Should the cricket academy be in the shield ?

[goatmaster]

A topic for discussion- Should we admit teh Cricket academy to the shield/milk glass whatever its called now & one day comps?
The reason I think this should be considered is the age our players are making it into 1st class & test cricket. Selectors are so conservative that young players do not get the gp they could or should at all levels.
We now have the situation where someone like Damien Martyn who was identified so early at 30 years old, after topping the averages on the last tour is not certain of being in the test team when slected in the next month.
When you look at India & Pakistan there is always 18-20 year olds coming into their teams. Those of you who saw the launching of the kid Yuvraj Singh in Kenya with brilliant innings against the 2 best teams in the world(us & S.A) would have marveled at the boys talent. Through the chaos & sheer numbers of kids & without the resources financially that we are blessed with the kids keep coming through & getting the recognition
This does not happen in Australia now & will get worse as money increases for shield cricket meaning the players stay in the game longer. We now have a lot of 30+ players with no real hope of being in the National Team playing at state level.
My concern is that we are heading down the track of England & getting older & older players.
If our best young talent is exposed at least the cream of it will get picked for their state of origin quicker as the unknown factor will be gone. Perhaps even National selection will come before state!
Goatmaster

 

[GoEagles]

It seems players who go to the C/Bank Cricket Academy seem to bypass playing a lot of shield cricket before being selected for Australia. Examples of this are Shane Warne, Glen McGrath ect.

I really dont think age has a big factor. Look at Allan Border - he was playing well into his late 30s and still could deliver the goods. Steve Waugh and Mark Waugh - both no spring chickens, but still champions who can win games off their bat.

What does everyone else think?

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

I don't see any reason why cricketers cannot play on untill their early forties.

As long as they are fit and still delivering the goods - why not ?

Courtney Walsh is 38 ? - thats pretty goddam old for a fast bowler but he still takes wickets.

Bradman lead the '48 Australians as a 41 year old.

Border batted on till 37, Mike Brearley was re-called to the English captaincy at 41, Colin Miller got his first Test Cap as a 35 year old.

If they still have it - then they should be able to go on with it I say.

 

[Guest]

The State comp is the only breeding ground for test players in Australia. If you have no intention of playing for Australia or you are too old then you shouldn't play state cricket.

Even retired test players should not play state cricket as all they are doing is denying a kid the opportunity. As goatmaster said, we are just following Englands situation where the aim for a lot of players is to play county cricket and test cricket is a bonus. Test cricket has to be the aim of all state players. Plus how could Stuart Law captain Queensland and develop his own style with a retired Allan Border always in his ear?

I'm not sure the academy should have its own side but young players definately need more state opportunities.

 

[karnaby]

Good question gm.
I believe the ACB is looking to beef up the 2nd XI and/or State colts this year. the Academy certainly has some part to play in that.
I agree with your reasoning about bringing on younger guys but the practicalities in our $ driven days is another matter.
Murray Goodwin with Test & ODI averages of over 40 couldn't crack it for a game in waS 1st shield match, where does that leave young blokes trying to crack it?
Magoos I spose.