Aussie Cricket
-
@barbarian said in Aussie Cricket:
They decided to emphasise junior pathway models, and give preference to youth and potential over experience. That strategy, in theory, should pay dividends in the mid-long term. Well we're now firmly in the mid term and the cupboard is bare, apart from a few decent quicks.
And, once you break a model, it's bloody hard to get old hands re-interested in the game. Aus Cricket used to have a conveyor belt of talent that was just ridiculous. Now, it's the odd gem, rather than a sustained cohort. It's a bloody crime against cricket I reckon
-
@barbarian nice one Barb. Really good points
They have done an admirable job with kids. From Milo cricket to Weet-Bix now Woolworths BBL (the curmudgeon in me spots a retail/branding hijack on kids but such is the way) so the seedlings are there.Still surprised Hohns and vegan Greg have a job, I notice their latest shiney new cure all has been added, largely on the back of a non official warm up with contrived declarations (as an aside England warmed up in the Windies with an innings that featured 18 wickets!)
How come we made a Latham, a watling and a Nicholls while Aus went through a Renshaw, burns, Ferguson, head, marsh, agar, etc etc?
There's a serious bottleneck in the production line
-
Interesting observation (based on the comment about the 2nd XI changes in Sheffield Shield). There are six states in the shield, and we have six plunkett shield teams. That means that us and Australia each have 66 (plus squads) top tier spots.
Perhaps that's the bottle neck for them? Especially if you have guys who are good enough domestically but not for tests who keep out others and the 2nd xi no longer offers a pathway to force your way in.
-
@Cyclops I think it is. Small mercy having a smaller talent pool in that respect.
The trick is to never get complacent with a large pool.
The All blacks do this well I think, costs money and some sacrifices though!By the way I think I heard CA is taking steps to redress the 2nd Xl issue now
-
@Siam
I don't know what the financial setup is like in Sheffield Shield but if they're fully pro that probably makes it worse because a guy could comfortably play first class cricket for a decade and not mind (perhaps hoping that things break for him).Whereas our semi pro setup means that guys who aren't good enough to step up to test level move on to jobs with better stability, which means that they don't clog up the system (of course not being fully pro reduces the quality of the competition which has negative effects but that's another debate, I'm just focusing on the potential reasons why the Aussie batting lineup is pretty universally acknowledged as weaker than ours, and even with Smith and Warner back would be a good argument)
-
@Cyclops said in Aussie Cricket:
I don't know what the financial setup is like in Sheffield Shield but if they're fully pro that probably makes it worse because a guy could comfortably play first class cricket for a decade and not mind (perhaps hoping that things break for him).
Greg Chappell came to this view, and saw older veteran Shield/2nd XI players as 'clogging the system' and slowing the rise of young stars. Old Shield vets like Michael Klinger, Greg Mail, Bob Quiney, Chris Hartley etc.
So the system was changed to promote that young talent as much as possible. The 2nd XI comp was turned into an under 23 comp (with two overage players allowed), and pressure was put on states to move on from the 'old guard' of players.
But I think what this did was downgrade the quality of the competition, which had a real knock-on effect. The older guys were the ones who made the Shield what is was - a world-class incubator of talent where 'steel sharpens steel' and young blokes were forced to fight to survive. It was a true meritocracy.
Now the stock of wily veterans is diminishing, and surprise surprise the players we have coming through are too green, too young, and not tested enough against quality opposition. They've been in squad after squad, camp after camp, net after net, but haven't actually faced a fired-up Doug Bollinger on a Bellerive green-top, or bowled to Ed Cowan when he's 60-odd and seeing them like watermelons.
There are real parallels with rugby here too, where young squaddies who are great at running through cones are promoted above club veterans in the name of 'talent pathways'. The consequences often don't reveal themselves until 5-10 years later.
-
@barbarian said in Aussie Cricket:
So the system was changed to promote that young talent as much as possible. The 2nd XI comp was turned into an under 23 comp (with two overage players allowed), and pressure was put on states to move on from the 'old guard' of players.
This change had the biggest effect IMO. The focus went away from producing the best domestic competition with the deepest reservoir of test ready talent in the world, to trying to create the next Warne, Ponting, McGrath, Clarke, Smith...
They've tried to reverse engineer the next generation of phenoms which obviously doesn't work.
