Unpopular Cricket Opinions

[adelaidecrows]

I think we're in agreement to a large extent. We're both saying that highly talented youngsters (Hayden, Langer, Martyn etc) can be afforded more of an opportunity in the side as it's a reasonably safe bet that they will eventually come of age.

What we should never do is pick youngsters for the sake of it. The Ashes is not the time for blooding youngsters for long term development, unless their numbers have them strongly in contention already.

I don't agree completely that young players need to play Test cricket to learn about their techniques. These days the young guys have constant opportunities to play in different countries and competitions - county, IPL, Big Bash, Shield, etc. Sure, a T20 will never offer the same benefits as a first class or Test innings, but it does give these guys exposure to playing against some of the best players in world cricket.

David Warner got in to the Aus T20 side without playing first class cricket, but had to prove his worth in the Sheffield Shield before getting a baggy green. Steve Smith is a prime example of a player being selected before they are ready on the basis of future promise. His first class numbers didn't warrant the selection. The public backlash on Smith was extreme and 90% of people on this forum said he was a hack who would never make it. No way should that be the blue print for our Test selection policy.

Like it or not the Australian team is a representative side. The days of a player being able to ride out 5-6 bad games and still be retained are long gone. Young players must be in contention based on form, not just age.[/QUOTE]

Its either a team or a representative side. not both. They try and brag its a team but then they argue representative cricket. Team first selection could be argued why Haddin and Watson keep being selected so long and so often. If you then pick a player in their mid 30s it becomes about representation and not the team. Probably why Voges didn't hang around when the TEAM needed him most. I may not like Haddin and Watson and wanted them gone but Voges should never have been selected.

 

[corbies]

So if its a representative side we pick our best side, but if its a team we only pick older guys if they've been playing for a really long time and just continually keep picking younger guys otherwise? When these younger guys reach early-mid 30's and may be in the best form of their careers, do we then drop them for more younger guys? I really don't get it.

Lets face it, the Ashes is Australian crickets' equivalent to a finals series, and picking talented but not-yet-ready youngsters for an ashes series over older, better players would be like Adelaide making the top 4 and then playing kids for the future in the finals.

 

[the_interloper]

All I'm saying is that we'd get smashed because the best younger players aren't ready just yet.

Who would you have picked?

Yep it's all well and good to say we should pick young players, but where is the 21 year old averaging 55 in the Shield? They'd be in for sure over Voges.

 

[frankrizzo]

Never understood the constant calls for youth in test teams, you pick your best side and if they are all over 30 then who cares?

My issue with this current team was that certain players like haddin watto ect weren't in the side based on recent test match form, the numbers that mattered weren't their ages but their poor test returns.

Rogers and voges can't see how anybody could have an issue with them being in the starting XI for this series, they had performed better than those younger than them looking to take their spots so who cares what side of 30 they are?

 

[eth-dog]

Never understood the constant calls for youth in test teams, you pick your best side and if they are all over 30 then who cares?

My issue with this current team was that certain players like haddin watto ect weren't in the side based on recent test match form, the numbers that mattered weren't their ages but their poor test returns.

Rogers and voges can't see how anybody could have an issue with them being in the starting XI for this series, they had performed better than those younger than them looking to take their spots so who cares what side of 30 they are?

The thing is you need to transition somewhat. You currently have Rogers, Clarke, Voges, Watson, Haddin and Johnson all likely to retire in one fell swoop and that just sticks young players straight in without any experience it makes you s**t straight away. In regards to Voges and Watson, this is a perfect opportunity to transition younger players in to give them a bit of experience before the other older players retire.

 

[The_Reaper]

The thing is you need to transition somewhat. You currently have Rogers, Clarke, Voges, Watson, Haddin and Johnson all likely to retire in one fell swoop and that just sticks young players straight in without any experience it makes you s**t straight away. In regards to Voges and Watson, this is a perfect opportunity to transition younger players in to give them a bit of experience before the other older players retire.

Voges doesn't seem like he's about to retire.

In fact to be honest with Rogers, Clarke, Haddin and Watson likely to leave this year, having Voges for a few years in the middle order helps the transition.

 

[eth-dog]

Voges doesn't seem like he's about to retire.

