Australia needs a change in thinking re development

[western royboy]

So your a fan of the quick fix series to series representative team then an actual sporting team. interesting. The team is crap purely because they went down the quick fix pathway instead of developing.

Batsman are maturing in their 30s because on average because they aren't cracking the shield sides until their mid to late 20s and spend 5-6 seasons maturing their game.

No I'm a fan of restoring the strong systems that ensure we get the best players making to the top. Because we have degraded Grade Cricket we have dropped out a very important filter in th system to the point where it is now largely ignored. We need to prune back the number of clubs and get it strong again and allow performance to dictate who plays rather than potential.

 

[Partridge]

21 is extremely young for a cricketer. I wouldn't be judging the decision he made until he is into his mid to late 20's at least. Until then, let him develop in grade cricket, he'll get his chance eventually.

Is it? Since when. In Australia you would expect players to debut for Australia at that age. Or even younger.

What do Don Bradman, Stan McCabe, Neil Harvey, Ian Chappell, Doug Walters, Dennis Lillee, and Steve Waugh have in common? They all debuted for Australian at age 21 or in the case of Bradman, McCabe, Harvey, Walters and Waugh - younger.

 

[Charlie Kelly]

Is it? Since when. In Australia you would expect players to debut for Australia at that age. Or even younger.

What do Don Bradman, Stan McCabe, Neil Harvey, Ian Chappell, Doug Walters, Dennis Lillee, and Steve Waugh have in common? They all debuted for Australian at age 21 or in the case of Bradman, McCabe, Harvey, Walters and Waugh - younger.

Add Ponting to that list. He was 20

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

So your a fan of the quick fix series to series representative team then an actual sporting team. interesting. The team is crap purely because they went down the quick fix pathway instead of developing.

Batsman are maturing in their 30s because on average because they aren't cracking the shield sides until their mid to late 20s and spend 5-6 seasons maturing their game.

No. The team is crap (or maybe not crap, certainly a long way off the standards we expect) now largely because the talented players weren't forced to do the hard yards. They still have the ability, but do not have the mental application - especially the batsmen. It is going down the attempted "development" path rather than getting players to prove their value that has been a large part of the problem.
And two whole generations of players have been brought up rarely playing against Test players. The Sheffield Shield is an elite competition. It needs to be treated as such again.

 

[western royboy]

Is it? Since when. In Australia you would expect players to debut for Australia at that age. Or even younger.

What do Don Bradman, Stan McCabe, Neil Harvey, Ian Chappell, Doug Walters, Dennis Lillee, and Steve Waugh have in common? They all debuted for Australian at age 21 or in the case of Bradman, McCabe, Harvey, Walters and Waugh - younger.

In today's environment it's less likely due to the prevalence of junior comps and the mollycoddling that goes with it, combined with the drop in standards that used to filter out the good players.

 

[Tyberious Funk]

Oh good lord no. Adding more teams would lower the standard of the comp.

Not if teams were encouraged to recruit high-quality internationals to fill out some of the places. I know that wouldn't necessarily help fill out the pool of players, though. But I've always thought it would be a good idea to encourage, say, some of the better quality sub-continent spinners to come out and play in Australia. But with only six teams, most of them only playing a single spinner, it would bump out a developing player.

 

[The_Reaper]

Not if teams were encouraged to recruit high-quality internationals to fill out some of the places. I know that wouldn't necessarily help fill out the pool of players, though. But I've always thought it would be a good idea to encourage, say, some of the better quality sub-continent spinners to come out and play in Australia. But with only six teams, most of them only playing a single spinner, it would bump out a developing player.

But their domestic comps are on at the same time.

 

[western royboy]

All the errors are made at the bottom - what you get at the top is the by product of your systems that sit underneath.

Grassroots / kids is whre the problem is.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

All the errors are made at the bottom - what you get at the top is the by product of your systems that sit underneath.

Grassroots / kids is whre the problem is.

I know in the past you have mentioned stuff like this:

From the Launceson Examiner

Speaking at The Examiner's launch of his autobiography At the Close of Play this week, the retired Test captain reflected on rule changes made since his own development at Mowbray Heights Primary School, Brooks High and Mowbray Cricket Club.
Since a teenage Ponting scored four centuries in five days at Northern cricket week, rules were changed to limit each batsman's time at the crease and enable more players to bat.
However, Ponting believes this is a retrograde step and if such measures had been in place when he was emerging, might have stifled his development as a batsman.

