Molly-coddled players need to toughen up for World Cup

I was tweeting away on twitter trying to find something to cure my boredom, found this post. Thanks Vinay.

Vinay, Back in the day, Australia picked Craig McDermott at 19. I support the Tigers, and there's an argument that we pick them too young, but my view is if you're good enough, you're old enough.

Stellenbosched, Thank you for your kind words, you've made my day. Mind you, I've just returned home (it's 6:00pm) from a long lunch with a fellow cricket tragic and a mutual mate, an old Kiwi Test player, who both share my views on the current state of cricket coaching in this country (that is, Orstraya). Of course, a few Stella Artois' have been consumed so you could say that, right now, I'm a little Stella Bosched myself! I see from your comment that you have arrived at the same conclusion as myself - and my lunch companions - that the final victory goes to the man who wants it the most. This is not, particularly, something that can be coached or even taught but it lies within. You have it or you don't. Experience can make a player "harden up" but desire is a personality attribute at its basic level. Like you, I believe that where talent is roughly equal (but not necessarily equal), "mongrel" will win more often than not. An old mate used to say, "It's not how...it's how many". Today's players are more likely to say, "Is that in my contract?" From your "name" I assume you are a Seth Efrican. To that end may I wish you and yours a successful World Cup. If we can't win it, and we won't, I hope you guys can finally claim the trophy.......as long as it's not the Indians!! (sorry Kersi, Vinay).

Hi Bayman, If The Roar ever introduced a 'hall of fame for replies' I would nominate your one. Well argued, beautifully written with just the right twist of the knife at the end. As someone living in a country that has one foot in the first world and one in the third, I was very worried that with professionalism would come a situation where the wealthiest countries would take over whatever sport they wished to compete in. I hadn't factored in the great leveler,which is what this debate has included, that all the pampering has removed the 'mongrel' in sportsmen. I think in the heat of a final that the man who has fought uphill (whether in the snow or not) will win more often than the man who has been given everything on a plate (or shield?).

Rabbitz, Surely you are not suggesting the "Centre of Excellence" is attempting to justify itself with the makup of this particular competition? Given our recent performances even the name offends me. Read my response to Sheek earlier regarding my son's lack of success at state selection in basketball. I'm shocked to think that cricket would also feather its own nest when it came to the selection of representative teams at any level. Shocked I say! And Rabbitz, I'm shocked at you too. Those wily old opponents you speak of - I bet none of them had a Level 2 (or 3) coaching certificate. Can't trust a word they say!

