Originally Posted by clwalcott

I was talking the previous 5-7 years before the retirement of Warne/McGrath/Langer. They are obviously forced into playing young players now, which is what they should have tried to avoid by getting players ready for the rigours of Test cricket when the opportunity was available.

Originally Posted by clwalcott

I wouldn't be counting your chickens just yet Seamer.

Originally Posted by clwalcott

I would attribute the "success" of these players to essentially being taken with the tide of a very strong team that was led by the SWaugh/McGrath tandem, supported by Hayden/Langer/Ponting/Warne, followed by the Ponting/McGrath tandem supported by the same men.

Originally Posted by clwalcott

At the very least I need you to elaborate here... Are you saying that these players careers were ruined because they were given excessive opportunities? Or they owe their success to NOT being given many opportunities? What?

Originally Posted by clwalcott

This is perfectly fair enough, I'm sure you wouldn't begrudge him the chance, he was the highest scorer today, in fact the only scorer, in a pretty important innings. The talent is there, he should not have been dropped. His average was a perfectly reasonable 36.96 when he was dropped, considering he was a young player and it was just his 20th match, and DOUBLY considering he was replaced with 30 something Brad Hodge.

Originally Posted by clwalcott

There are not many matches you can point to me where any of those players (MacGill is a bit different, it's a specialist role with no real alternative,but the rest) played an absolutely pivotal role in winning a Test match. Lehmann had a few, Martyn POSSIBLY (though have severe doubts) and Kasprowicz essentially had one excellent year where he came on when most teams were 3/31

Originally Posted by clwalcott

I believe knowing who is "ready" is an extremely vague science...you just don't know until you see them on the Test stage, and I disagree with you regarding New Zealand and the West Indies. I don't know if Tait will be a nothing in Test cricket or a fine player, ditto Johnson - I need to see them at that level, that's the only way you will know.

Originally Posted by Seamer

When players are performing in a period of dominance, it is very hard to drop them for younger players. When the standout performers in the domestic scene are above 30, you can't just pass them over for inferior performers just for the sake of injecting youth.



Jacques stands head and shoulders above his younger challengers which is why he was (rightfully) selected. He has justified his selection. You cannot count your chickens selecting an under-performing youngster either.


Well one could say that the success of the very strong team can be attributed to the quality and high class performance of the replacement players. Insert 2 or 3 weak links into a dominant team and they will suddenly become not so dominant. History has proven the merit of their selection.



Hayden and Martyn are the best examples. Brought in young, they failed, and were dumped to wander the wilderness with shattered confidences and tarnished reputations. They were then brought back many years later, once they has matured, and made the grade from the word go. Unlike Blewett and Elliot. They never made it back, despite the fact that they were consistently out-performing their younger contemporaries.





I didn't look at Clark's average when he was dropped. I looked at a long line of failures after initial success. For the record, i expect the same pattern to emerge again. He thinks too much, and subsequently succumbs to the pressure. Another telling thing about Clark. He regularly comes out and says that people should not expect Australia to dominate anymore since Warne and McGrath has gone. This strikes me as someone who deep inside him expects failure. He has the technique but does not have the temprement. This is why under pressure, he will fail far more often than he succeeds.



Well, time allowances ATM do not offer me a chance to go digging through the archives. Kasprowicz did not win many per se, but was instumental in keeping the pressure on for others to do it. Bichel i know was a match winner on occasions, and otherwise successfully performed the same function as Kasprowicz. Martyn came up with the goods many a time. He averaged 50 in the end despite the terrible start to his career. Coilin Miller was test player of the year in 2004 - a "journeyman" finger spinner surrounded by champions no less. Lehmann and McGill we agree on. In cricket, experience (almost) always trumps youth IMO.



Hilfenhouse averaging 50 in the Pura cup. He is talented, but he is not "ready" Bringing back an injury prone Tait or Watson before they have proven their long-term fitness id another example of choosing guys when they are not "ready"
I would like you to supply me the names of a few youngsters that you believe should be given a baggy green clwalcott. Then we can discuss the merits of their selection, and who should make way for them in the current Aussie side.

Originally Posted by Seamer

When players are performing in a period of dominance, it is very hard to drop them for younger players. When the standout performers in the domestic scene are above 30, you can't just pass them over for inferior performers just for the sake of injecting youth.

Hayden and Martyn are the best examples. Brought in young, they failed, and were dumped to wander

McGill we agree on. In cricket, experience (almost) always trumps youth IMO.

Originally Posted by clwalcott

I had an awesome reply all written out but then pressed the side button on the mouse and wiped! BLAH!

Gist - is no ready, you need to say players play at Test level to see how they adjust, the jump from first class level to Test level is more dramatic than you give it credit for (yes, even NZ and WI). Talking primarily about the 1998-2003 side, of which 2001 was the peak. Hayden an exception not the rule. Martyn barely above average Test career correcting for era, superiority of team and fact he was like seventh best player on team. Disagree with "depth" being that important in general and "replacement players" being the judge of a great team. Example 1970's England, Boycott and nothing else in the batting, awesome new ball bowling - that's the formula, opening batting and bowling. Australia of 2001 essentially Waugh/McGrath and maybe Warne (not really true seeing as he was bowling at 31, but I'll throw you a bone). Jaques not a proven match in, match out Test opener yet (Strauss, Smith, Sehwag implosions etc), looks fine but time will tell.



History has proven McGrath was arguably the best player ever in the most important position (new ball bowler) on a cricket field and Ponting and SWaugh are both probably top 25 of all time, Warne second best slow bowler of all time. It has proven nothing about at least 60% of players to play for that team.



Mike Brearley Mike Brearley Mike Brearley Mike Brearley

That's the vibe, I'm not putting all the statistical analysis in again, I hate computers!

Originally Posted by Aurelius

Well that may be, but I'd sooner take either of them over White. Let's face it, hardly anyone takes White seriously as a bowler anymore- if he gets in, it will be much more for his batting ability. But with the likes of Chris Rogers and Luke Pomersbach on the fringes, it will be a tough, tough struggle for White to get in ahead of either of them anymore.

Originally Posted by acker

Seamer bowling is a different game to batting expecially pace bowling, and cannot be bundled in the same category. If the same selection regime of Hohns had of been around when Glenn McGrath started his test career he would have probably lost 3 years at the start of his international career.

Originally Posted by acker

To many short term prospects such as Bichel and Kasprowicz were given spots in the side when we should have been blooding the likes of Stuart Clark.

Originally Posted by acker

MacGill is not so much a matter of experience over youth, more a matter of the next best thing after the best has retired. Unfortunately their is no big future in Hogg either. The faster Cameron White gets fit the better because MacGill and Hogg are very short term solutions.

Originally Posted by acker

I agree some expecially bowling selections over the past 4 years have seemed very short sighted and to the detriment of Australia's medium to longer term future in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Seamer

I will ask once more for some examples to justify this claim. I am yet to get any.