But also to take a step back and let some of the emotions die down.
My premise stems from a dinner conversation with my Dad in a Melbourne Docklands restaurant during the Boxing Day Test, during which, sadly, we saw plenty of supporting evidence.
And that is, that this increasing fascination Cricket Australia has developed with the age of players, particularly young players, is having the exact opposite effect than was hoped.
Whether it has stemmed from a concern that talented young players are choosing AFL over cricket is probably for another discussion, but the belief is certainly there in cricket circles.
Either way, Cricket Australia and the states have become a lot more active in promoting talented young players in the last few years. It’s my opinion (and my Dad’s) that this move is forcing out the wrong players, and in the process is weakening the quality of First Class cricketers.
A few seasons back now, we saw the old state Second XI competition rebadged the Futures League, and while three “over age” players are permitted, it has essentially become an under-23 comp.
It’s a great theory, that giving young state players an easier path from the age championships into the senior ranks will produce better cricketers quicker, but the reality seems to be that players coming through this new system aren’t as ready for higher honours as they once might have been.
And this “line in the sand” of 23 years of age is significant. We’re essentially now telling young players that if they can’t progress from 19-20 year-old rookie player to cementing a Sheffield Shield berth by the time they turn 23, then there will be very limited opportunity to progress as a cricketer.
Don’t quite believe this is the case?
I’ll give an example I know personally.
Two young guys from my club here in Canberra, one who I saw first come into grade aged 15, went down to Tasmania on rookie contracts in successive years. My former teammate was rookie-listed for three seasons, the second just two.
Both were (and still are) well performed in Hobart 1st Grade and the Futures League, indeed the second of the two captained the Futures League side last season.
Both were clearly on the fringe of higher honours, and by the end of the 2009/10 season one had played a couple of Ford Ranger Cup one-dayers and was picked in two Shield squads, while the other played a handful of Big Bash Twenty20s and made his Shield debut late in the season.
However, with the guys no longer qualifying as under-23, both were delisted for the 2010/11 season. While the guys themselves were obviously gutted, for those of us that had been keeping tabs on their careers, the move made little or no sense, given they were obviously among the top 14 or 15 players in the state squad last season.
This seems to a common tale around the country too, with young rookies coming up through the age teams or recruited from interstate, while fringe players are delisted once they hit 23.
Essentially, players in their mid-20s, who in the pre-Futures League days might be just starting to make their mark, are now being lost to the state squads, rather than the stalwarts well beyond 30.
And this is where it becomes a double-edged sword. Because that group of players in their mid-20s are being moved on earlier, it means that older players need to be retained longer so that some “old heads” are there to bring the kids through.
So Australian cricket recognises that it needs to bring the kids through to replace the old heads, but the old heads aren’t the ones that they’re replacing.
It gets worse, too.
With those mid-20s players gone, the kids are promoted into the senior state sides well before they’re ready, and without having really demanded the promotion via performance. This kind of flow-on can only result in a drop of the quality within the Sheffield Shield competition, which has already been widely acknowledged all the way up to James Sutherland.
In turn, a weaker Shield comp can only mean a weaker Test side, too.
The performances of some Australian players during the Ashes might suggest that weakening is already happening now, but the promotions this summer of Phillip Hughes, Steven Smith, Usman Khawaja, and Michael Beer hardly came by smashing down the selectors’ door.
Khawaja’s numbers this season had been reasonable, but he still really had only one big score of note for NSW this season. His Shield figures were a long way removed from the days when Matthew Hayden peeled off countless thousand-run seasons before he could even get a mention.
Smith can only have been picked with an eye on the future, Beer seems to have been picked because Shane Warne mentioned him en route to (ahem) Liz Hurley, and I’ll just plain confess I don’t know why Hughes was given another opportunity.
Young players around the country just aren’t coming through as well prepared as they once were, and this can only be because of the structure they play under. In the meantime, the leading run-scorers in Shield ranks in recent seasons have been the very old heads that are supposed to be on their way out.
This makes the much-publicised (but yet to be defined) post-Ashes review even more interesting. The old saying goes that you don’t conduct a review unless you already know the outcome, but I don’t know that Cricket Australia will be fully expecting what might – or should – be uncovered.
