The Australian Test side is moving towards another period of upheaval in the next 12-18 months, with several players likely to retire their baggy greens. While this is not an unusual occurrence, it does provide us with an opportunity to pause and appreciate a recent shift in selection approach.
A few years ago, an elder statesman of the Australian team was dropped while still in strong form. The national selection panel at the time cited a desire to move in a more youthful direction as their primary motivation for unceremoniously dumping Simon Katich.
Fast forward to 2014, and we can see a very different approach to senior players being employed by Rod Marsh and his fellow selectors.
Our current Test side features three men over the age of 35 in Chris Rogers, Ryan Harris and Brad Haddin. Two of them, Harris and Rogers, are still putting in very strong performances in the current series against India.
Add to this the international T20 selection of Brad Hodge and Brad Hogg, 40 and 43 respectively, in recent years, and the average age of our national sides may be on the rise.
Numbers aside, these players bring a range of attributes to the team that are often missing when fielding a group of youngsters.
Australian captain Michael Clarke proved some insight on why the Australian team values its senior players during his Boxing Day Test commentary debut. Discussing Chris Rogers and his role in the side, Clarke was quick to comment on the stability and patient approach Rogers provides.
Along with his role of keeping opening partner David Warner calm and focused at the crease, Rogers’ ability to ‘bat time’ should not be understated when assessing the strengths of the team. Add this to his vast experience in a range of conditions, and it’s easy to see why the selectors chose to provide Rogers with a late career stint in the Test side.
In the bowling department, Harris is arguably the first man picked in the team. While Mitchell Johnson haunted the dreams of the English side last summer, it is Harris who has been the mainstay of the attack in recent years.
With the best strike rate in the history of Australian Test cricket and a thirst for wickets that shows no sign of abating, the selectors will no doubt continue to pick Harris until his knees give up the ghost.
These old guns provide the rare double of outstanding performance and a capacity to mentor younger teammates that is invaluable to their development and the ongoing regeneration of Australian cricket. Recognising and harnessing these attributes shows a level of intelligence and forward thinking that is not always present in the sporting world.
Picking the best players available seems an obvious and logical approach, yet often alluded Andrew Hilditch and his cohorts. Like all new regimes, Rod Marsh and the national selection panel cannot undo the mistakes of their predecessors. We can only hope that their current ‘age is no barrier’ policy will continue to be employed long into the future.
art pagonis
Guest
• And the reason we play Tests for 5 days to get a draw is….????? Tradition….no other reason makes any sense. Soccer and Hockey plays for a draw, but their games last 70-90 minutes, not 5 weeks…sorry days….and they have Golden Goals and Penalty Shootouts to get a RESULT! • And the reason we think like old English Codgers is….???? Because we are descended from Old English Codgers…well most of us on Cricket Boards are. • And the reason that Australia declared with 384 runs as the target is…..? We’re scaredy cats….and we have made all the running in this test series. • And the reason we aren’t playing Day/Night Tests is…????? Scaredy Cats again. Just can’t break with tradition and ensure working people can come to the game midweek, other than in Xmas Holidays. • And the reason we can’t have Substitutes or Replacements in Test Cricket is…….Tradition again. The ICC wants us to go back to that tough,marathon endurance style of old time cricket, in the 21st Century, cos they say it’s better than that limited overs stuff. The ICC doesn’t care if there are a plethora of breakdowns amongst fast bowlers. They still get to drink their sherry and smoke cigars and hang around the Members for 5 days minimum. • And the reason we do not have the DRS in this Test Series is…..????? India! Ohhh sorry, fuller explanation…India doesn’t want it! All the other countries do, but India runs the ICC, correct? • And the reason why the ICC doesn’t allow the DRS in Australia under Australian conditions is?????….. see above, and of course we wouldn’t want a system that gives us the best chance of getting decisions right, now would we. After all, we’re cricketers!!!! • And the reason that India and Australia bitch at one another is??????……they play for 5 days on a concrete hard wicket….get no result….throw the ball at one another, call one another “spoiled brats”, hit one another in head and helmet, make snide remarks like little girls, go off the ground like little petals when a shower comes along….is that enough reasons for bitching??? Ohhh..and they don’t like one another. And they get all hot and steamy too. • And the reason for producing sideways turners from Day 1 in India and bouncy, chin music wickets in Oz is????……so the Home Team can cheat! I mean I thought that was obvious. Someone forgot to tell the curator at the MCG, that’s all. Dead Cat bounce and all that! You beat me 4-0, I’ll beat you 3-0 with a draw in our favour…and that makes 4 nil…ha-ha!!!! • And the reason that the ICC/India, Australia, England and Safrica play against one another all the time is….????? They are all such great friends! No, no…I fibbed. They all get to make more moneeeyyyyyy …and everyone else can please themselves. • And the reason the players do not get any say about Test Cricket and its’ rules is????...they couldn’t care less. India and the IPL make them millionaires…every year. Why would they want to upset the ICC/India and their own countries for the good of the game when they make half a million from the IPl and half a million plus from their Board. • And the reason the ICC, CA and all the other Boards put the paying spectator last in the overall equation is?????......They think they’ve got Cricket just where it should be. While the International Game is viewed as EVERYTHING to cricket, the Domestic Competitions are viewed as fodder to feed Tests. A World Cricket League playing 3 forms, and National Domestic Cricket Leagues playing 3 forms is the answer. Thank you very much!