In fact to be honest with Rogers, Clarke, Haddin and Watson likely to leave this year, having Voges for a few years in the middle order helps the transition.

He's 35. He won't last longer than 12 months, why waste him when we could transition Joe Burns in at 5 instead?

 

[The_Reaper]

I think we're in agreement to a large extent. We're both saying that highly talented youngsters (Hayden, Langer, Martyn etc) can be afforded more of an opportunity in the side as it's a reasonably safe bet that they will eventually come of age.

What we should never do is pick youngsters for the sake of it. The Ashes is not the time for blooding youngsters for long term development, unless their numbers have them strongly in contention already.

I don't agree completely that young players need to play Test cricket to learn about their techniques. These days the young guys have constant opportunities to play in different countries and competitions - county, IPL, Big Bash, Shield, etc. Sure, a T20 will never offer the same benefits as a first class or Test innings, but it does give these guys exposure to playing against some of the best players in world cricket.

David Warner got in to the Aus T20 side without playing first class cricket, but had to prove his worth in the Sheffield Shield before getting a baggy green. Steve Smith is a prime example of a player being selected before they are ready on the basis of future promise. His first class numbers didn't warrant the selection. The public backlash on Smith was extreme and 90% of people on this forum said he was a hack who would never make it. No way should that be the blue print for our Test selection policy.

Like it or not the Australian team is a representative side. The days of a player being able to ride out 5-6 bad games and still be retained are long gone. Young players must be in contention based on form, not just age.

Got selected off the basis of a shield season where he scored 4 centuries at an average of >75.

Sure it was only 8 matches and his previous shield seasons were nothing special but I'd argue that he deserved consideration. Yes, he wasn't ready but it's not like he was selected on the basis of nothing.

 

[The_Reaper]

He's 35. He won't last longer than 12 months, why waste him when we could transition Joe Burns in at 5 instead?

Why will he only last 12 months?

In pretty good form last summer?

And I'm pretty sure Joe Burns will have a go at Rogers spot. Or Clarkes spot. We're about to have a lot of spots available so maybe an experienced player for 2 years could be useful?

Unless you want Warner, Smith and 5 blokes with under 10 tests.

 

[bungwahl]

Got selected off the basis of a shield season where he scored 4 centuries at an average of >75.

Sure it was only 8 matches and his previous shield seasons were nothing special but I'd argue that he deserved consideration. Yes, he wasn't ready but it's not like he was selected on the basis of nothing.

If he'd been selected as a batsman that'd be a strong point, but he was #8 and a front line spinner.

 

[The_Reaper]

If he'd been selected as a batsman that'd be a strong point, but he was #8 and a front line spinner.

Well that's the Hilditch selection panel for you

 

[eth-dog]

Why will he only last 12 months?

In pretty good form last summer?

And I'm pretty sure Joe Burns will have a go at Rogers spot. Or Clarkes spot. We're about to have a lot of spots available so maybe an experienced player for 2 years could be useful?

Unless you want Warner, Smith and 5 blokes with under 10 tests.

Exactly. Why not play Burns at 5 for the whole year and Marsh at 6? It eases the transition so that when Clarke retires at the end of next summer you have Marsh with 17 tests and Burns with 15. Then you bring in your other opener and another middle order batsman for Rogers and Clarke. Maybe Shaun Marsh for a bit at 1 to give the other candidates a chance during the shield season.

 

[The_Reaper]

Exactly. Why not play Burns at 5 for the whole year and Marsh at 6? It eases the transition so that when Clarke retires at the end of next summer you have Marsh with 17 tests and Burns with 15. Then you bring in your other opener and another middle order batsman for Rogers and Clarke. Maybe Shaun Marsh for a bit at 1 to give the other candidates a chance during the shield season.

If Clarke lasts till the end of next summer.

 

[eth-dog]

If Clarke lasts till the end of next summer.

Let's say he lasts until the end of the NZ series still, you'd have Marsh on 14 tests and Burns on 12. Gives them a good base on which to build.

 

[Ashton Agar]

Never understood the constant calls for youth in test teams, you pick your best side and if they are all over 30 then who cares?

My issue with this current team was that certain players like haddin watto ect weren't in the side based on recent test match form, the numbers that mattered weren't their ages but their poor test returns.

