Development of junior batsmen

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Might explain why as a whole batsmen are doing worse and worse overseas? Bar the Saffers who were all produced by the South African high school system and generally the Poms who don't care.

I'll also point out that England, South Africa and India have stuck with traditional methods of developing junior batsmen

What do you mean Eng, SA and Ind have stuck with traditional methods?

 

[legend166]

Until we didn't. The golden era didn't just happen without the structures being in place for it, and they were able to bat in such a way that the subcontinent was no longer such a hurdle.

This is especially true in Sri Lanka, who are about to win their third Test against us ever, two of which are in this series.

Yeah, marking this down as "oh well we suck on the sub continent" really ignores the fact that until two years ago we dominated in Sri Lanka and Pakistan on a regular basis. We've only ever sucked in India. Getting thumped by Sri Lanka and Pakistan is an entirely new phenomenon.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Ian Chappell said a couple of years ago that young Australian batsmen have to make a choice whether to work on their technique or adapt their game to truncated forms of the game, and unfortunately it is easier and more financially attractive for them to choose the latter. He went on to say that even if we reversed the trend, it would take 10 years to start developing Test batsmen of the ilk of Ponting and Clarke. Say what you like about Chappell, he knows his cricket.

Definitely switching between formats of cricket is becoming a challenging skill for all players around the world.

Looking at our 90's/00's golden era, it was a time when sport was becoming professional. AFL footballers for instance went from having day jobs in the 80's to being full-time professional footballers. This was happening with our cricketers too. More time invested in players, more time invested to fitness, more time dedicated to training, more coaches at state and international level, more time dedicated to fielding.

Australia perhaps got the jump on the international cricket community. Our players were professional earlier whereas in other countries they were still doing what they were doing in the 70's and 80's and we went past them. Now the rest of the world has caught up and whatever competitive advantage we held has gone.

 

[The_Reaper]

What do you mean Eng, SA and Ind have stuck with traditional methods?

Younger batsmen in Eng, SA and Ind are taught in the same way their predecessors were

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Yeah, marking this down as "oh well we suck on the sub continent" really ignores the fact that until two years ago we dominated in Sri Lanka and Pakistan on a regular basis. We've only ever sucked in India. Getting thumped by Sri Lanka and Pakistan is an entirely new phenomenon.

Not really.

Our team of legends won there 1-0 in 1998-99. That was the first test match we'd won in Pakistan for 39 years! We had five failed tours in a row there before that.

We were struggling on the subcontinent prior to T20 and we're struggling on the subcontinent post T20.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Younger batsmen in Eng, SA and Ind are taught in the same way their predecessors were

So there is no short form cricket for kids in these countries?

This has been talked about on here before. There are "Milo" cricket equivalents everywhere.

England doesn't have any two day club cricket for juniors like we do in Australia. They play exclusively one day games and short form twilight matches.

South Africa have national state championships at U/13, U/15, U/17 and U/19 level. The players play a combination of two day, one day and T20 cricket.

 

[The_Reaper]

Not really.

Our team of legends won there 1-0 in 1998-99. That was the first test match we'd won in Pakistan for 39 years! We had five failed tours in a row there before that.

We were struggling on the subcontinent prior to T20 and we're struggling on the subcontinent post T20.

Pakistan had a bloody good team before 1998-99 as well though - Wagar, Wasim, Imran etc.

Who was knocking them off in Pakistan.

And the way we lost was a bit different to how we lose now

 

[The_Reaper]

So there is no short form cricket for kids in these countries?

This has been talked about on here before. There are "Milo" cricket equivalents everywhere.

England doesn't have any two day club cricket for juniors like we do in Australia. They play exclusively one day games and short form twilight matches.

South Africa have national state championships at U/13, U/15, U/17 and U/19 level. The players play a combination of two day, one day and T20 cricket.

And the majority of South African batsmen learn from the school systems - which is the real issue they have with getting black kids in the team.

Rabada and Bavuma for instance are also products of the same schools.

England and especially India have a massive focus on batting technique in junior cricket.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Pakistan had a boody good team before 1998-99 as well though - Wagar, Wasim, Imran etc.

Who was knocking them off in Pakistan.

And the way we lost was a bit different to how we lose now

It's tempting to look back on the Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist and Ponting era and say that's how it's meant to be.