Worryingly, Sutherland told a press conference in Sydney at the conclusion of the Fifth Test that he was in “no doubt” that the Futures League was better serving the Shield ranks and Test team than was ever the case with the old Second XI set-up.
His reasoning, that the new structure fixed a system that was “clogged up by older players”, failed to acknowledge that it’s the players most needed to be developed – the players aged 23-28 – that are being lost from the state squads.
So what can be done?
Well, I’ve suggested that the Futures League is one (but not the only) area of concern currently, and I believe that just a slight tweak can see some benefits in the immediate future.
Instead of the current under-23 focus, I’d revert the competition back to open age, but with a playing condition where state sides field at least say, three players under 21.
This changes the focus from promoting young players ahead of their time, to one that develops cricketers regardless of age. It would also see a return to the old adage where “if you’re good enough, you’re old enough” with young players learning the game among older professionals and less of their own peer group.
Would a 20-year-old rookie bowler learn more from a 27-year-old state squad member, or another 20-year-old?
It would also bring an element of “tougher” cricket to the next tier above the Grade ranks, and not just yet another level of age championships. Ultimately, it would have to mean that by the time a young player earns his First Class or even Test debut, they are immeasurably better prepared than the current system is giving us.
It would tighten up loose techniques and dodgy lines-and-lengths in a flash – because they just couldn’t survive the tougher environment – and mean that by the time a young player earns his stripes, he’s less Hughes or Johnson and more Langer or McGrath.
And this is just one suggestion to just one problem.
There’s plenty more out there; we’ve all seen them, and we’ve commented on plenty of them. However, maybe this is one where we can see the results before our eyes.
David Siddall
Guest
There is also a good interview with Gideon Haigh in which issues in the CricInfo piece are discussed, the future of Australian cricket and wider issues facing international cricket as a whole. http://worldcricketwatch.com/podcasts/gideon-haigh-interview-on-the-future-of-cricket/
marees
Roar Rookie
on the mark with your analysis Brett. I just came across this article. I've been thinking for a long time, that Clarke shouldn't have been elevated to vice-captaincy so soon. Isn't that also in line with the obsession with youth?
Lolly
Guest
The fielding has been rubbish all summer. And it's worrying that it's not just the experienced guys making mistakes, I've got used to that, but the newbies coming in are just as poor. What is going on in the states? I know the Warriors can't catch a cold generally, but I did think other states were at least trying to maintain standards.
Lolly
Guest
It's quite normal, isn't it? I work for a company that always states it's ad sales in reports before we get to hear anything else.
Lolly
Guest
Russ, that' is exactly what I think about Watson. He's a ODI operner who looks good in test cricket because everyone else is so poor but he has not got the temperament to play proper opener's innings. It should be freaking obvious by now.. I am sure that Shaun Marsh will be the same. He's not got the head for long innings though should be playing for Aus in t20.
soapit
Guest
only thing is that the fieldings slowly gone to crap ever since simpson left.
Brett McKay
Guest
Peter Roebuck has had a crack on CricInfo now, too: http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/497282.html "Cricket does not exist to make money. Commerce is a means to an end; that is all. Woe betides the nation that concentrates more on the bottom-line than the production line. A balance is needed between officials with expertise in management and finance and those best able to keep the game on the correct path. "
Russ
Guest
Vinay, Gideon's article was particularly interesting to me because he put a name to the marketing manager, Mike McKenna. A little googling on his work and it becomes quite obvious that he is not only responsible for marketing, but also scheduling, strategy and reform. Some of the reforms being made are clearly necessary - the role of T20 needs to be defined - but to put it in the hands of marketing and their shonky research methodology, instead of openly debating the views of as many interested parties as possible is madness.
sledgeross
Guest
Yeah, Chappellis been harping on about the lack of need for a test coach for years. Maybe he has a point.
Brett McKay
Guest
certainly a more hands-on coach would make sense looking in from the outside, Sledgie, but sometimes you do wonder exactly how much coaching these guys need??
Sledgeross
Roar Rookie
I wonder if these players would accept a Bob Simpson type coach again?