 

[western royboy]

I know in the past you have mentioned stuff like this:

From the Launceson Examiner

Unfortunately common sense is not a quality that many cricket administrators possess, you need to live in the real world to have it. No one inside the tent wants to listen because it threatens their personal fifedoms.

 

[Black Diamond]

I've posted many times that limiting kids to X number of runs or balls and limiting bowlers to X overs per innings would start to hurt us.

This "everybody gets a go" rubbish stifles the best prospects and the hardest workers. The best kids need to learn how to do the heavy lifting early. The act of dominating, the act of being the best, has to worked on as much as any technical aspect of the game.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

I've posted many times that limiting kids to X number of runs or balls and limiting bowlers to X overs per innings would start to hurt us.

This "everybody gets a go" rubbish stifles the best prospects and the hardest workers. The best kids need to learn how to do the heavy lifting early. The act of dominating, the act of being the best, has to worked on as much as any technical aspect of the game.

Preparing my juniors team for their comps this year it has changed even further down to a 'Super 8s' comp from a T20 one, where originally it was 30 overs. They continue to dilute the games which is utterly ridiculous. Seems to be just a convenience thing to me.

 

[Black Diamond]

Preparing my juniors team for their comps this year it has changed even further down to a 'Super 8s' comp from a T20 one, where originally it was 30 overs. They continue to dilute the games which is utterly ridiculous. Seems to be just a convenience thing to me.

Is it fair to say parents don't want to spend most of their Saturday at the cricket? By "super 8s" are you saying they play a match totalling 16 overs?

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Is it fair to say parents don't want to spend most of their Saturday at the cricket? By "super 8s" are you saying they play a match totalling 16 overs?

I don't even know what the format entails yet, but I assume this is the case. From what I can gather the matches are shorter, there are less than 11 players in each side (I assume 8) and the boundaries are tiny, about 20m or something. Admittedly this is school cricket and not club cricket but it still upsets me that it is being diluted.

 

[western royboy]

I don't even know what the format entails yet, but I assume this is the case. From what I can gather the matches are shorter, there are less than 11 players in each side (I assume 8) and the boundaries are tiny, about 20m or something. Admittedly this is school cricket and not club cricket but it still upsets me that it is being diluted.

If you want to win, get big kids to clear the front leg and swing through the legside.

If you want to do the right thing by the kids - ge them to play straight and get double runs past the stumps.

This is where the starts and it manifests its way all through every level.

When i started you rarely batted so when you did you had to stay in - so defence came first.

Now everyone gets a bat (which I'm not against at lower levels) but to win you must score and little people can't smash an off drive - to score it usually is a slog through the legside.

 

[TigerCraig]

I don't mind a bit of junior modification (eg in my sons comp. in 1 day games batsmen have to retire after batting for 15 overs, but can com back in at the 9th wicket). We play a mix of 2 day 50 over a side and 1 day 30 over a side games

20/20 (which is what the school rep side plays) sucks for kids like my son who is an opening bowler. Every kid bowls 2 overs, and then he bats at 10 or 11 so rarely gets a bat

This year he started playing mens arvo cricket which is good as they play 2 day 75 over a day games, but because he is 15 he is still limted to 6 over spells

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

I've posted many times that limiting kids to X number of runs or balls and limiting bowlers to X overs per innings would start to hurt us.

This "everybody gets a go" rubbish stifles the best prospects and the hardest workers. The best kids need to learn how to do the heavy lifting early. The act of dominating, the act of being the best, has to worked on as much as any technical aspect of the game.

Everybody gets a go is great, if used in its place. For the top level local and regional competitions, however, there needs to be a reason for the best batsmen to want to bat all day and the best bowlers to want wickets.
I'm not involved in junior cricket, but from everything I've seen and heard there is no incentive for good players to be as good as they can be or try to play a long game. Of course, kids want fun, and that is how the short game and sharing the game aorund has become paramount. From the outside it just seems to have gone way too far, and resulted in impeding the development of the best cricketers by denying them the part they are capable of.