Alastair Cook bats his way into history

Brett absolutely correct, sorry for the ambiguity. About three similar articles have appeared in the past few weeks covering a similar theme. You were not the author of any of them from what I can remember.

It's all a bit of fun mate, and yes most, well half were developed in England, unlike the Kiwis and South Africans in the English rugby team = Hape, Flutey, Fourie..

Agreed, there are some decent points, and plenty of decent cricket/footballers (AF) in the past have chosen footy, mainly because of the financial gains, for EX : at age 18, dad might just quietly say to his son, you are guaranteed a good pay with the AFL, with cricket the chances are not so good, etc, but that is hardly the AFL's fault, although cricket seems to be attempting to change ATM with Keath and the Marsh boys. Every sport worth it's salt looks for the best athletes, 5 Australian men are ranked in the top 200 tennis players in the world, they are all from the southern states, bar 1 from America Hewitt's top 100, South australia . 137 - Luczak - Lived in Melbourne from 9 months of age. 138 - Matasovic - From Melbourne 150 - Carsten Ball - From and lives in California 196 - Ebden - From Perth. Alternatively out of the Australian born basketballers to play in the NBA Andersen, David 2009-2009 Anstey, Chris 1997-1999 Bogut, Andrew 2005-2009 Bradtke, Mark 1996-1996 Gaze, Andrew 1993-1998 Heal, Shane 1996-2003 Nathan jawai 2008-2009 Longley, Luc 1991-2000 Mills, Patrick 2009-2009 Schenscher, Luke 2005-2006 6 are from Victoria, 1 each from WA and SA and 1 each from the ACT and NSW. The question that you could ask then ...... is NSW cricket destroying our world tennis and basketball ambitions ??. BTW when we flogged the poms in 2005 (i think) 5 nil, there were the same amount of AFL teams.

I'm pretty sick of this South african nonsense. There's only two players that South Africa developed pietersen and Trott. Strauss and Prior all migrated to England at a young age and were raised in England and never played first class cricket in South Africa Even then, Pietersen was actually a specialist spin bowler who batted a bit (he batted about 8 or 9 for first class cricket in SA). It was only in England was he converted into a specialist batsman. If he stayed in South Africa, he probably would have remain a lower order batsman and mediocre spinner so he was very much a beneficiary of the english coaching system. Trott was really only a clear case if poaching imports as he represented South AFrica in the under 15 and under 19 world cup

Koops excellent analysis - it's easy for people to shoot from the hip - but when you have the stats in front of you, well... Classic case of someone with an axe to grind.

Good observation Bayman - that's precisely how I see it as well - in Victoria, since 1859, we have dedicated winter to footy, and summer to cricket, and from day one - they were virtually one and the same people playing both. The amount of WAFL/SANFL/VFL players that have played Sheffield cricket (and also represented Australia), is a very long list indeed. What we can say though, is that more recently, 16/17 year olds have been required to choose a lot earlier than would have been the case even up to 15 years ago. However, those dreaming of the baggy green cap over a professional football career are free to make that choice, and there are a few recent examples where that has happened, it's not all one way traffic. It's up to other sports to be as attractive as Australian Football. It's not a matter for Australian Football to lower itself.

Brendon, Warnie may have only played the one reserves game of AFL but Simon O'Donnell played first grade for St. Kilda (20 odd games before cricket took priority). Batting and kicking a ball may require different skill sets as far as the mechanics goes but they both require a reasonable amount of hand-eye coordination. Given all cricketers have to bat and all AFL footballers have to kick it is not so surprising that, over history, the two sports have been actively played in season. The professionalism of each sport these days precludes sportsmen from playing both at the highest level but it's not so surprising that in days gone by both cricket and AFL were on the agenda. Certainly, and historically, there have been more AFL players also reach the top in cricket compared to rugby union or league players. Partly, perhaps, because the big, boofy forwards in the rugby codes were physically unsuitable for cricket as well as lacking the pre-requisite ball skills. These cross-over Aussie Rules/cricketers were active until fairly recently (the 70s) whereas few league players also played representative cricket. This may be why the argument was made that AFL is damaging cricket because it seems to be the one football code where it's participants were also highly capable cricketers on the large scale. Let's not forget that one of the drivers for the introduction of Aussie Rules was so the cricketers could play the game to keep fit during the winter months.