What are we doing wrong now? Can't produce the same results.

In 100 years those guys will still be in our Best XI of all time. It was an incredible era and we're lucky to have witnessed it. Why haven't we been able to produce another Bradman?

We beat Pakistan in Sri Lanka and Dubai 3-0 however this was during a period when Pakistan were effectively out of national cricket, a bomb had gone off when Sri Lanka toured there, they had lost their captain to match fixing plus other players. They were completely starved of international cricket and are only starting to show signs of recovery now.

 

[The_Reaper]

It's tempting to look back on the Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist and Ponting era and say that's how it's meant to be.

What are we doing wrong now? Can't produce the same results.

In 100 years those guys will still be in our Best XI of all time. It was an incredible era and we're lucky to have witnessed it. Why haven't we been able to produce another Bradman?

We beat Pakistan in Sri Lanka and Dubai 3-0 however this was during a period when Pakistan were effectively out of national cricket, a bomb had gone off when Sri Lanka toured there, they had lost their captain to match fixing plus other players. They were completely starved of international cricket and are only starting to show signs of recovery now.

Forget the Warne/McGrath era.

Even before that.

You know when we didn't regularly got rolled overseas?

There is difference between losing and what we do now.

 

[The_Reaper]

If the West Indies performed the way we do in Asia when they toured Australia we'd all be saying that West Indian cricket is dead and that they should stop playing test cricket for good.

That's how s**t we are in Asia now.

And on any wicket that is green

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

And the majority of South African batsmen learn from the school systems - which is the real issue they have with getting black kids in the team.

Rabada and Bavuma for instance are also products of the same schools.

England and especially India have a massive focus on batting technique in junior cricket.

This is really general comment. What are you basing it on?

I've played cricket in Australia and England and from what I've seen there is little to no difference in how players are coached. In fact when we were dominating world cricket England specifically tried to replicate our systems. Even recently they poached the head of cricket australia's junior programs to set up similar structures there.

Darren Lehmann was a successful coach in England county cricket but now we think he preaches slogging and doesn't have effective game plans for English conditions?

 

[The_Reaper]

This is really general comment. What are you basing it on?

I've played cricket in Australia and England and from what I've seen there is little to no difference in how players are coached. In fact when we were dominating world cricket England specifically tried to replicate our systems. Even recently they poached the head of cricket australia's junior programs to set up similar structures there.

Darren Lehmann was a successful coach in England county cricket but now we think he preaches slogging and doesn't have effective game plans for English conditions?

Lehmann and Rod Marsh aren't the problem. They're only working with what they've got.

 

[legend166]

Not really.

Our team of legends won there 1-0 in 1998-99. That was the first test match we'd won in Pakistan for 39 years! We had five failed tours in a row there before that.

We were struggling on the subcontinent prior to T20 and we're struggling on the subcontinent post T20.

From the mid 80s to before our last tour in the UAE, our record against Pakistan on the sub continent was 4 wins, 2 losses and 6 draws. Losing 2/12 over a 30 year period tells me we weren't doing that bad.

We don't even look like getting near a draw over there these days.

The statistics don't point to us being hopeless over there (outside of India). If I could be bothered I'd go and check how many runs we're scoring now compared to then. Something tells me it's much, much less.

Okay I went and looked on Statsguru. Our lifetime record against Pakistan and Sri Lanka in Asia:

12 wins, 11 losses, 16 draws. 3 (soon to be 4) of those losses have come in the last 3 years.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

From the mid 80s to before our last tour in the UAE, our record against Pakistan on the sub continent was 4 wins, 2 losses and 6 draws. Losing 2/12 over a 30 year period tells me we weren't doing that bad.

We don't even look like getting near a draw over there these days.

The statistics don't point to us being hopeless over there (outside of India). If I could be bothered I'd go and check how many runs we're scoring now compared to then. Something tells me it's much, much less.

Okay I went and looked on Statsguru. Our lifetime record against Pakistan and Sri Lanka in Asia:

12 wins, 11 losses, 16 draws. 3 (soon to be 4) of those losses have come in the last 3 years.

My point is that our struggle on the subcontinent is not a new thing.

