Where are the upcoming Test batsmen?

blame 20 twenty for test batting demise. we basically stink!

I think Australia has plenty of talented batsmen, it's just that they need to be given time to develop. Ponting and CLarke didn't start being test-class batsmen until they were 27-28. Before that they both averaged mid-30's but it didn't matter because we had experienced batsmen in the team that allowed them to be developed. Hell, look at Ian Bell's career for further proof. Warner, Smith are developing nicely. Complemented with players like Rogers and Clarke. Hughes is ready to seize his chance and be the player we will undoubtedly be. I'd argue that the public is the one that lacks patience. If you are asking young players to be world beaters as soon as they start their careers then you are deluded. They need time, and once they are set, then we are going to beat England and anyone else in our way.

That generation all had some common characteristics. They were seasoned and successful before they were pushed into test cricket. Ponting I seem to recall scored 5 centuries in his first full season of shield. Hayden was a run machine and still needed a couple of goes. in fact they all did. Steve Waugh, Ponting, Hayden, Martyn, Clarke all were selected performed below expectations and dropped. Others like Siddons, Cox Elliot, etc would have walked into this team but could not make that team. the 40 ave number is a good rule of thumb for what we should expect from a test class batsman after 30 tests. We are short of those. In fact we have arguably produced one test class batsman in the past decade. That pointsd to a more serious issue. I was fortunate enough to see Joe Root play against a young Australian team as a 16 year old. The development programe instituted in England was far more robust than anything in Australia and showed in the teams performances. they start their national programme at 14. That includes drafting any youn Aussies, South Africans or Kiwis that may have UK passports. Ben Stokes was in the same team.More importantly, of that great Australian team above, including Warne Gilchrista and Hayden all went to the aceademy in Adelaide. The Centre for Mediocity in Brisbane has been a complete flop and should be disbanded.

I should have added minimum 5 tests.

Chris, We have been waiting for 6 years and only 10% of the cricketers are suitable for test cricket. Soon we will have one player averaging 50, one 45 and the rest will be 35. The bowlers will creep their averages close to 20-25 and score the extra 80-100 runs the top order specialist would have scored in the past.

......You started it!!!!! Poor Gav

I think that in the long run T20 could lead to an improvement in the quality of test batsmen. And one main reason for that is that it has made cricket a more viable career option. Where you have youngsters who are multi-skilled and able to play multiple different sports at high levels, they eventually get to the point where they have to choose where to put their efforts, and if they are the quality that has a chance to be professional, there is certainly going to be some thought to which sport they have more chance of having both a successful career in and also which they can make more of a living out of. In Australian cricket we've got something like 20 players on national contracts. They are the only ones making decent money out of cricket. A state contract is likely going to be less than the average wage in Australia, and probably the same in most other places. In contrast, you look at football codes and you have several hundred players making a good living out of AFL, similar in the NRL, and in Football you go beyond just the A-League to the fact that just about every country in the world has professional leagues, and in many of the bigger ones you can make a good living even a couple of divisions down from the top. T20 doesn't balance this out entirely, but with good contracts on offer for the BBL, decent prize money from the CLT20 if you can get there, and riches on offer in the IPL if you can get really good at it (all for about 6 weeks work) and suddenly cricket becomes a more attractive career path. That could lead to more youngsters choosing to go with cricket over other sports, thus increasing the pool of quality players coming through and thus increasing the chance of good quality test batsmen coming through.

I agree with you, our players aren't the best T20 players around, though if you are talking the CLT20 some of the stand-out players in the IPL teams there are Aussies. Though, they are also generally the older ones, guys like Hodge and Hussey (both retired from every other form of the game) along with Watson have starred for some of the IPL teams. Brisbane and Perth didn't do that well, though they both were stocked with a lot more of the younger players who didn't even play in the BBL last year.

Watching Handscombe bat in the Ryobi Cup yesterday, his the type we need to be putting our focus on. Seemed to have a good temperament and a cool head.

Gav is hitting his head against a wall right now you know ;)

Yes it could be. I always think it's interesting the way it's only ever viewed in negative terms. So with averages going up, that's because the bowling isn't as good as it used to be. In this instance, it's because the batting isn't as good. I raised the point a while ago when it was said the bowling now isn't as good as it used to be to ask why wasn't it that the batting is better? In what way would it look any different?

Remember about 10 or 15 years ago we would wonder why it was England couldn't beat Australia? All that wailing and gnashing of teeth that we couldn't seem to do it? You look back at that Australia team now and it's no bloody wonder we couldn't beat them - it's a terrifying side!

Ashton Agar averaged over 50 after one test.

Surely a decline in flat chief executive pitches has been at least slightly responsible for the decline in batting averages?

And Dhawan averages 187.00 after 1 test. :-)

That 2005 english pace attack was the best since the West Indies I reckon. Well we'll soon find out how these boys go as two truly challenging attacks loom. First the attack of the giants this summer. Followed by SA. SA are interesting as, with AB De Villiers keeping, they can fit Steyn, Philander, Morkel and De Lange into the team. Part of the enjoyment of this 20/20 series is watching Morkel and De Lange. Aside from the obvious threat to the top order, our plucky tailenders might get hastily skittled by the extra big gun.

Well I guess it's subjective for sure and always people tend to romanticise past eras. Obviously if you take the Australian attack out of the equation then you're taking Warne, McGrath and co out of the reckoning. Pakistan had Waqar, Wasim and then Shoaib. SA's attack right now is superb but Pollock, Donald and a young Kallis wasn't too shabby either. England's attack right now is very good but 2005 was pretty special too. Sri Lanka have lost Murali and Vaas I guess you'd mention and India I'm trying to think but Kumble obviously a big miss. Windies had Walsh and Ambrose so they're a good way off that kind of quality for sure. Tough to compare properly though.

That's interesting SB, I think the opposition attacks are better now than they were during Australia's recent golden era, 1994-2007

I think it was maybe once in a generation in terms of getting them all at once or at least in such quick succession. Not to say the talent can't be reproduced but tough to get so many again at the same time........ it was quite incredible really.

I actually love the T20 cricket but like many I lament the decline in test standards that appears to have gone with it. I think the point about the averages is a fair one especially given that I think the attacks have declined to a degree also at the same time, the likes of Steyn, Harris and Anderson aside granted. I do think however it is easy to get too hung up on players being not as good as their predecessors. Australia did have an incredible conveyor belt of players for a while and it might just not be T20 cricket that is to blame right now but maybe the overall numbers of people playing cricket. It's definitely the case that less and less players look less like 'test' ones than before. Shot selection seems far more bright and breezy and patience seems to have gone out of the game. Certainly I read or heard an article that Andrew Strauss' captaincy worked to a large degree on a consistent plan and being ready for the batsmen to make a mistake which invariably came, not sure how true that was though. There are players who look far more suited to limited overs in terms of their play who can transcend the formats. In recent history, Jayasuriya, Sehwag, KP and Gilchrist spring to mind, but all as you say cut their teeth before T20, they were just naturally destructive players. The likes of a Dravid or a Damien Martyn seem like a world away now. I think it's also part of the wider debate on the future of test cricket that many of us had the other week. Players will migrate to where the money is and test cricket needs to modernise to bring the focus back to it. I find it all a bit sad really...........