Brendon, The idea of batting first is not just some mindless adherence to an out-dated concept. Certainly it has become the defacto standard for cricket but that's because it's a good idea, not because it's an old idea. Done well it allows a captain to bat the opposition out of the game while, at the same time, building pressure. It also forces the opposition to bat last when the pitch is at its most unpredictable. Done poorly, of course, and it's the batting side which will come under pressure. In the most recent example - Australia vs England at the SCG - it's difficult to fault Clarke's decision given an opening stand of 50 odd and four of the top five scoring at least 31. Only Clarke himself failed to get a start. Batting first was certainly not Australia's problem in Sydney. That could reasonably be sheeted home to a lack of application, poor concentration, poor shot selection and an inability to play off the back foot. In addition, you claim that the Indians contain the best batting line-up in the "history of the game". I'll grant you it's a good line-up, possibly a great line-up, but the history of the game goes back a fair way before 1990. In the 50s-60s, England could boast the likes of May, Cowdrey, Graveney, Dexter, Barrington. The West Indies, meanwhile had Worrell, Weekes, Walcott, Sobers, Kanhai and "Collie" Smith. The "Invincibles" could put on the park the likes of Barnes, Morris, Bradman, Hassett, Miller, Harvey, Loxton and Tallon. This last line-up may have given the Indians food for thought given they also possessed LIndwall and Johnston who, with Miller, may have created some angst among those great Indians. The truth is, it is very difficult to compare generations. The conditions were different, the bowlers were different, the attitudes were different. Some things, though, remain the same through history and one of those is - If you win the toss, bat!

Well Brendon, At the risk of splitting hairs, my comment you highlighted still stands. If we want our youth to return to cricket, then make it attractive to them, with clear pathways. Okay, Vic won the last two SS's. Easier to do when you contribute so few players to the national team.....

Brett, a couple of recent articles regarding this, IMO Australian football and cricket have a very close relationship, closer than the other football codes, and a very long one, it could be argued that AF is getting one back on cricket for a series of manouvre's by cricket that made plenty of money off both the then VFL and SANFL, but anyway, generally at both junior and senior level, metro and rural, cricket and AF are very cozy in their relationship, using the same facilities 6 months of the year each. http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/the-afl-is-to-blame-for-the-alarming-lack-of-newcomers-20110101-19ch3.html. But he does have form in this area, so really cannot be taken seriously, still sooking about the WC probably, but not good form from the online sports editor of the SMH http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-is-a-deadend-sport-that-hinders-us-on-global-stage-20100626-zaqz.html And another one today from the Australian. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/aussie-rules-has-turned-us-into-nation-of-losers/story-e6frg6zo-1225982616233 But the reality is that it is up to cricket to rise, not the AFL to drop the ball or lower their standard. BTW this is interesting, state by state participation rates for cricket (expressed as a percentage) for males over 15 from the 2006 census NSW 3.0% Vic 4.8% Qld 2.6% SA 4.7% WA 4.6% Tas 4.5% notice the pattern?

Fletcher v Nielsen?

"I don’t think Strauss and Trott, even Cook, are more than moderately talented tradesmen..." What does that make Australia's batsmen?

The Australian team is poorly run and disorganised. It needs less of the go-out-there-and-show-us-your-talent mentality, and greater focus on knuckling down and doing the basics well, which is more befitting of a moderate team. Not sure who can instill this, mind.

Spectacularly thick.

I would have thought that Australia had enough talent/big enough player pool not to have to do that. Maybe the problem lies in the fact that CA has been pretty lucky to have the players of it's calibre over the last 20 years and now that there isn't a clear cut superstar of the future, everyone is starting to panic.

Was it Chappell or Waugh in the press recently suggesting CA should be trawling the sub continent looking for U19's interested in immigration? Why not. It's a world wide policy that's worked well for Australian sporting success in 'multi cultural' Australia for decades. Or maybe CA could look to integrating a few more Aboriginal players into the ranks. Or maybe it could go and grow a Cook or Anderson of it's own?