Australian Development Policy

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Quagmire

Thats the biggest problem that England have had over the last 10 years. Looking to the future and forgetting about the present.

Actually I think you will find that it has only been a recent policy, last three-five years to do that, (only two winters ago we picked the 36 year old Shaun Udal, and during the world cup our keeper we went with Nixon (36), despite the claims of many younger players) before that we had a policy whereby players were brought in looked at and dropped, to be honest not really a policy at all.

However, I feel in the next ten years the English method will pay dividends, because you are right Australian Domestic Crickets is a much better breeding ground than County Cricket, which is not tough enough and too desperate to be a competition in it's own right (which is why we have so many Counties, so many Kolpaks and so many overseas "professionals") I would love to reduce the competition down to 6 regions, and really have something that does produce Test quality players.

However, I do also feel that Australia has, in the past, tried to get younger players into the team by making way. The classic example being when Mark Waugh was dropped, or last summer when Martyn was effectively ditched (he jumped before he was pushed) so I am a bit confused as to why a there are two spinners in the squad both aged 36.

The fact is that Tait and Johnson are there, and Jacques has staked his claim. This leads me to believe that after Hogg and MacGill there are not many other options out there, and that players like Cullen and White are not deemed to have the ability, either now or in the longterm. Is it the case that after the two 36 year olds the cupboard is bare?

[Aurelius]

Does anyone else think that Ashley Noffke should by all rights be standing a really good chance right now?

[*Jonty*]

Originally Posted by Aurelius

Does anyone else think that Ashley Noffke should by all rights be standing a really good chance right now?

I remember an old saying that goes something like this "one swallow doesn't make a summer" just think about this until he has had a brilliant summer,not one game.

[Aurelius]

90 matches, 300+ wickets, average of 29, economy of 3 runs an over- I'd say that makes him a consistent performer. I don't think Stuart Clark's record was too different when he was called up for his debut, and Noffke has the advantage of being a genuine allrounder, too, in the Paul Reiffel mould; certainly worth more of a look than Shane "I Keep A Mirror On My Roof" Watson, at any rate.

I'm not saying he should definitely get picked, I'm just saying that he should be considered, given his years of consistency and strong form.

[Milo]

At this moment of time, the Australian first class game is of such a high standard (actually better than most test matches) that they are able to pick the best players and bring in players who will be used to playing cricket to an accepably high level. They send a lot of their players off to English cricket to give them learning and they get picked eventually. Some of them (like Hussey and Clark) are ready as soon as they are given the cap.

I see no reason at the moment to knock their selections. What they don'tdo is pick players who are not ready for Tset cricket (ie - building for the future). McGrath and Warne were good enough to play in their early 20s. If another one comes along, like Michael Clarke or Ponting then he will get picked.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Milo

What they don'tdo is pick players who are not ready for Tset cricket (ie - building for the future). McGrath and Warne were good enough to play in their early 20s. If another one comes along, like Michael Clarke or Ponting then he will get picked.

I would beg to differ on that

Glenn McGrath (23 on début)- first year in Test Cricket

Cricinfo - Statsguru - GD McGrath - Tests - Innings by innings list

9 Test, 19 Wickets at 38

Shane Warne (22 on début) - first year

Cricinfo - Statsguru - SK Warne - Tests - Innings by innings list

5 Tests, 12 wickets at 41

Ricky Ponting (20 on début)- first year

Cricinfo - Statsguru - RT Ponting - Tests - Innings by innings list

6 Tests, 330 runs at 33

Of the guys you mentioned only Michael Clarke made and immediate impact. The three other players, all made slow(ish) starts, but with the careers they have had you tend to forget that sometimes.

[Milo]

Warne bowled very well on his test debut and was told by Shastri (who scored a double) that he would bowl a lot worse and get ten in a match. This is a large basis of the stats you present (1-150 odd in the match). He actually contributed to winning the match againt Sri Lanka and bowled out the West Indies to win his fourth test. Fact, remains (regardless of what the stats say) that they were ready for test cricket. They might not have produced immediately and consistently, but they were better than the other people that were available for selection. And that is the point FF. When they were selected Australia did not have the player resources they have now. I'm pretty sure they would have been picking older players back then if they were better than McGrath and Warne. Given that Brendon Julian, Michael Whitney and Peter Sleep were their predecessors, then it is clear there was not the same competition as now.

I still stand by the point that they picked the best XI available.

[*Jonty*]

Originally Posted by Aurelius

90 matches, 300+ wickets, average of 29, economy of 3 runs an over- I'd say that makes him a consistent performer. I don't think Stuart Clark's record was too different when he was called up for his debut, and Noffke has the advantage of being a genuine allrounder, too, in the Paul Reiffel mould; certainly worth more of a look than Shane "I Keep A Mirror On My Roof" Watson, at any rate.

I'm not saying he should definitely get picked, I'm just saying that he should be considered, given his years of consistency and strong form.

I agree wholeheartedly with you Aurelius,but Australia have such a gigantic problem......WHOLE THE HELL DO WE LEAVE OUT??........How the poms wish they had the same problem.

[Aurelius]

I agree wholeheartedly with you Aurelius,but Australia have such a gigantic problem......WHOLE THE HELL DO WE LEAVE OUT??

Well, if he keeps performing, and Symonds doesn't do much after say 3 tests, then you could leave him out, put up Gilchrist to 6 and put Noffke in at 7. Otherwise, if Johnson doesn't succeed, you could leave him out (although if that happens, Hilfenhaus would probably get his spot).

[Rachael]

Whilst the side retains Symonds it's hard to make an argument that leaving someone out is tough: the question is... how soon can Australia find dependable enough specialists to be able to do away with the bits-and-pieces "wish I were a patch on Razzaq" nobody currently penned in to the first XI. The fact that limited bits-n-pieces options like Watson and White have also had regular mentions over the past 2-3 years just emphasises the point.

Nothing wrong with that situation: all the other Test sides are in the same boat - but it is the sign of a side lacking confidence in its own specialists.

You could go further: it's surely a sign of weakness that Lee is secure in his spot (presumbaly on the basis of experience and ability to do something with the bat as he's not even a patch on Clark let alone the sort of bowler a strong side would accept)... and let's not overlook the degree of panic suggested by Jacques' promotion - Rogers has long looked the best of the next batting generation... and has seemingly disappeared before even appearing following his mere 402 runs at 30.92 runs from 14 innings at Northants - if it can happen to him, hailing the others beating at the door is premature.

One final point:n not knowing who to leave out does not necessarily indicate strength: England have long been faced with a plethora or equally worthy options with bat, ball and gloves... and whilst any one of many could have warranted a good run in the side... there was no way that a team comprising nothing BUT them was going to be world-beating.

ps. Can Noffke do much with the ball? His name is familiar enough... but looking him up I see no mention of outswing, inswing or anything in the way of cunning variations in his profile!