Rogers and voges can't see how anybody could have an issue with them being in the starting XI for this series, they had performed better than those younger than them looking to take their spots so who cares what side of 30 they are?

Agreed. You always pick your best XI in test cricket. Always.

He's 35. He won't last longer than 12 months, why waste him when we could transition Joe Burns in at 5 instead?

Why? Hussey and Ponting went until 38 and 39. Sure Punter had dropped right off, but Hussey was arguably in career best form. And Hussey is a better comparison as he started late, not as late as Voges but still pretty late.

Burns will no doubt come in for Rogers at the end of this Ashes series anyway.

 

[YES! YES! YES!]

I have loved watching American Dad sooooooo much more ever since Steve Smith has dominated the batting last summer.

(For those who don't know the son's name in the show is also called Steve Smith).

 

[the_interloper]

Agreed. You always pick your best XI in test cricket. Always.

Why? Hussey and Ponting went until 38 and 39. Sure Punter had dropped right off, but Hussey was arguably in career best form. And Hussey is a better comparison as he started late, not as late as Voges but still pretty late.

Burns will no doubt come in for Rogers at the end of this Ashes series anyway.

Don't know about that, Shaun Marsh would probably get a crack I'd think.

 

[Omega Blue]

Chris Lynn Is the future #3

 

[adelaidecrows]

Voges, Voges, Voges.

Failed 3 times when Australia needed him most. Cant help but think his position would have been better served with the future in mind.

 

[Mateyman]

Voges, Voges, Voges.

Failed 3 times when Australia needed him most. Cant help but think his position would have been better served with the future in mind.

Australia needed him most at 3/400?

 

[adelaidecrows]

Australia needed him most at 3/400?

lol, don't be daft.

 

[JackOutback]

Yep it's all well and good to say we should pick young players, but where is the 21 year old averaging 55 in the Shield? They'd be in for sure over Voges.

Therein lies the problem; I followed the Shield quite closely last year and there are not a lot of young batsmen knocking down the door. Voges, David Hussey, Shaun Marsh, Klinger, Cowan etc were topping the averages list. Khawaja was obviously injured, Burns did well and Stoinis looks like one for the future, but batting is definitely our weak spot (internationally and domestically).

 

[Doodlesweaver]

I think we're in agreement to a large extent. We're both saying that highly talented youngsters (Hayden, Langer, Martyn etc) can be afforded more of an opportunity in the side as it's a reasonably safe bet that they will eventually come of age.

What we should never do is pick youngsters for the sake of it. The Ashes is not the time for blooding youngsters for long term development, unless their numbers have them strongly in contention already.

I don't agree completely that young players need to play Test cricket to learn about their techniques. These days the young guys have constant opportunities to play in different countries and competitions - county, IPL, Big Bash, Shield, etc. Sure, a T20 will never offer the same benefits as a first class or Test innings, but it does give these guys exposure to playing against some of the best players in world cricket.

David Warner got in to the Aus T20 side without playing first class cricket, but had to prove his worth in the Sheffield Shield before getting a baggy green. Steve Smith is a prime example of a player being selected before they are ready on the basis of future promise. His first class numbers didn't warrant the selection. The public backlash on Smith was extreme and 90% of people on this forum said he was a hack who would never make it. No way should that be the blue print for our Test selection policy.

Like it or not the Australian team is a representative side. The days of a player being able to ride out 5-6 bad games and still be retained are long gone. Young players must be in contention based on form, not just age.

Steve Smith was picked first because he'd had outstanding seasons with the bat in first class cricket and the selectors were desperate for him to be an allrounder. Mitch Marsh is far more of a speculative pick. All young players are picked on the basis of future promise. It's what they offer.

And sorry but you have rocks in your head if you think the second bolded thing will not happen now. I expect Watson to continue his test career soonish and probably batting at the place in the line-up he is least likely to succeed in. Punter hung on too long, Clarke may do too and the selectors are not likely to drop a player of Clarke's stature.

 

[Jak!x]

Chris Lynn Is the future #3

I hope not, his footwork is woeful. Would get picked off quickly at international level

 

[eth-dog]

Chris Lynn Is the future #3

Technique not suited to it. He's much more of your 4 or 5. I think Burns is the most suited of the "young" brigade.