In the 1970's and 80's we played 19 tests in India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, winning only one of them. At least we had the good sense not to tour there often and expose our flaws! Our series win in Pakistan in 1998 was our first in 39 years. Our series win in India in 2004 was our first there in 35 years. The only time we got close and were consistently good there was in an era when we had an unprecedented nucleus of once in a generation champions and those nations were perhaps at a low ebb themselves. Having said that, even our gun team lost a series in Sri Lanka in 1999.

Take Adam Voges as an example. He's not a new age slogger. He's an experienced, patient, orthodox batsman who has been in our first class system for a long time and earned promotion purely on performances in long format games. He's exactly the type of player the critics of T20 cricket think we should pick for test cricket. Even Voges is struggling over there. To the point that he's having to learn brand new shots in the middle of a test series in order to cope. This is a guy who has been in our first class system for 15 years. The system we have doesn't seem to be able to produce players adept at playing spin bowling on the subcontinent and, apart from a relatively brief era of success, it never has.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

If kids only in Australia are doing this, then sure.

If T20 is being played everywhere then batters from all countries will be faced with the challenges of playing across multiple formats.

Disclaimer: I am not in the coaching game, I don't have the knowledge or experience to be any good. I'm going from what I have heard in a few different places, including those who are involved with the junior system.

Its not only played in Australia. But other counties still have a focus on the traditional techniques and play the traditional games in their junior systems. Other than some private school comps, afaik everything here is limited overs of some sort - whether that be limited to 20 overs or something else.

We have used the T20 marketing power to attract young players, as have others, but once in the system we give more credence to T20 and to teaching T20 styles in order for the quick win than other nations seem to. Its part of the issue, not the whole thing by any means. And if not for T20 we probably would have done the same thing if to a marginally lesser extent. We already had gone down the path of forcing retirements at run scores, etc, to give everyone a chance. Building an innings for the long term seems to hardly even part of the game until senior cricket.

Yes, other nations have gone down that path; but not the same extent or anything like it.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Disclaimer: I am not in the coaching game, I don't have the knowledge or experience to be any good. I'm going from what I have heard in a few different places, including those who are involved with the junior system.

Its not only played in Australia. But other counties still have a focus on the traditional techniques and play the traditional games in their junior systems. Other than some private school comps, afaik everything here is limited overs of some sort - whether that be limited to 20 overs or something else.

You're being lied to!

Club cricket is very similar now to what it was 10, 20, 30 years ago. Club cricket - from seniors even down to Under 11 and Under 12 level - play a combination of two day and one day matches the same as they have done for decades. It's traditional cricket, when-you're-out-you're out, the same as it's always been apart from some minor rule tweaks.

Largely cricket administrators at grass roots level HATE Twenty20 cricket like poison. Around every single club and association committee table in the country sits a group of predominantly old and middle aged men who cannot stomach seeing David Warner play a switch hit and it will be over their dead body that any kid at their club is EVER allowed to play this abomination.

Contrary to popular belief, Australian kids play very few T20 matches. At my premier grade club for instance there is no Twenty20 cricket below 1st Grade level if you can believe that.

At junior community level there will be a handful of games played on a weeknight through the season for a bit of fun. When the kids do get one of these rare chances to play a game of Twenty20 cricket I think people would be quite surprised at what they see. I think people have these visions of kids playing ramp shots and reverse sweeps. The reality is that the scoring rate and batting style differs little between two day, one day and T20 cricket at junior level. Most batters are scared of getting out and block the absolute living suitcase out of it. They need a bomb put under them in order to run a single - in any format. They'd rather get retired on 2* than risk getting out for 10. A few kids are sloggers - and they slog in T20, one day and two day cricket just the same.

*If* for instance India are still teaching "traditional" cricket techniques and we're not, then why do they still get blown to smithereens when they come out here? Their record here is as poor as ours is there. Surely the environment players have learned their cricket in plays the biggest role?

Australia played 35 test matches in total on the subcontinent through the 70's, 80's and 90's. Lillee, Marsh, Chappell, Chappell, Border, Boon, Waugh, Waugh, McGrath, Warne... we won four of them. And that was before the T20 ogre had raised its ugly head.

We have used the T20 marketing power to attract young players, as have others, but once in the system we give more credence to T20 and to teaching T20 styles in order for the quick win than other nations seem to. Its part of the issue, not the whole thing by any means. And if not for T20 we probably would have done the same thing if to a marginally lesser extent. We already had gone down the path of forcing retirements at run scores, etc, to give everyone a chance. Building an innings for the long term seems to hardly even part of the game until senior cricket.