-
@rotated said in Aussie Cricket:
They've tried to reverse engineer the next generation of phenoms which obviously doesn't work.
It's like NZ rugby - not all the stars shine early and go to academies. 'School of hard knocks' still lives on; Ben Smith was never an age grade star
-
@nzzp said in Aussie Cricket:
@rotated said in Aussie Cricket:
They've tried to reverse engineer the next generation of phenoms which obviously doesn't work.
It's like NZ rugby - not all the stars shine early and go to academies. 'School of hard knocks' still lives on; Ben Smith was never an age grade star
Is Ben Smith the best example? He was in the NZ U21s and so presumably pretty well known in the system - it just took the rest of us a while to click.
-
@barbarian brilliantly put. That's the oil I had
-
@Nepia said in Aussie Cricket:
@nzzp said in Aussie Cricket:
@rotated said in Aussie Cricket:
They've tried to reverse engineer the next generation of phenoms which obviously doesn't work.
It's like NZ rugby - not all the stars shine early and go to academies. 'School of hard knocks' still lives on; Ben Smith was never an age grade star
Is Ben Smith the best example? He was in the NZ U21s and so presumably pretty well known in the system - it just took the rest of us a while to click.
Conrad Smith is the best example probably in terms of no age grade teams.
Guys like Nonu, Weepu and Kaino becoming world beaters at the right time after taking 4-5 years baking in the oven is the finest example of the system working.
The discontinued Isaac Ross Rugby Academy would probably be a good analogy for what is going on in Aus currently.
-
@nzzp said in Aussie Cricket:
@barbarian said in Aussie Cricket:
They decided to emphasise junior pathway models, and give preference to youth and potential over experience. That strategy, in theory, should pay dividends in the mid-long term. Well we're now firmly in the mid term and the cupboard is bare, apart from a few decent quicks.
And, once you break a model, it's bloody hard to get old hands re-interested in the game. Aus Cricket used to have a conveyor belt of talent that was just ridiculous. Now, it's the odd gem, rather than a sustained cohort. It's a bloody crime against cricket I reckon
Even the ones who weren't truly great ( Langer, Hussey, Gillespie, Martyn, Lehman, Symonds, M Waugh to name a few ) were still a damn sight better than what other teams could put out. The talent nowadays is an embarrassment compared to those guys.
-
@Cyclops said in Aussie Cricket:
@Siam
I don't know what the financial setup is like in Sheffield Shield but if they're fully pro that probably makes it worse because a guy could comfortably play first class cricket for a decade and not mind (perhaps hoping that things break for him).Whereas our semi pro setup means that guys who aren't good enough to step up to test level move on to jobs with better stability, which means that they don't clog up the system (of course not being fully pro reduces the quality of the competition which has negative effects but that's another debate, I'm just focusing on the potential reasons why the Aussie batting lineup is pretty universally acknowledged as weaker than ours, and even with Smith and Warner back would be a good argument)
This is not what happens in nz domestic cricket. We've had domestic contracting for 15 years and we've had loads of domestic veterans hanging around the FC scene ever since. Which imo has been great. Think Papps , Mason, Fulton, Sinclair, Franklin, Broom, Cumming, Redmind, Marshall, Gillespie, McKay, Aldridge, Arnel, Ellis etc dominating the domestic scene the last decade.
I can think of very few players who gave away domestic cricket early the last decade. Andrew de Boorder was promising batsman who gave it up once he finished university. Harry Boam completely lost his mojo. Will Sommerville moved to Sydney mid 20s. Austin-Smellie, Dean Bartlett. That's all I can think of who packed it in too early.
But to counter the above rosy view of the handling of nz domestic cricket and bring it into a relevance of Barbarians post re Aus, NZC has discontinued entirely our provincial 2nd 11 competition for 2 years now.