Axle an the Guru
Guest
Typical bombastic Simoc response.
Daniel Gray
Roar Guru
Not sure which bandwagon you are referring to, Simoc. I don't believe articles that compliment selection decisions and praise veteran players for the intangibles they bring to a team are prevalent enough for any type of wagon to be attached. Thanks for reading.
Daniel Gray
Roar Guru
Interesting stuff, Sheek. Some historical perspective is always beneficial and welcome. Thanks for sharing.
sheek
Roar Guru
Like a lot of things, the pendulum will swing wildly from one extreme to the other & back again. Sometimes, it will make sense. At other times, it won't. The oscillation between experience & youth is timeless, & will continue. Often, it depends on the rush, or lack, of talent coming through. Plus the success of the incumbents. From the vault, Australian teams selected in 1928 & 1968. The 1st test team of 1928/29 was Don Bradman's test debut. The age of his team mates is intriguing to say the least. Ponsford is the second youngest & 8 years older. They were the only two players under 30, which also included two 40-year-olds. Bill Woodfull (31), Bill Ponsford (28), Alan Kippax (31), Jack Ryder (39-c), Don Bradman (20), Jack Gregory (33), Charlie Kelleway (42), Stork Hendry (33), Bert Oldfield (34-k), Clarrie Grimmett (37), Bert Ironmomger (46). Average age:34. As a contrast, the 1968 team to England was the youngest on record to date (except maybe the 2013 team), & the first Ashes series I followed. This was the 5th test team. Bill Lawry (31-c), John Inverarity (24), Ian Redpath (27), Doug Walters (23), Ian Chappell (25), Paul Sheahan (22), Barry Jarman (31-k), Graham McKenzie (27), Ashley Mallett (23), John Gleeson (30), Alan Connolly (29). Average age: 26.5.
kevin
Guest
Simoc, Harris has the best strike rate of any Australian bowler ever: better than Lillee, McGrath or Warne. And your disrespect to Brett and Daniel is totally uncalled for.
Simoc
Guest
A creative article of nothing. The selectors are picking the best players available as they see it, and they have been getting it right. Selection in the Hilditch era was hopeless at best. Harris has not been and never will be the mainstay of the attack. The Ashes in England was the first time he played in successive test matches. He has 111 test wickets at 35 years and will never be regarded as a great bowler in history. He's bowling great at the moment and is getting over 4 wickets a match. The younger Nathan Lyon has many more test wickets and you need over 200 for consideration. These 'Johnny jump on the band wagon' writers are rife on the Roar.
MikeTV
Guest
Brett is saying that selectors have always understood the value of veteran players and have always retained senior players who were well past their prime - eg Ponting, Hayden, Hussey, etc. But not many selection panels have been bold enough to replace an outgoing veteran with a "veteran debutant" which has only happened in the past 8 years or so with players like: * Chris Rogers * Brad Haddin * Ryan Harris
Brett McKay
Expert
OK, fair enough Daniel, I certainly can't disagree that Rogers was and is a valuable selection. I just don't believe there's been any great policy shift between the selection regimes; Hohns, Hilditch, Invers, Marsh now - they've all made age and/or experience calls along the way..
Daniel Gray
Roar Guru
I would still argue that Rogers' selection at age 35 for the Ashes and subsequent retention indicates a shift of sorts from Rod Marsh and the other selectors when compared to their predecessors over the past 15-20 years. He was picked for specific conditions at an age when most players would have retired from Shield cricket feeling unfulfilled. While primarily picked for his vast experience in county cricket, the team has also benefited from the level head and maturity of a man now in his late 30s who knows his strengths and weaknesses better than most. The appreciation and respect for these attributes was evident when listening to Clarke discuss Rogers' role in the team when commentating on the Boxing Day Test, and this was the main thing that prompted me to write this article.