Yes, other nations have gone down that path; but not the same extent or anything like it.

The really young kids are playing a "new" game called T20 Blast. The kids get shirts like the BBL teams. It's for 7 year olds - they play the exact same format I played as a 7 year old back in the 80's! Batting in pairs, fielders rotate around, everyone bats, everyone bowls. It's just been re-badged to cash in on the appeal T20 cricket has with young people, time poor families etc. The more things change, the more they stay the same!

One thing that has change (which you've alluded to here) is that now batters are forced to retire. This is correct. Up until about Under 13's the rules dictate that everyone must bat and every must bowl a certain number of overs. This is indeed a change and applies to the youngest age groups. It is exactly the same in England, South Africa and New Zealand.

It doesn't apply higher up - if kids from U/14 level and beyond are good enough to bat all day then they can as they've always been able to. Players start to specialise at that age group as batters/bowlers rather than everyone getting a go.

The reason it was changed at the younger age groups was because playing numbers at a junior level were declining rapidly. Cricket was getting it's ass kicked by sports like basketball that gave an opportunity for everyone to get on the court. The rules were changed to attract more players as not having a team was seen as the lesser of two evils.

Anyway... I've rambled almost long enough. Twenty20 cricket is about 10 years old and has become really big in the last 6 or 7 years. So any effect we see from the format won't be for a while yet. Our current test cricketers would have barely even heard of the format as kids.

 

[The_Reaper]

You're being lied to!

Club cricket is very similar now to what it was 10, 20, 30 years ago. Club cricket - from seniors even down to Under 11 and Under 12 level - play a combination of two day and one day matches the same as they have done for decades. It's traditional cricket, when-you're-out-you're out, the same as it's always been apart from some minor rule tweaks.

Largely cricket administrators at grass roots level HATE Twenty20 cricket like poison. Around every single club and association committee table in the country sits a group of predominantly old and middle aged men who cannot stomach seeing David Warner play a switch hit and it will be over their dead body that any kid at their club is EVER allowed to play this abomination.

Contrary to popular belief, Australian kids play very few T20 matches. At my premier grade club for instance there is no Twenty20 cricket below 1st Grade level if you can believe that.

At junior community level there will be a handful of games played on a weeknight through the season for a bit of fun. When the kids do get one of these rare chances to play a game of Twenty20 cricket I think people would be quite surprised at what they see. I think people have these visions of kids playing ramp shots and reverse sweeps. The reality is that the scoring rate and batting style differs little between two day, one day and T20 cricket at junior level. Most batters are scared of getting out and block the absolute living suitcase out of it. They need a bomb put under them in order to run a single - in any format. They'd rather get retired on 2* than risk getting out for 10. A few kids are sloggers - and they slog in T20, one day and two day cricket just the same.

*If* for instance India are still teaching "traditional" cricket techniques and we're not, then why do they still get blown to smithereens when they come out here? Their record here is as poor as ours is there. Surely the environment players have learned their cricket in plays the biggest role?

Australia played 35 test matches in total on the subcontinent through the 70's, 80's and 90's. Lillee, Marsh, Chappell, Chappell, Border, Boon, Waugh, Waugh, McGrath, Warne... we won four of them. And that was before the T20 ogre had raised its ugly head.



The really young kids are playing a "new" game called T20 Blast. The kids get shirts like the BBL teams. It's for 7 year olds - they play the exact same format I played as a 7 year old back in the 80's! Batting in pairs, fielders rotate around, everyone bats, everyone bowls. It's just been re-badged to cash in on the appeal T20 cricket has with young people, time poor families etc. The more things change, the more they stay the same!

One thing that has change (which you've alluded to here) is that now batters are forced to retire. This is correct. Up until about Under 13's the rules dictate that everyone must bat and every must bowl a certain number of overs. This is indeed a change and applies to the youngest age groups. It is exactly the same in England, South Africa and New Zealand.

It doesn't apply higher up - if kids from U/14 level and beyond are good enough to bat all day then they can as they've always been able to. Players start to specialise at that age group as batters/bowlers rather than everyone getting a go.

