Next Generation

[HirdsTheWord]

Not with the WTC being so important. We have already been hammered in loss of points for overrates we sort of had to put no risk in losing this series.

You don't use a test for blooding it's Not the AFL.

Disagree.

There is zero risk we lose these matches by swapping in Murphy over Lyon as an example. Pakistan and the West indies are sub ordinary opposition no Australian soil.

Also disagree on the second comment. Experience is experience. Murphy already has been blooded, he just hasn't been given a chance on home soil.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Disagree.

There is zero risk we lose these matches by swapping in Murphy over Lyon. Pakistan and the West indies are sub ordinary opposition no Australian soil.

Also disagree on the second comment. Experience is experience.

That what the A games are for, and we needed Lyon this summer already in the second and third tests. It isn't AFL stop thinking test cricket is like you are building a footy team completely different. You use the A games and then they are ready to come in.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Disagree.

Murphy has shown great form on away decks in India and England.

Of course he needs development, he is 23 years old?

Where do you think has going to get that development? In the nets? lol.

he needs experience, at test level.

In the A tours, should also play in County Cricket. There's zero rush, he'll be the backup to Lyon for the next 2-3 years, bare i mid spinners play till they are late.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

That what the A games are for, and we needed Lyon this summer already in the second and third tests. It isn't AFL stop thinking test cricket is like you are building a footy team completely different. You use the A games and then they are ready to come in.

I disagree with that view.

A games are completely different to test games, just as the VFL is completely different to the AFL.

higher skill and higher intensity. Experience is important.

 

[western royboy]

I reckon Chappell has had enough input over the journey.
Chappell should just give it a rest.

He helped orchestrate the current situation.

Back when he was selector, he dropped Hughes and Khawaja who were right in the age bracket he laments not having. Later he picked Renshaw, Maddinson and Hanscomb all at once, none of whom are in the side at present.

Either stubborn, a slow learner, or both.

Absolutely - he’s 100% in the gun here - he didn’t invent T20 but he’s all over the rest of it.

He was once the guru of this / then completely sold out for a $. Bit late to change your tune again now.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I disagree with that view.

A games are completely different to test games, just as the VFL is completely different to the AFL.

Again A games in cricket are not like VFL. They are designed for this purpose. Shield is like VFL if you want to use that analogy. Murphy needs to have a couple of years getting his craft completely test ready, we sort of saw why we needed Lyon in the Ashes. Let him develop for the next 2-3 years, get those A games in, play County. He'll have 50-60 more games of experience before coming in at the test level

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Again A games in cricket are not like VFL. They are designed for this purpose. Shield is like VFL if you want to use that analogy. Murphy needs to have a couple of years getting his craft completely test ready, we sort of saw why we needed Lyon in the Ashes. Let him develop for the next 2-3 years, get those A games in, play County. He'll have 50-60 more games of experience before coming in at the test level

i agree with all that, i just think Pakistan and West Indies would be a good opportunity for him.

it's like like swapping him in will lose us the game.

For the Ashes yeah pick your best 11 no doubt - but pakistan/Indies? I think there's room for development.

 

[desie]

I guess Tanveer Sangha has jumped Swepson in the leg spinner queue.....Aust seems well placed for next generation spinners in Murphy, Rocchiccioli and Sangha.....though it seems Lyon has some unfinished business in regards to tours to England and India...so be interested to see if those 3 have the patience to wait.

Sangha’s a much better prospect in the longer term, particularly in Australia, where his over the top release will get additional bounce that makes him more dangerous.

Swepson bowls with a flat trajectory and no front arm - I really don’t see it.

I’m much more comfortable with our spin stocks with Murphy and Sangha than I was a couple of years ago.

 

[akkaps]

* that. Win every game you possibly can.

Replace the 37 year olds with 30 year olds and let them play at their peak and just keep replacing them with players at their peak.

It's been shown time and time again that players can and mostly do hit the ground running when selected at this age. They don't need Test experience before they're ready.

And then there are times where players at cannot match the level straight away, and need that time to develop

 

[big_e]

Times like Ashes etc you put your best 11 in but against Pakistan and West Indies, we should be taking the opportunity to play a couple of young kids to start blooding the next generation.

that's my view anyway.

This post is interesting given you said on the weekend that test cricket would be boring if only Australia, India and England played it.

You don't think being absolutely disrespectful to other cricketing nations, by treating them like second-class citizens, that it wouldn't hasten that exact situation?

 

[akkaps]

That what the A games are for, and we needed Lyon this summer already in the second and third tests. It isn't AFL stop thinking test cricket is like you are building a footy team completely different. You use the A games and then they are ready to come in.

How many A games do Australia play compared to other nations?

 

[HirdsTheWord]

This post is interesting given you said on the weekend that test cricket would be boring if only Australia, India and England played it.

You don't think being absolutely disrespectful to other cricketing nations, by treating them like second-class citizens, that it wouldn't hasten that exact situation?

I'm not suggesting we do what South Africa did....i didn't suggest putting our B side in, simply swapping out 1-2 players for development.

And jesus christ suggesting that swapping out a player makes your opposition second class citizens is a bit rich....talk about over egging...

 

[big_e]

I'm not suggesting we do what South Africa did....i didn't suggest putting our B side in, simply swapping out 1-2 players for development.

And jesus christ suggesting that swapping out a player makes your opposition second class citizens is a bit rich....talk about over egging...

