd want to hope that Watson, Hauritz and Bracken all prove test-capable, and that we find a couple of others in the next two or three years, or there'll be precious little hope of easing new players into the team before the exodus.
Yes, that is a valid point Roger, it could very well be that none of the "younger" players are good enough to get in, but that still leaves us looking at disaster in a few years.
I think there are shudders running up the spine of those of us who remember the early eighties exodus, and what that did for Australian cricket for quite a few (too many!) years.
I can see something like that looming over us again.
Maybe I'm just looking at the glass and calling it half empty, but I for one am worried about the future success of Australia at the moment.
Black Thunder
7 Aug 2003, 12:54
the Aussie team does look a bit old, but you gotta remember this is the first crop through of genuine professionals, meaning they are hanging around a lot longer, same with the FC players.
This has had the affect that there are very few under 24 or 25 players, regularly playing FC cricket in the country.
It's not a bad thing, and in a lot of ways is good thing - it means that guys are forced to learn their craft at grade level within their state first before moving into FC cricket still raw and untried.
It was interesting to note in the recente England u/19's v Australia u/19's, there were only a couple of Aussie who had any FC experience at all, compare to only 2 English guys who hadn't had FC experience.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RogerC
[B]1) The current test players are so good they are keeping the rest of this country's (younger) talent out of the side.
2) The younger talent is not good enough to press for a test spot.
Could not agree with you any more, If you look at the current side there is four or five players in there that are in the top of their class. Gillespie and Mcgrath are in the top ten bowlers of the world.
And Gillie, Ponting and Hayden who are in the batting top 10, It is hard to see guy's like Clarke living up to that sort of precedent.
Wicked Lester
7 Aug 2003, 15:18
So does this mean the current crop of youngsters are not quite as good as we think? Its hard to say unless they're given a go at some point.
That's not to suggest a rapid or reckless dismantling of a great test side but it does suggest a continuation of a very deliberate policy the national selectors have engaged in since 1992 or thereabouts to ensure replacement players are eased into a successful team and not 'thrown to the wolves' as is often the case with teams in decline.
The point I made earlier was that whether they liked it or not players have been tapped on the shoulder at the rate of one a year for the past ten years - Jones, Boon, Marsh, Hughes, Border, McDermott, Taylor, Mark Waugh, Ian Healy (pretty decent team that) - to ensure the team was consistently evolving. I currently get the impression it has stopped evolving. Indeed player resistance via the media to 'age discrimination' is now well orchestrated and may limit the selectors' ability to axe ageing stars.
Over the last decade when a great player has been 'retired' more often than not there wasn't someone knocking on the door demanding selection. Even McGrath didn't demand selection when origianlly chosen for Australia - he was eased into the team and, after looking pretty ordinary for a while, came good. But he was young and was persisted with as a 10+ year player.
But I don't see a lot of this happening now. The last player to emerge on the scene and demand selection because you knew he was a class act from day one was Ponting. Others, even though they have since climbed the ladder of success, have done so after several false starts and only established themselves in their late 20's or early 30's. These players (Langer, Hayden, Martyn, Lehmann) are great contributors and superb cricketers but teams need long term players which a side can be built around over a long term period (Border, Boon, Waugh, McGrath, Warne and others).
If the selectors believe Clarke is of this second group then the sooner he is blooded the better and if that means sacrificing a sacred cow occasionally then it will simply be the continuation of a successful, but tough, policy - not a personal or unfair attack on professional cricketers.
Excellent post Wicked, very well argued.
Black Thunder raises an interesting point regarding this being the first crop of genuine professionals. But it cuts both ways.
Of the current test line up, all bar two - Gilchrist and Lehmann - debuted for their country between the ages of 20 and 23. One of the reasons for our dominance, I should think, is the wealth of test experience in the line-up.
If we continue along the lines Black Thunder suggests, that of spending a lot more time learning the craft at lower levels before earning a test cap, we simply won't ever have a test line up with that amount of experience behind it again.
It's a fair leap from grade cricket to first class, and just as big a leap from first class to test cricket. You can't know it all when you walk into a test line-up, so the longer you can learn at that level the better you will be for it.
It should be noted that professionalism affects the sport world wide, not just in this country; but we are now the oldest team, on average age, going around.
My guess is that we are going to skip a generation of cricketers. This lot will leave a vacuum behind them, and the test line up circa 2006 or so (maybe sooner) is going to be very raw indeed, and rely on Lee, Gillespie and Ponting to carry it.
I have been discussing this with a friend of mine, and suggested (as I did in an earlier post), that we will have a re-run of the 80's, but he suggested it would be more like the Windies, and your post RogerC, would back up his argument. Which runs like this -a very experienced team, players stay on a long time, everyone enjoying the success, with an "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mentality. The time comes when many players have to go at the same time and presto! - a generation has been missed, all of a sudden you have a side with not much test experience, and you start to go down the gurgler.
I was impressed with this argument and thought it probably is closer to where we're at than my "Aussies of the 80s" argument. Unfortunately it means that we might end up worse of than I thought.
There is no replacement for test cricket experience.
Totaly agree with you P76
Brett Li
15 Aug 2003, 05:59
Originally posted by statman
....the australian cricket boars should ease some youngsters into the team like micheal clarke so that the Australians dont have to go throug a extreme leam patch like England at the moment
and wouldn't that be a shame?....
:( :rolleyes:
statman
16 Aug 2003, 22:48
Indeed it would considering we have been the world number one for how long now????