The reason it was changed at the younger age groups was because playing numbers at a junior level were declining rapidly. Cricket was getting it's ass kicked by sports like basketball that gave an opportunity for everyone to get on the court. The rules were changed to attract more players as not having a team was seen as the lesser of two evils.

Anyway... I've rambled almost long enough. Twenty20 cricket is about 10 years old and has become really big in the last 6 or 7 years. So any effect we see from the format won't be for a while yet. Our current test cricketers would have barely even heard of the format as kids.

Indian batsmen do reasonably well here. I'd not that in 2004 they drew the series, in 2008 they won at the WACA and were very competitive in Sydney and while they went to s**t in 2012 they did draw two tests last time they were here.

If you really want to pretend that's similar to the kind of getting bowled out for 100 odd (or 63 as in England) than sure.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Indian batsmen do reasonably well here. I'd not that in 2004 they drew the series, in 2008 they won at the WACA and were very competitive in Sydney and while they went to s**t in 2012 they did draw two tests last time they were here.

If you really want to pretend that's similar to the kind of getting bowled out for 100 odd (or 63 as in England) than sure.

They've played 44 tests in Australia and won 5.

I also think that as the bounce and pace of pitches like the WACA, Gabba and MCG has reduced that touring teams should find it easier to adjust to our conditions.

Conversely it makes it more difficult for our batters to succeed elsewhere. Previously if a player had a good Shield season they would need to have conquered bounce (WACA), seam (Gabba, Bellerive), spin (SCG, Adelaide Oval) plus the MCG which was up and down in the 80's, fairly quick/bouncy in the 90's. They would have proven that their technique can stand up to a variety of conditions.

These recent poor tests have been dreadful no doubt.

 

[The_Reaper]

They've played 44 tests in Australia and won 5.

I also think that as the bounce and pace of pitches like the WACA, Gabba and MCG has reduced that touring teams should find it easier to adjust to our conditions.

Conversely it makes it more difficult for our batters to succeed elsewhere. Previously if a player had a good Shield season they would need to have conquered bounce (WACA), seam (Gabba, Bellerive), spin (SCG, Adelaide Oval) plus the MCG which was up and down in the 80's, fairly quick/bouncy in the 90's. They would have proven that their technique can stand up to a variety of conditions.

These recent poor tests have been dreadful no doubt.

And how have they done recently?

India appear to be approving away from home. We're going the other direction.

South Africa very recently went like a decade without losing a series away from home.

England how won series in India recently and even won here in 2010/11.

We're going backwards while the other countries are not

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

And how have they done recently?

India appear to be approving away from home. We're going the other direction.

South Africa very recently went like a decade without losing a series away from home.

England how won series in India recently and even won here in 2010/11.

We're going backwards while the other countries are not

Definitely a good idea to see what the best performing countries are doing and measure it against our own system. They are all playing Twenty20 so we can cross that off. Clearly some (many?) things need to change though.

There was some good discussion on here (in this thread?) about Future's League and how the standard has dropped from the old State 2nd XI competition.

The problem was that the old 2nd XI became very stale and ceased being a development tool for Australian cricket. It started when cricket became more professional and players could earn a half decent living on state contracts. Players who were never going to play for Australia stayed in the system getting their state contract and 2nd XI match payments, maybe playing the odd Shield game too then drifting back to England in the winter. No reason to retire. Put off getting a proper job a few more years. Players were staying in the game much longer which made it harder for young players coming through.

The initial changes to Future's League seemed an overreaction to this but they have backed off on the age requirements I think I read? Always a balance between opportunities for youth and the standard of cricket.

I like what they are doing now where the Aus U/19s and various development teams play against touring A teams and our state teams. Expose our most talented players to a higher standard of cricket earlier. Aus U/15s play in the national U/17s carnival, Aus U/17s play i the national U/19 carnival. This is a step in the right direction but needs to be followed up in selection philosophy at a state and national level.

The states themselves seem to have grappled a little bit with their role in the system. Are they there to win Shields or to develop players for Australia? Just as an example, why did Victoria recruit David Hussey for instance? How does that benefit Australian cricket in any way, shape or form? Are the cricket directors and state coaches secure enough in their jobs that they can invest in youth and allow them to find their feet on the national stage? Or do they need wins NOW to keep their jobs?