You're saying that only games against England and India are important enough to play our best side.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

You're saying that only games against England and India are important enough to play our best side

yes? So? Some tests are more important than others? Are you suggesting they arent?

There's an entirely massive between what I'm suggesting, and what South Africa did recently.....

 

[LukeParkerno1]

i agree with all that, i just think Pakistan and West Indies would be a good opportunity for him.

it's like like swapping him in will lose us the game.

For the Ashes yeah pick your best 11 no doubt - but pakistan/Indies? I think there's room for development.

You are not getting the pathways. Australia will always prioritise and get these pathways correct. We aren’t using a test series to blood a spinner who isn’t ready when Lyon is available. On basics terms you have the levels up to Shield, then the A tours then Test cricket. Get players to bash the door down consecutive seasons too. Murphy was good last year he’s been poor this year which happens. Better he works at his game at Shield level

 

[doggies ftw]

* that. Win every game you possibly can.

Replace the 37 year olds with 30 year olds and let them play at their peak and just keep replacing them with players at their peak.

It's been shown time and time again that players can and mostly do hit the ground running when selected at this age. They don't need Test experience before they're ready.

Yeah and that’s all well and good in theory, but in the coming years there may not be good players around at 30 because they’ve all ****ed off to the t20 circuit to make a living because they have other options than biding their time in the shield.

This thought process just doesn’t cut it anymore IMO

 

[big_e]

yes? So? Some tests are more important than others? Are you suggesting they arent?

There's an entirely massive between what I'm suggesting, and what South Africa did recently.....

Where's the line? What is an acceptable number of non-first XI players to leave out?

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Where's the line? What is an acceptable number of non-first XI players to leave out?

Not sure what argument you are trying to make here?

the "line" would be fielding a team that is uncompetitive.

If Australia replaced Lyon with Murphy, the odds would literally not change a cent.

 

[big_e]

Yeah and that’s all well and good in theory, but in the coming years there may not be good players around at 30 because they’ve all ****ed off to the t20 circuit to make a living because they have other options than biding their time in the shield.

This thought process just doesn’t cut it anymore IMO

We're coming up to the 17th season of the IPL and it hasn't happened yet.

As part of the new CBA, the average Shield player will be earning more than $100k this year, and if they play BBL as well, that increases to $270k. That's just the retainer.

If they're on the verge of Australian selection, they'll be earning more than that, plus they'll be in line for top-ups in various T20 leagues already.

Base salary for a CA contract holder is $340k, and the average is $1 million. And as we've seen with Green, Starc and Cummins in recent years, the biggest IPL bucks go to those playing tests.

The only real exceptions to that are the likes of Tim David and Chris Lynn, who were never in contention for test spots anyway.

 

[akkaps]

Where's the line? What is an acceptable number of non-first XI players to leave out?

There is no arbitrary number. For example, Lance Morris could come in for Josh Hazlewood during a series, see how he performs and assess him from there. But give the guy a chance. Same could be said right now for Spencer Johnson to replace Mitch Starc of a game or two.

I understand consistency and commandry, and that probably helped in the 00s with keeping a consistent , but now players have other options instead of national cricket.

Nathan Ellis is probably someone that has given up on Test selection, and moved to prioritizing T20 Leagues around the world. Spencer Johnson could be next, seeing he's now played in the Canadian, US, and English leagues.

 

[DaRick]

Not sure what argument you are trying to make here?

the "line" would be fielding a team that is uncompetitive.

If Australia replaced Lyon with Murphy, the odds would literally not change a cent.

I would've given Murphy a go at the SCG as well, in retrospect.

But as a second spinner, not to replace Lyon outright.

WI are a different matter, granted. We should really be beating them regardless.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Lol no one there our fans have given up rightly so

 

[HirdsTheWord]

I would've given Murphy a go at the SCG as well, in retrospect.

But as a second spinner, not to replace Lyon outright.

WI are a different matter, granted. We should really be beating them regardless.

i only suggested against Pakistan and WI, not outright............yet

 

[big_e]

Not sure what argument you are trying to make here?

the "line" would be fielding a team that is uncompetitive.

If Australia replaced Lyon with Murphy, the odds would literally not change a cent.

Well, the 2023 Ashes probably disproves your point about Todd Murphy, but generally speaking, you don't know uncompetitive until it's too late.

I think it’s hypocritical to have a go at South Africa for leaving out some of their first XI and in the next breath say it’s fine for us to leave out some of our first XI. We could probably beat Zimbabwe in a test match with our second XI - would you feel comfortable doing that? We'd still be competitive, at least.

The broader point is that test cricket gets its name because it is the toughest cricket. It’s the best vs the best, in the hardest conditions, under the most pressure. The second you start leaving people out, you degrade it. It loses the thing that makes it special.

And at a time when test cricket is under enormous pressure, it’s not hard to see a test nation go ”**** this, if even Australia doesn’t treat it as special, then we’re out”, and stop playing tests altogether. Next minute we’re left with Australia, England and India in a big circle jerk until the law of diminishing returns rears its ugly head, and test cricket is but a memory.

 

[akkaps]

The broader point is that test cricket gets its name because it is the toughest cricket. It’s the best vs the best, in the hardest conditions, under the most pressure. The second you start leaving people out, you degrade it. It loses the thing that makes it special.

Test cricket gets its name as it refers to any sports game or match between two different nations. Similar to Netball or Rugby. The reason we call the 5 day games Test matches and not the white balls, is to distinguish the formats of cricket