Back to the Future

[Essex Eagle]

Originally Posted by James M

It's always great to see county pros picked on form, especially if they are really young. I would advocate the selction of Carberry if he carries on scoring runs. Equally, if someone like Newman at Surrey or Cook at Essex get going, wouldn't it be super to have them in the England side. But then someone of genuine natural talent who is older would get my vote as well. Whether county cricket is good preparation for Test cricket is another argument I suppose.

Well Mark Lathwell was a very talented player - one of the best timers of a ball i saw for his age.
Where is he now?

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Mark lathwell was going to be the greatest opener the world had ever seen, and your right, where is he now ?

Gallien was the next to have that mantle.

[James M]

I totally agree with you about Bell and Pietersen et al. They look a class apart. Even to the untrained eye, they have a tendancy to look 'in' from the start against county bowling. Gracious, the top order of Warwickshire is one of the most technical I've seen around. Bell and Wagh are very good defensively. Troughton looks poor compared to them but he's a good attacking batsman.

[Teatime FatCat]

Sorry if this is a much mentioned point in the past (ie on the 'old board'!) but in that case, do guys like Smith, Key, Peng, Tudor, Batty, Anderson et al really suffer from a lack of high level competitive cricket on A-tours. I have always felt that the A team was a magnificent idea, and that the academy side just isn't quite the same somehow?

[James M]

On the other hand, Stewie could time it. Look what happened to him ;-) The selectors will always drop clangers, it's the definition of selecting. Making tough decisions and preparing to stick by gut instincts.

[sostenurter]

Originally Posted by Essex Eagle

A good indication of this is the fact that gooch averaged 37 before the age of 30 and 47 afterwards

However, had Gooch just been dropped into Test cricket at age 30, he probably wouldn't have done so well. The reason why so many players get better with age is not the age factor, but the experience factor - by the time of 30, Gooch had probably played all the Test countries, seen most of the grounds, and got used to many of the bowlers. In fact, these factors are what make it harder for inexperienced players to succeed in Test cricket than, say, international football, where youngsters come in all the time and play well (Rooney, Owen etc.).

In other Test countries, where they play players at a young age, the thinking behind it is that if they have spotted a young, promising, talented player, they need to get them into the senior side as soon as possible, so they can gain experience quickly and go on to have a long career at the top. Obviously, this approach will not work for all players. But it will work for some. It has been pointed out that the Aussies have been bringing a lot of older players into their Test set-up. However, the two lynchpins of their batting order, Hayden and Ponting, were brought into the team at 22 and 20! The lynchpins of the bowling, Warne and Mcgrath, debuted at 22 and 23 respectively. Of course, when they first played, they had off-days, but they also had some pretty good on-days as well, and they gained necessary experience at Test level. The result is that Ricky Ponting was captain of his side with an average of 50+ by the age of 28, while Paul Collingwood, a player at the same age, is still mentioned by a lot of us to be a raw youth! Obviously, it's unfair to compare the two because Collingwood is not in Ponting's class, but it goes to show the different ideas England and the Australians have about youth.

Too often we mistake "young" and "lacking experience". There is no reason why a young player should not have a lot of experience at a relatively young age. The problem is finding the right players who will benefit from that.

[James M]

Look at the team England 'A' played in New Zealand a couple of years back. Apart from Mark Richardson, I can't remember another Test player who's established himself from that side. Marshall is just coming through and he's already mid 20s. Chris Drumm didn't last long. OK, it's not PaK or Ind who blood 16 year olds every couple of years. But we are not doing badly. We've phased in a lot of youngsters, it's down to individuals. 'Do they want it enough?'.

[Essex Eagle]

I'd much rather the selectors pick someone ( of any age) who looks like he has the technique & temperament for test cricket.

Dont forget Goochie took 15 tests to get his 1st hundred!


But as far back as 1989 when England were getting stuffed in the Ashes, we were picking people like Tim Curtis who was a decent county bat but no more and NEVER looked like having the technique to cope.

So you have to ask yourself do the selectors go by stats alone or do they really study a player in-depth before making a selection?

[James M]

In the defence of the selectors (!), they picked Tres and Vaughan. They're the famous case studies with regard to averages. But the fact they picked Usman Afzaal for Tests when his best form up to then had been in one-dayers, shows they were one-offs.

[Essex Eagle]

Originally Posted by James M

In the defence of the selectors (!), they picked Tres and Vaughan. They're the famous case studies with regard to averages. But the fact they picked Usman Afzaal for Tests when his best form up to then had been in one-dayers, shows they were one-offs.

Similarly Jimmy troughton averaged 50 in FC Cricket and 30 in One Dayers......

and they picked him for a One Dayer!