Brendon, I presume you've been eating too much of that "new" vegemite that Rabbitz mentioned. As Vinay has written in his response many of the "old fart Armchair Idiots" you refer to actually do have access to various components of the Australian team and to many of those who have previously been lucky enough, and good enough, to wear the Baggy Green. To this end, we discuss various aspects of modern cricket, including the coaching - hell, especially the coaching - with these fellows and are privy to their views on many (though not all) aspects of the game. Trust me, Brendon, it's not pretty listening to comments made by former players - even those from the less distant, more professional era. As you can imagine, another topic which is often aired is the game's current administration, both here in Australia and globally. Again, the responses are often not pretty and not particularly complimentary. Now, we could take the view that once a career is over then a person's views are null and void because he is no longer a part of the setup. This would seem, on the surface, to be your approach. Or, we could think that such views are still valid for no other reason than the people involved have had a long term connection to, and interest in, the game. This is the approach of people like Vinay and myself (for example). Not to mention, of course, our own long involvement and interest in the game which has caused us to pay attention to the way cricket is being played and administered. You may also be interested in the fact that back in those dark, dim days of the amateur, who did not have access to a thousand fitness gurus, we hardly ever had a fast bowler breaking down. The only one I can remember with any long term injury was D.K.Lillee who, once he resolved the issues, came back better than ever, albeit slightly slower, and did not break down again. Throw in Thommo but he twice was injured in accidents unrelated to bowling or his action. Davidson, Lindwall, Hawke, McKenzie, Hoare, Freeman et al just kept playing and bowling. Today, our professional fast bowlers spend most of their time recovering from injury. In NSW alone in the past two years we have had Lee, Starc, Cameron, Hazelwood, Clark, Bracken - do I need to go on - all suffering long term injury. And this in the era of so-called professionalism. It hardly seems necessary to mention Queensland, Victoria et al. So, maybe, you can see why people who know what it was like before, and could be like now, get a little critical of the modern approach which seems to be basically a vehicle to employ a thousand people to produce a result equating to sweet bugger all. Your comment, "Time has moved on.." etc. also falls for the modern lie. That is, all change is good and what we now have is progress. Wrong. Change is simply change and often brought about to help build and maintain an empire. Never doubt people's capacity, and sports administrators particularly, to try to protect their position by adding more and more layers of supervision, thus making themselves look absolutely necessary to manage it all. In my opinion very little of anything, except technology, has improved in the last twenty to thirty years. What we did with five people in the 1970s now takes fifty-five people with the appropriate additional cost, time delays and communication problems. Back then, Alan Barnes probably ran CA by himself, with maybe one or two assistants. These days CA requires a cast of thousands to achieve no more than Barnes did on his own. Cricket NSW had Bob Radford, again basically on his own and even then only before lunch, doing what now takes a hundred people. Likewise SA and I'm sure all the other State associations. This is the professionalism you seem to think is so good for the game. Yes, I know it's easy to be critical and in my own case I'm more critical than some. I accept that without quibble. However, the difference between you and guys like Vinay and myself is that (I'm assuming here) we actually have knowledge of both the "old amateur days" and the so-called modern "professional era". You, seemingly, do not. You seem to be familiar only with cricket in its modern form. In other words, Vinay and I (and others here) can make comparisons and you cannot. Two other points. I don't remember too many "fat, unfit players" in the old days. Certainly there were a couple of "stout" batsmen, like Burge and Shepherd (maybe Stackpole), but they could really play. I'm not sure that Benaud, Davidson, Lindwall, Harvey, the Chappells, Lawry, Sheahan, Mallett, Thommo, Walters would appreciate being called fat and unfit. Also, it was eleven miles through snow to school but, try as I might, I'm buggered if I know how I managed to do it "both ways". I remember going to school uphill - but I always thought I went home downhill. But, I'm just an old fart, what the hell do I know?

Yeah but what is the point of the AIS or Centre for Excellence (or whatever it is called) if the participants don't have a guaranteed spot in a recognised competition? Surely being selected for the academy squad should guarantee you a lucrative couple of seasons, isn't it obvious that by 23 you should know it all and be the perfect player? Who ever learnt from playing against willey old opponents :)

Vinay, this was exactly the suggestion I mde in my post-Ashes piece, and that limiting to U23 has robbed Australian cricket of those fringe 24-28yo players who might now be Shield regulars, and who are undoubtedly are still better cricketers than these kids being rushed through. It's a great result for ACT cricket, no question, but the reality is now that they'll start afresh from next season as the states cherry-pick these young ACT players. And in return, ACT cricket gets not much more than the odd "former ACT player..." mention when one of these kids takes the next step. I'd do a similar thing to you, go back to a 2nd XI comp, but turn the age focus from 'only three over 23' to 'at least three U21/22' which would keep the better players in the game, but also reward younger players on merit and not just because there's x number of spots to fill....

Vinay, this is slightly off topic, but ultimately related to your thoughts on Australian cricket in general. The Futures League wrapped up yesterday, and in the end, the traditional stronghold states finished 2nd (Victoria) and 4th (NSW). So theoretically, the best 2nd XI/U23 team in Australia now comes from ... the ACT ACT beat Vic by 6 wickets in the end, and finished more than 7 points clear with 4 wins from their 6 games. Vic and Qld finished with 3 wins each, but worryingly, NSW, Tas, and SA could manage only 1 win. I wonder if CA still believe this competition is better serving Australian cricket than the old 2nd XI comp?? http://livescores.cricket.com.au/scoreboard_2586_21.html

Wow. A bunch of old fart Armchair Idiots with no access to the Australian team decide to vent their rage in a "In my day we walked 10 miles through snow to school uphill - both ways". Yes, lets go back to the days of fat, unfit players. That will guarantee success. Lets go back to the days of being amateurs. India are a lot more molly-coddled than Australia yet they are one of the favourites. Time has moved on but you lot haven't.