Brett McKay
Guest
As I wrote in the column Vinay, it just makes the findings of the review all the more interesting...
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Peter has always been concerned and Malcolm too,lately. The rage must be maintained. The administrators have dropped too many and their fielding is lazy...and it shows...as they say.."Madam your slip is showing"
Brett McKay
Guest
that's some very esteemed company you've put me in, but yes, you're quite right. I like that Malcolm Conn and Peter Roebuck are jumping on board, so to speak, too. The may not be enough time in the off-season for The Review to uncover all it needs to uncover, never mind actually implementing the required changes...
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Brett, this echoes what Gideon,myself,yourself and Mike Coward have been humming for more than 12 months. The focus on the next Warner or pollard is ultimately harming the "product' cricket is Tests. ODI's and Twenty20 are like Sevens rugby. Necessary for entertainment and revenue. But without a strong Test scene(rugby and cricket) the rest are not stand alone. The shield has to be a priority. Grade clubs in victoria have a dictate to play more Twenty20. so too in other states. This is driven by the marketing boffins in CA who cannot even get a press release right. It is well and good to blame the selectors but the culpability lies with the pinstgripes who are willing to sell our cricket for a bagful of saturated chicken. Don't get me started. i am angry and disillusioned with the grubbiness of our administrators.
Brett McKay
Guest
Russ, check out my post at the bottom here too, some comments from the coalface, so to speak...
Brett McKay
Guest
I received an email this week from another mate of mine, who coincidentally also happens to have a degree of involvement with the grade and state cricket scene in his neck of the woods. I won't post his entire email here (he went on a bit), but his main points were thus: Format: - Futures League match format isn't helping, 3 day games with forced declarations, just makes for an extension of one-day cricket - No point in players grinding runs, as they just take up time. 100 off 250 balls is less valuable than a 65-ball 50 - No punishment in getting rolled inside two sessions either, as the chance to win outright remains in the contrived second innings - second innings essentially becomes "an unrestricted T20 with 9 fielders on the fence" - Needs to revert to same format as first class, i.e. play everyone in 4-day, split innings one-day, and T20 games: "...will allow for our younger players to play harder cricket against MEN and already hardened cricketers and not people their same age who they have become comfortable playing against throughout all their years in youth cricket. By making it a four day game we promote the ‘old style’ of batting. Batting time rather than score as many runs in as little time possible. We also teach bowlers and captains how to think about getting players rather than waiting for them to hit one down someone’s throat." Mid-20s fringe players: - states don't want to give full contracts to still-developing players - a perceived belief that if a player isn't a Shield player by 23, they probably won't ever become one - states also seem to be hunting for the "next big thing", regardless of actual ability - Older debutants don't get anywhere near the opportunity to cement a spot than a 20yo; costs a lot less to keep an under-performing 20-21yo on the books than an under-performing 25-26yo T20 focus: - states are looking ahead trying to find future Big Bash League (to start next season, city-based) stars. Grinding, innings-building 23yo rookies less likely to win a contract upgrade than a big hitter. Focus has moved from developing first class cricketers to developing BBL cricketers. It's all quite worrying, really....
Rob McLean
Guest
My head hurts after reading all of those stats. Good work.
Russ
Guest
The trick is knowing where to find the numbers... The best season figures are interesting. The averages in the past few years are only bettered by the "forgotten" players, but their run output is much lower. Which maybe points to a different problem: there has been a tendency since they split the sides to bring players up through the ODI squad, which has meant they are playing fewer Shield games (and fewer long innings) even though they get early exposure to international cricket. Judging by results, that policy is failing. The players coming through have loose techniques and can't play long innings (Clarke, Marsh, Ferguson, Watson, White, Smith).
Brett McKay
Guest
Russ, some outstanding stats work there, I don't know where you find the time... The thing that sticks out for me is the falling "best season" figures, and certainly the three year cumulative figures aren't anywhere near as good as the once where, though in the case of Smith and Khawaja, last season was really their first full f/c seasons. And there's no doubt about the search for an all-rounder, it's been going on all my lifetime, but really stepped up after Andrew Flintoff tore Australia apart in 2005. Symonds should be sending Flintoff a case for Christmas every year for the rest of his life!!