Brett McKay
Expert
My point Paul is that how the Australian team selects and manages older players is no different now to any time in last 30 or 40 years and maybe even before that. Nothing has been learned and nothing has changed. And I'll stand corrected on Krezja, but it doesn't change my point. "Hilditch and co" selected plenty of players in their 30s..
kevin
Guest
Agree with Paul D and Daniel.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Jason Krejza was 25 when he made his debut Brett. What's the point of what you're saying anyway? If you think the article is crap then maybe the Roar eds should actually sub-edit pieces before posting them.
Brett McKay
Expert
Well, I actually re-read it three times so as not to get caught by the headline, Daniel, so I'm not sure.. Regardless, Katich was injured initially, not discarded. And Hogg and Hodge were genuinely within the best 10-15 T20 players in the country at the time. And under Hilditch, Hussey, Gilchrist, Ryan Harris, Jason Krezja, Bryce McGain, Stuart Clark, Brad Haddin, Marcus North, and Rogers himself - among others - all debuted north of 30 years of age. If anything, it's become much more accepted over the last decade or more that the best players have been selected regardless of age, and as long as they've performed, they've generally been retained. It's hardly a new development at all..
Daniel Gray
Roar Guru
Brett, perhaps the headline was a little mismatched to the main premise of this one. My point was that it is encouraging to see our current selectors not discarding older players on the basis of age, unlike the experience of Katich. And while Hodge and Hogg were admittedly short-term selections, I don't recall a similar instance of players of such advanced age being selected in the last 15-20 years, if not further back. The players you referred to were mostly legends of the game, who were well established in the side and then progressed on to playing into their later years. This contrasts with Rogers in particular, who most likely would not have been considered under Hilditch and co.
Daniel Gray
Roar Guru
Fair call, John. There are pros and cons with older and younger players, and I'm sure the selectors take all those things into consideration when picking their teams.
Daniel Gray
Roar Guru
True, Julian. I think you're on the mark with your call in picking the younger player if you have two people on an even keel. It's great to see Rogers doing well with a late career Test opportunity.
JohnB
Guest
What is "best" is a difficult enough question to start with without decreeing that any criterion is off limits in trying to decide it. Age in itself most certainly shouldn't be a disqualification, but if an older player wants the benefit of intangibles like his experience being considered at the selection table, he can't really argue with other intangibles like "promise" and "investment for the future" also being considered, in favour of a younger player. If the alternative selection choices you're considering are otherwise close to each other I think it is quite reasonable to take age into account and go for the younger player.
Brett McKay
Expert
Daniel, I have to admit I'm having trouble with your premise here. Australia hasn't "learnt" the value of veterans suddenly, you could go back decades and find regular example of older players in key roles: Ponting and Hussey most recently; Hayden, Langer, Warne, Gilchrist and McGrath before them; Steve Waugh, Mark Taylor, Terry Alderman, David Boon, Allan Border........ they all played well into their late 30s, and generally played pretty well. And none of them were really dropped, either. All those guys I've listed there announced their own retirements, and I can really only think of Mark Waugh as being an older player who was genuinely dropped. And more's the point, of them, only Hussey's was a surprise retirement. Furthermore, I think the current selection policies are heading back in the direction of backing younger players, in preparation for that generational change that is getting closer. Hazlewood was brought in and has gone ahead of Siddle; Smith was backed as Captain ahead of Haddin. Burns was favoured ahead of Ed Cowan. You mentioned Hodge and Hogg, but they were clearly stated as being short-term picks for the T20 World Cup, and both were dropped immediately afterwards and will not play for Australian again. Realistically, the policy around older players is no different now to what it was 30 years ago..
Julian King
Roar Guru
There's a general rule of thumb when it comes to selection - you pick your best team regardless of age. In the case of 2 players with similar ability/output, you go with the younger guy. Thus, the argument of Klinger/Voges vs. Burns et al comes down to whether or not the older guys are definitively better than the younger ones. Mike Hussey debuted at 30, but there are not really any Hussey equivalents in first class cricket at the moment. Bear in mind also that Hussey debuted in the specialist position of opener. That narrowed the field somewhat. It is also what helped Chris Rogers get picked again and to his credit, he's made the most of his opportunity.