Rabbitz, Reading your post is like looking in a mirror. Your last sentence could well have been written by me. It sums up my feelings in a nutshell. Mind you, I'm still smiling about the "Manly ferry" story. I have experienced the same behaviour in different circumstances. I'll bet at least one person said, "Someone should do something about the water, someone could get hurt!" Of course, we could just blame God but I'm pretty sure someone else was responsible. Whoever it was it was someone in the government.

Sheek, In a nutshell, we're bogged down by covering our backside and protecting our empire. Producing a good result becomes secondary to propping up our position to the point that a good result is nice but not the most important thing. A case in point. Many years ago my son and his mate were picked in a squad from which the South Australian U20 basketball team would ultimately be selected. Both boys were 18 and the squad contained boys aged 17 to 19. When the final team was picked my son and his mate both missed out. Ten players chosen but not these two. Of the ten chosen, all were playing age group basketball but all were a part of the AIS programme in Adelaide. My son and his mate were not involved in the AIS programme. Oddly enough, only two boys in the original squad were considered good enough to be playing regular first grade (open) basketball where they frequently played with and against players from the national league (i.e. players from the Adelaide 36ers etc). Those two were my son and his mate. My son was disappointed, naturally, but I have never doubted the ability of sporting organisations to promote themselves at the expense of the game, the results and the players. After all, what is the point of the AIS if players from outside can get selected for a state team on such a stupid criteria as ability. The AIS coaches weren't getting paid to allow outsiders to intrude on their fast growing empire. Cricket is no exception. This is my grief with coaches in cricket and modern coaches in particular. The sort of fellows you were writing about were those who simply loved the game, were willing to pass on their knowledge - free of charge - and rejoiced in the success of their charges. Today's coaches are a poison on the game. Their first criteria is to promote themselves and follow some uneducated mantra on what constitutes "modern cricket". Get on the front foot, free your front leg to slap it through the offside, a la T20. It's too easy to say the game has changed because it bloody well has not. What's changed is what is accepted as quality. The very idea that Tait and Warner, for example, can represent Australia at any level is a disgrace on the game and its handlers. We have become pampered fools and accepting of standards which are nowhere near what they were - all in the name of glossy entertainment. We have become a fluff society, all shadow and no substance. Ultimately, we will get what we deserve - and it won't be much. Still, it is important that we now have a thousand hangers-on all being protected by a supervisor being protected by a manager being protected by.......well, you get the idea. Apparently, a thousand hangers-on means it must be more professional. Being more professional means we cannot do without these guys, therefore it stands to reason that with even more guys we'd be even more professional. On that basis, our coaches must be outstanding because there's a zillion of them. Obviously! Meanwhile, an empire has been born and, trust me, it will die hard. Once cricket went "professional" it began to produce an industry and with that came every greedy little worm who saw an opportunity to make good financially in the name of "professional" sport. The irony is that all these "professional" coaches seem to know less and less about the game as time goes by. The more coaches, the less knowledge until finally we are reduced to the shambles that is T20 cricket. With the best will in the world, it's not enough that these coaches are enthusiastic. Most have never played at any reasonable level and have not had the advantage of gathering intel from the good and great players at the end of play. What they know they read from a book. Most of the guys you were referring to Sheek knew when to pull back and allow talent to prosper. The uneducated just keep on coaching because they don't really know talent when they see it. Besides, if they somehow manage to recognise it they want the world to know they were the coach so they just keep tinkering - and damaging the end product. The "game has changed" mantra is the greatest load of bullshit ever perpetrated on cricket although in one aspect it is correct. There are players today, representing our country in various forms, who would have been laughed off the park in years gone by. Good luck to those players but don't tell me the game has improved. Now while I know full well there are some coaches out there worth their salt - there must be - my comments are aimed at the majority who, unfortunately, seem to have more time than is good for the game. So they're out there coaching and lowering the standard daily. P.S. For those who want to argue, don't bother. I know your dad, uncle, cousin means well and gives a lot of his time. Frankly, I don't effing care. He and his like are just ruining the game. There's nothing more dangerous than a well meaning fool. PSS. Yep, I'm sure your dad, uncle, cousin is one of the "good" coaches and I definitely believe there are some good coaches. Too few to make a significant difference, unfortunately, but they're definitely out there somewhere. I personally know of two such coaches. Both played first grade and one played Test cricket but neither are from the "modern" era and both are scathing of most modern coaches. Why is it so?

Absolutely Vinay, absolutely