Australian Cricket Dominance Could End????

[tim93au]

Well, after reading posts in areas of other forums and see that most posters are in favour of the older over the young in replacing all the retiring Australians it has made me realise that their wrong and we need to look at the future.

The retirements of a concrete set opener, greatest ever fast bowler in terms of wickets, the greatest bolwer of spin ever and theres bound to be a few more in the next 2 seaosns in Hayden (concrete set opener) and Gilchirst (concrete set keeper). The Australian situation could turn out to be very much like the West Indian situation not very long ago. Look at them pretty much World Champs from 1975 when they won the first ever WC and then ended when Australia beat them in the Windies in 1995. Retirements of Richards, the 5 or 6 major quick bowlers and Greenidge and Haynes. All of those and now after 10 years of not being number 1 they are now down in the bottom few. I hope people see my point and can understand why I think that youngers are the future. Teams like England will one-day be number 1 in both forms just looking at some of the capable stars under the age of 30.

These are the replacements for the next few years I think would be better.

Langer - Jaques (27), Rogers (27), Cosgrove (22)
Hayden - Same as above
Gilchirst - Not Haddin!!! - Ronchi (25), Hartley (low 20s?), Crosswaithe (22)
McGrath - Tait (23), Johnson (25), Hilfenhaus (23), Clark (as an exception as the leader of the attack (31))
Warne - Cullen (22), Bailey (22), Heal (24).

[PaceHitta]

England number one in both forms of the game?!?

Thats a bit over-dramtic i think.

[Rachael]

Hussey should surely be the principle opener for the next few years, probably with Rodgers. Ponting and Clarke can then play at 3 and 4 with Hodge at 5. No 6 should be the experimental spot.. with Voges given first shot if the bowling is reliable and White brought in if a 5th bowler is needed.

Haddin has earnt his chance at 7. None of the others seem anything like ready to take over: 3 more seasons in 1st class cricket should sort the successor. None of the young spinners are ready either: I'd back Brad Hogg at 8 for 2-3 years unless MacGill suddenly returns to form (though if he does his selection should be automatic).

Up until the final Ashes Test I would have argued for Johnson, Clark and Hilfenhaus as the seam attack... but Lee did finally start looking competent at the end... and he offers experience and batting. Picking him over Hilfenhaus is a bit like picking Giles over Panesar.... but in an inexperienced team it's perhaps defensible.

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by tim93au

Well, after reading posts in areas of other forums and see that most posters are in favour of the older over the young in replacing all the retiring Australians it has made me realise that their wrong and we need to look at the future.

Sorry mate, i must disagree.

Search your memory and find one young player in the last 15 years that has not been dropped back to domestic cricket within a few tests. The Aussie selectors are awake to this now, and are selecting players in their prime (25-30) that can slot in and do the job straight away.

[tim93au]

sorry mate but i must disagree

[Quagmire]

The reason why the Australian cricket team has been so good is not the breeding of players from a young age in the Australian side. There have been players like Ponting, Warne, McGrath and Steve Waugh

 
Players that have started young but only got a solid spot when they are older
  
Player	 debut age	  solid place age
Langer	   22					 27
Hayden	  22					 29
Martyn	   20					29
Gillespie	20/21				  25
Kasprowicz  23					31
 
Then you can have a look at players that have been given a go at a late age
 
Player	   age
Gilchrist	 27
Hussey	  29
Lehmann	27
C. Miller	 33

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Quagmire

The reason why the Australian cricket team has been so good is not the breeding of players from a young age in the Australian side.

Well said. Not even Clarke (surely the most promising youngster to break onto the Aussie scene since Ponting) managed the great dream of settling into cricket well enough to be the only Aussie cricketer to NOT get dropped... and with batsmen in particular, 5 years in domestic cricket is NOT wasted time... and starting at 28-30 with the prospect of 5-6 of their best years ahead of them makes COMPLETE sense.

On the spin front... I think you could make a case that a player's "prime" tends to be mid-late 30s. Picking younger players makes sense when they are a once in a generation genius... but by and large smacks of desperation.

I accept that precedents exist for playing younger seam bowlers... but most who are any use peak between 28 and 34: the most promising can learn their trade on the International stage... but by and large it HAS to be better for that learning to be done PRIOR to promotion so that the player is not (as, for instance, Flintoff was) a passenger for year after year after year.

You can't say with certainty that "you never win anything with kids"... but it's fair to say that playing kids generally smacks of panic and desperation: so long as you are prepared to make exceptions when required.. age and experience HAS to be a preferable policy!

[Quagmire]

The standard of Australian State cricket is so good because there is only six sides and looking at the line up of players that are consistently in those sides week in and week out.

New South Wales
Haddin
Katich
Jaques
Thornley
MacGill
Bracken

Consistent Test Players : Clark, Lee, McGrath

Queensland
Johnson
Love
Hopes
Maher
Watson
Bichel
Noffke
Perren
Kasprowicz

Consistent Test Players: Symonds, Hayden

South Australia
Lehmann
Cosgrove
Tait
Gillespie
Cullen
Bailey

Consistent Test Players: None

Tasmania
Dighton
Marsh
Di Venuto
Bailey
Birt
Bevan
Hiphenhaus

Consistent Test Players: Ponting

Victoria
Hodge
David Hussey
McDonald
Klinger
White
Lewis
Harwood

Consistent Test Players: Warne

Western Australia
Rogers
Voges
North
Ronchi
Hogg
Heal
Dorey

Consistent Test Players: Langer, Gilchrist, Martyn, Michael Hussey

[al_vb]

If we've got younger players good enough to play test cricket then they should be given particular consideration. However, there's no point selecting players who aren't yet up to it just because they're younger.

We've got plenty of batsmen in their 20s who are ready to step up to test cricket, in my opinion - Jacques, Rogers, Cosgrove and Voges are some of those.

However, in the spin bowling department we don't have any young spinners who are ready for Test cricket yet. Stuart MacGill is easily the second best spinner in Australia (after Warne of course), and he must be selected in my opinion.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by al_vb

However, in the spin bowling department we don't have any young spinners who are ready for Test cricket yet. Stuart MacGill is easily the second best spinner in Australia (after Warne of course), and he must be selected in my opinion.

IS MacGill bowling well this season? Someone on this board was suggesting he was struggling... but I've not looked up any match reports.

I'd agree that Cullen and Bailey are far from ready... perhaps being well behind Heal at present... but should MacGill NOT get the nod I see no reason why Hogg shouldn't get a long run in the Test side: he's never going to be the sort of attacking force that MacGill would be... but he handles pressure well, can bowl to a plan and offers far, far fewer loose balls than MacGill - he'd be more than capable of getting through 25 overs a day of tight, pressure-building constriction in support of the seamers.