-
@Rapido said in Aussie Cricket:
@Cyclops said in Aussie Cricket:
@Siam
I don't know what the financial setup is like in Sheffield Shield but if they're fully pro that probably makes it worse because a guy could comfortably play first class cricket for a decade and not mind (perhaps hoping that things break for him).Whereas our semi pro setup means that guys who aren't good enough to step up to test level move on to jobs with better stability, which means that they don't clog up the system (of course not being fully pro reduces the quality of the competition which has negative effects but that's another debate, I'm just focusing on the potential reasons why the Aussie batting lineup is pretty universally acknowledged as weaker than ours, and even with Smith and Warner back would be a good argument)
This is not what happens in nz domestic cricket. We've had domestic contracting for 15 years and we've had loads of domestic veterans hanging around the FC scene ever since. Which imo has been great. Think Papps , Mason, Fulton, Sinclair, Franklin, Broom, Cumming, Redmind, Marshall, Gillespie, McKay, Aldridge, Arnel, Ellis etc dominating the domestic scene the last decade.
I can think of very few players who gave away domestic cricket early the last decade. Andrew de Boorder was promising batsman who gave it up once he finished university. Harry Boam completely lost his mojo. Will Sommerville moved to Sydney mid 20s. Austin-Smellie, Dean Bartlett. That's all I can think of who packed it in too early.
But to counter the above rosy view of the handling of nz domestic cricket and bring it into a relevance of Barbarians post re Aus, NZC has discontinued entirely our provincial 2nd 11 competition for 2 years now.
( chortles )
-
This...
@barbarian said in Aussie Cricket:
They've been in squad after squad, camp after camp, net after net, but haven't actually faced a fired-up Doug Bollinger on a Bellerive green-top, or bowled to Ed Cowan when he's 60-odd and seeing them like watermelons.
And this...
@Rapido said in Aussie Cricket:
We've had domestic contracting for 15 years and we've had loads of domestic veterans hanging around the FC scene ever since. Which imo has been great. Think Papps , Mason, Fulton, Sinclair, Franklin, Broom, Cumming, Redmind, Marshall, Gillespie, McKay, Aldridge, Arnel, Ellis etc dominating the domestic scene the last decade.
... those sorts of situations, and learning by playing against experience, produces a heck of a lot of value.
-
@Rapido said in Aussie Cricket:
@Cyclops said in Aussie Cricket:
@Siam
I don't know what the financial setup is like in Sheffield Shield but if they're fully pro that probably makes it worse because a guy could comfortably play first class cricket for a decade and not mind (perhaps hoping that things break for him).Whereas our semi pro setup means that guys who aren't good enough to step up to test level move on to jobs with better stability, which means that they don't clog up the system (of course not being fully pro reduces the quality of the competition which has negative effects but that's another debate, I'm just focusing on the potential reasons why the Aussie batting lineup is pretty universally acknowledged as weaker than ours, and even with Smith and Warner back would be a good argument)
This is not what happens in nz domestic cricket. We've had domestic contracting for 15 years and we've had loads of domestic veterans hanging around the FC scene ever since. Which imo has been great. Think Papps , Mason, Fulton, Sinclair, Franklin, Broom, Cumming, Redmind, Marshall, Gillespie, McKay, Aldridge, Arnel, Ellis etc dominating the domestic scene the last decade.
I can think of very few players who gave away domestic cricket early the last decade. Andrew de Boorder was promising batsman who gave it up once he finished university. Harry Boam completely lost his mojo. Will Sommerville moved to Sydney mid 20s. Austin-Smellie, Dean Bartlett. That's all I can think of who packed it in too early.
But to counter the above rosy view of the handling of nz domestic cricket and bring it into a relevance of Barbarians post re Aus, NZC has discontinued entirely our provincial 2nd 11 competition for 2 years now.
Fair enough. Been a few years since I was following domestic closely. At the time it felt like there used to be guys who would play a season or two and then move on, but you're right that there's always been the provincial stalwarts. There's also a lot of movement between regions that I might have mistaken.
Players definitely used to complain about how tough it was balancing cricket with another job the other six months of the year. Are players fully professional now?
-
@Rapido said in Aussie Cricket:
I can think of very few players who gave away domestic cricket early the last decade. Andrew de Boorder was promising batsman who gave it up once he finished university. Harry Boam completely lost his mojo. Will Sommerville moved to Sydney mid 20s. Austin-Smellie, Dean Bartlett. That's all I can think of who packed it in too early.
The last decade has been a welcome change because the 00's was pretty bleak we lost a lot of our fringe international players in the 29-31 range due to British passports, burning out, ICL, banking etc. That coupled with our dismal record of getting quicks to their 30th birthday without being crippled.
