HENRY: Blame short form cricket for Aussie batting woes

And I thought it was supposed to be us Poms who were the whingers Geoff? Umpiring has been poor, but it's been poor for both teams.

Cricket has 3 forms of the game. You only make the Australian team as a batter if you can bat....PERIOD. So, what England have done is train and perfect a batting system for all their batters in the 3 forms of the game. About 12-15 players only. They are taught Defensive Batting, Offensive Batting, Running between wickets, Shotmaking, Hitting over the TOP, and various other skills including the rules of the game (DRS etc). When they come thru this school of cricket, they are complete batsmen, able to bat in the 3 forms of the game. They do a similar plan for all their bowlers and fieldsmen and wicketkeepers. SO MUST WE!

Agreed. We dont have the experienced batting stocks we once had. Only Clarke can generally be assured of consistent sizable scores and he's had a slow series. You're right about Cowan and as I've said I'm not a fan. But not because of his pedestrian pace, but because he gets out cheaply putting pressure on batsmen to follow. But if Cowan had been able to score 40-50 odd each innings I'd be his fan. And I think his defensive technique is something a number of the more talented young batsmen need to look at carefully. They can bat like Hayden, Gilchrist, Ponting etc in their hey day later, when they have the experience and confidence to also hold onto their wickets. The game is about runs. Doesnt matter if you get them as a rabbit or a tortoise, as long as you get them. Let them be entertaining when they have 100 runs on the board. In the meantime slow and steady

Degsy. That is one of the most well balanced comments I've read for a while. Well said and it supports what I've been trying to get across time and again. Australia doesnt have such a bad side as suggested. It lacks primarily two things EXPERIENCE and SELF BELIEF. England are near the peak of a period where their side has a good mix of experience and youth. It also has developed a winning culture and is getting the best out of their players. Their bowling stocks are quite impressive with Anderson and Swann doing almost a Warne-McGrath on us. And their support bowlers are competent and experienced. Their batting line up is almost comparable to Australias 90s side with some quite outstanding batsmen like Cook and Trott and fine up and comers like Root and Bell. Australia on the other hand has one outstanding present player in Clarke. But there are up and comers like Hughes, Khawaja, Smith, Warner, Wade, Pattinson, Starc, Bird, Lyon, Faulkner, and Agar in this squad alone who will improve and have the potential in a year or two to match England and other top sides. It just takes Experience and self belief and this Australian side is seriously lacking in both. It needed a good father figure, like Lehmann, a well respected and solid test man who'd been there and had the teaching qualities to bring the best out of players, to take the reins. I've no doubt this team will be a lot more impressive by the end of the 10 test series. I doubt that they will win either, but I think we'll see them become increasingly competitive against what we must admit is a very good experienced and high in confidence English side.

Ryan/Colvin, Thanks for the support. TGT, sometimes someone can put things in a better perspective than I can. I've never been afraid to change my point of view if someone else can provide a stronger argument. But if I think my position can stand the heat, i'll stand by it until proven otherwise. Generally, I adopt the following philosophy. 1. Always try to have the right decision/opinion. 2. Have the wrong decision/opinion. In most situations, a wrong decision can be rectified by an open mind & a superior argument. 3. The worst position is to make no decision or have no opinion at all. It's people like this who will give Kevin Rudd another chance to really mangle the country inside out! ;-)

A lot of synthetic wickets are hard and fast. If anything it teaches you to be a good backfoot player with powerful drives. I don't think its necessarily a bad thing, just a different dynamic to player development.

That is a great analysis BF and the fact that a young player needs time to fund his feet cannot be argued. Nor can it be argued that they floursih with teh help of older more experienced players. The point I was trying to make was that Australian Cricket does not have a "big six" and nor is their one on the immediate horizon. Can you honestly tell me there is one cricketer in Australia at the moment who you would confidently predict can bat through a session. Well there is one, Ed Cowan and he has been rissoled! I hope I am wrong but I think we are in for a long period in the cold. We might be going cap in hand to Bangladesh and Zimbabwe for a while.

I just think there is a massive difference between putting forth an opinion, and someone challenging aspects of it that make you reassess your thoughts, to being close-minded. I've often had my view changed after a discussion with a Roarer, but I would hope the fact my original opinion may have changed wouldn't make be 'close-minded' in the first instance.

Well said Bearfax, show faith in our young players and the likes of Khawaja, Smith, Pattinson, Starc will be our future stars, but show faith as England has done in their players

Our top order needs to lift their game, with the exception of Khawaja who made a fighting 50 the others were simply not good enough

We don't need to dream about having good batting stocks, we have the batsman to have a solid batting unit. Khawaja showed his class in lords in the second innings and with a solid go at 3 he can be our next number 3 and a good test batsman. I also have seen improvement in Smith and would give him a chance and outside Burns and Maddinson are talents in waiting. Our batting stocks are good but we need to show faith in our young batsman.

