That said, I agree with Buck’s broad statement. Many of Australian cricket’s woes are systemic & also structural. I also agree, all the stakeholders have a wonderful opportunity to implement the change they have been reluctant to make while the team was chugging along successfully.

For example, I’ve argued the up-&-comers need to be exposed regularly against the very best players, & learn from them, by appearing with & against them in Sheffield Shield. So a way must be found for the country’s best 15 or so cricketers to appear in at least half the SS program, & similarly the one day comp.

Also, the computer might have to be chucked away in some instances. Every player is an individual, with his own style & thought pattern. Trying to turn players into clones of each other simply doesn’t work.

Some players can have their technique improved, while other players should be simply left alone, but given thought skills on how to approach their batting or bowling. Again, everyone’s different. What works for one person might not necessarily work for another.

Cloning & other homogenous activities should both be banned.

When I followed cricket in the mid-70s, every shield team had at least 5 specialist batsmen & 3 pacemen. But the batsmen were a mixture of dashers & rockwallers, technicians & touch players. The pacemen also had variety, from out & out fast men to excellent swing bowlers.

There was also at least one allrounder, mostly batting ones, but the occasional bowling one, in each team.

But here’s the rub – each state could call on at least one quality frontline spinner, often two. And always invariably, there was one leggie & one offie, or the odd leftarmer for more variety. Australian cricket thrived, not only because of quality, but also because of diversity.

And the test men played for their shield teams almost every game, mentoring their young team mates, & testing the young guns in opposition sides.