Comparing selection philosophies across eras is interesting. Australia had that gun team in the 90s and 00s and it was a hard team to get into but during and as we were nearing the end of that era whenever a spot opened up we opted for the 30-something Shield stalwart. Sometimes it paid off in spades (eg Mike Hussey) but often we could have been using that No 6 batting spot to develop the next Waugh Ponting or Clarke.

Compare that to the era that preceded our golden run when Waugh, Healy, Warne, McGrath were given opportunities. In some cases didn't set the world on fire at Shield level and certainly didn't light it up in test cricket early on. They were prescient selections, the selectors showed faith in them and gave them time to develop. Importantly the selectors knew talent when they saw it and in time were proven correct. I don't see us making those same bold calls now? We prefer to go to safe options like Voges or Rogers. We've been like North Melbourne topping up on experience. I hope what they seem to be doing with players at U/19 level is followed up at state and national level.

 

[The_Reaper]

Definitely a good idea to see what the best performing countries are doing and measure it against our own system. They are all playing Twenty20 so we can cross that off. Clearly some (many?) things need to change though.

There was some good discussion on here (in this thread?) about Future's League and how the standard has dropped from the old State 2nd XI competition.

The problem was that the old 2nd XI became very stale and ceased being a development tool for Australian cricket. It started when cricket became more professional and players could earn a half decent living on state contracts. Players who were never going to play for Australia stayed in the system getting their state contract and 2nd XI match payments, maybe playing the odd Shield game too then drifting back to England in the winter. No reason to retire. Put off getting a proper job a few more years. Players were staying in the game much longer which made it harder for young players coming through.

The initial changes to Future's League seemed an overreaction to this but they have backed off on the age requirements I think I read? Always a balance between opportunities for youth and the standard of cricket.

I like what they are doing now where the Aus U/19s and various development teams play against touring A teams and our state teams. Expose our most talented players to a higher standard of cricket earlier. Aus U/15s play in the national U/17s carnival, Aus U/17s play i the national U/19 carnival. This is a step in the right direction but needs to be followed up in selection philosophy at a state and national level.

The states themselves seem to have grappled a little bit with their role in the system. Are they there to win Shields or to develop players for Australia? Just as an example, why did Victoria recruit David Hussey for instance? How does that benefit Australian cricket in any way, shape or form? Are the cricket directors and state coaches secure enough in their jobs that they can invest in youth and allow them to find their feet on the national stage? Or do they need wins NOW to keep their jobs?

Comparing selection philosophies across eras is interesting. Australia had that gun team in the 90s and 00s and it was a hard team to get into but during and as we were nearing the end of that era whenever a spot opened up we opted for the 30-something Shield stalwart. Sometimes it paid off in spades (eg Mike Hussey) but often we could have been using that No 6 batting spot to develop the next Waugh Ponting or Clarke.

Compare that to the era that preceded our golden run when Waugh, Healy, Warne, McGrath were given opportunities. In some cases didn't set the world on fire at Shield level and certainly didn't light it up in test cricket early on. They were prescient selections, the selectors showed faith in them and gave them time to develop. Importantly the selectors knew talent when they saw it and in time were proven correct. I don't see us making those same bold calls now? We prefer to go to safe options like Voges or Rogers. We've been like North Melbourne topping up on experience. I hope what they seem to be doing with players at U/19 level is followed up at state and national level.

I get what you mean but Hussey is a bad example given he came over in his early/mid 20s.

That's an example of the system working as it should. Young, talented player can't get an opportunity in his home state so moved elsewhere and had a pretty good career though he never ended up playing tests.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I get what you mean but Hussey is a bad example given he came over in his early/mid 20s.

That's an example of the system working as it should. Young, talented player can't get an opportunity in his home state so moved elsewhere and had a pretty good career though he never ended up playing tests.

Ah, right you are. Think it was Rogers I was thinking of who changed states mid-career and had been playing regularly for WA.

 

[The_Reaper]

Ah, right you are. Think it was Rogers I was thinking of who changed states mid-career and had been playing regularly for WA.

Which in the end did work well for Australia and for young Victorian batsmen like Stoinis. ]

Similarly Klinger has helped someone like Bancroft out a lot.

You need experienced batsmen in a team to help youngsters develop but if you go too far you risk the chance of keeping young players out of the team when they'd be better off playing earlier.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Couldn't Klinger help Stoinis? And Rogers help Bancroft?