Like I said Oldmanemu, I've been around long enough to see all this before. All the examples you showed were that when young players finally struck gold, they were surrounded by experienced batsmen who had nurtured them. But if you look at their figures in isolation I ask you if you see much different from what is happening today. In fact I would suggest today's youngsters are not being treated on the same yardstick. Lets look at a couple of our past stars and how they started. Ponting was 21 when he started test cricket. By the time he was 25 he had played 47 innings. His average at that point: 38.3 Boon was 24 when he started test cricket. By the time he was 28 he had played 57 innings. His average at that point: 37.2 Steve Waugh was 20 when he started test cricket. By the time he was 24 he had played 39 innings. His average at that point was 29.7 Hayden was 22 when he started test cricket. By the time he was 28 (he was dropped for a few years) he had played 24 innings. His test average was at that point: 27.7 Compare these with today's three youngsters so many want to crucify; Hughes (age 24) was 20 when he started test cricket. By now (he was also dropped for two terms) he has played 49 innings. His test average at this point is 32.7 Steve Smith (age 24) was 21 when he started test cricket. By now (he was also dropped) he has played a meagre 18 innings. His test average at this point is 29.0 Khawaja (age 26) was 24 when he first played test cricket. By now (and he has also been dropped) he has played a meagre 13 innings. His test average at this point is 30.1 What I've done is show four of our past star players over the first four years of their test career. The three present players are over a period between 2-4 years. Below is a brief comparison Ponting average 38.3 over 47 innings Boone average 37.2 over 57 innings Hayden average 27.7 over 24 innings Waugh average 29.5 over 39 innings Hughes average 32.7 over 49 innings Smith average 29.0 over 18 innings Khawaja average 30.1 over 13 innings. You see we arent looking at these kids in perspective as measured against players of the past. They are potentially as good, but they, like those champion players of the past, need time to become the champions they potentially could become. You're more aware of their problems because they are exposed with no experienced high scoring batsmen around them to disguise their early difficulties..

+1000 finally a guy who makes as much sense as me. i was starting to feel isolated !! :)

Sheek, the point is key players participation on the Shield would be non-negotiable if people paid to watch it, if they had real passion for it. But they don't. Most healthy sports these days have healthy, popular, well attended domestic comps as their main fodder, with an international season or international tournaments in soccer, ice hockey, as either an occasional centrepiece or add on. Even rugby has moved to this model to an extent. Cricket is burdened by having all its eggs in the basket of international. Domestic comps are non-profit training grounds. This model just doesn't work in the professional age. For one thing it won't hold players, because what chance kids making a living out of it. It's sad to say, but cricket is doomed I think if it doesn't have a healthy domestic comp. first class cricket is too long and infrequent to drag on the punters ( and has been in aus since bradman) this is why their so keen on T20, it finally offers a franchise-based model that people can get behind, that can compete with a-league, can offer more players contracts and finally allows diversity of interest away from national teams only.

If I were an Aussie I would take some hope from the towelling your A side gave the England Lions earlier this year. I think it is a combination of England being a little bit better (bowling anyway) than people think and the Aussies being low on confidence. None of the England "dangermen" have fired in the batting line up, but Root and Bell have. The pace bowlers have been good on both sides, but if Anderson ends up bowling in overcast conditions there could be further trouble ahead. He only has to get Clarke 2 more times to match his 9 dismissals of Tendulkar. Ironically Watson stands up to him quite well in terms of personal averages, or did so prior to this series which makes his lapses in concentration all the more frustrating for you guys.

TGT, Not saying Sheek was this or that, but IMO no problem in changing your mind or backtracking or getting things wrong. That's my life. Just wish I could be right more often. What's the point of having a mind if you can't change it. No point being right all the time either, that would take all the challenges out of life. I was convinced that the WBs would beat the Lions in the third test; that the Highlanders would beat the Rebels; that O'Connor would make a good 10, that Australia would beat England in the second Ashes test. Even thought Clarke would get a ton or even better a double ton in his second knock. Wrong each time. Just on T20 I agree with a lot of what Sheek said and posted that above. I may not be right but I know one thing, something needs to be done.

There is no doubt in my mind that T20 is a major problem if the desire is to keep test cricket at the pinnacle of the game. Look at how rugby handled the expansion of sevens while at the same time keeping 15s as the principal sport. The games are kept separate; different skill sets are required and therefore there is very little cross over of players. Rugby doesn't get a lot of things right but they were very clever in developing sevens while protecting the international game of 15s. The money remains in 15s. And sevens can be a development game for 15s. T20 is much closer to baseball than test cricket. There should be different players in T20 because different skill sets are required but unfortunately the crossover of players is huge and is damaging to the skills of test players. In reality T20 should be a development game for the long form game. But it's not. There are not many players who can play both squash and tennis; or both badminton and squash. Sort of similar games but in reality completely different skill sets required. Who's played a game of squash and then straight after tried to play table tennis? It's amazing how your timing and shot play is so off. Cricket has not handled it well and has created a situation where the money is in the hit and giggle game and not in the long form game. How to get the balance back is going to take considerable thought and action. Should cricket have gone the franchise way like Super Rugby; then an international series like the Rugby Championships? Or with some variation. Probably, but they have missed the boat. Maybe they can catch up by talking to the big TV networks.

Sheek made his opinion clear. Then when someone gave him no option but to open his perspective he immediately back-tracked. I certainly respect Sheek's opinion and he often raises good points or arguments and always has excellent and thoughtful comments. Believe me, the Roar is all the richer for someone like Sheek's input. However, I just believe that his thoughts are often in a very idealistic perspective which just doesn't wash with the ways of the real world. Particularly in the case of this topic. Blaming T20 for our batting woes is just so short-sighted, it actually baffles me that Sheek would fall into the trap of believing it. Ryan, with all-due-respect, much of what is said on the Roar has a sense of personal engagement. If me questioning the way Sheek's perspective models his opinions actually opens up a discussion then I believe it is fair. To say Sheek is the victim of a personal attack actually says to me that Sheek can't develop a fair and balanced argument to support his opinions and thus needs a hand to cop out of it. And I don't think that's fair on any of us.

Recipe for disaster, more likely, Sheek!

TGT, that's a little out of line. Sheek is one of the more thoughtful, measured and open-minded Roarers. Just because you tend to be on opposing ends of this particular topic, doesn't mean you need to resort to a personal comment about one's perspective.