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)
-
@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.
-
@barbarian said in Aussie Cricket:
@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.
Not to mention the loss of the generation that had come through the pathways but were now over 23 and had nowhere to push their claims. I know at least half a dozen very good players that went from ACT as a feeder state to the SS second teams as their next development stage then this change to under 23s left them high and dry.
-
@Cyclops said in Aussie Cricket:
@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?
We've got 20 players each year on a NZC central contract. (Which are full 12 months contracts).
And there the 6 associations with 16 domestic contracts each. These contracts are for 7 months. The players are then free to earn elsewhere (or not earn , e.g. study) in those other 5 months.
It must still be pretty difficult in those 5 months. Some of them bounce up and down between bottom of central contracts and top of domestic contracts. A few are good enough to get good paying overseas cricket, county cricket or CPL (Patel, Franklin, Broom, Devcich, etc). Some might play English club league cricket. While others have real jobs -Graeme Aldridge for example was a school teacher (private school) with a long summer holiday and I guess an understanding employer for the overhang months.
But for some it is putting career plans on hold while aiming for higher honours, or aiming to get noticed to be able to become a T20 free agent working the global leagues (like Devcich now).
But over the last decade, it has worked. NZ domestic cricket has been pretty good. Youth can't waltz into FC teams. Most young Auckland cricketers need to move associations to get their first break due to the population depth in their area.
Black Caps contracted players (August 1-July 31), 20 players:
• Retainer for top-ranked player: $236,000
• Retainer for No 18-20: $100,000
• Match fees: Tests $9000, one-day internationals $4000, T20 internationals $2500Domestic contracted players (September 1-April 15) 6 x 16 players:
• Retainer for top-ranked player: $53,000
• Retainer for No 16: $27,000
• Match fees: Plunket Shield $1650, one-dayers $800, T20 $575 -
