CA XI a great idea, but youth need experience around them

I actually agree with you non that Joe M . Just as the incumbent nsw players were unlucky to be dropped when better well performed players became available ....it should have been like a ripple process and those players should have gone into the CA 11 ...also is it true that fahwed Ahmed cant get a game ? He should be there too

CA have focused far to much on anointed juniors in recent years, that is my biggest criticism of Greg Chappell. The Second XI was mandated to have 5 under age players in it. To me this is not teaching our kids how to play to win as it becomes too easy to be promoted. Yes you will get the odd super talent but most of these guys need to earn their stripes by showing they can win and play well in grade, then Shield. Not the other way around.

Stoinis is a batsman who bowls a bit of medium pace and who is McDonald? Maybe you mean Boland and McKay? And a bloke called Hastings who played an ODI or two in England recently

I think coaches can help with that. Its about incremental improvement. They should always bowl first though. Just to make a game of it. Plus they will learn much more with 50 full overs in the field and seeing how the other team bats. then they will the other way

Doesn't really sit easily with me the way they've gone about selecting the CA team. It seems to exist just as a vehicle to boost the careers of guys in their early 20s who have come through the elite junior pathways, U19 teams etc. I'm not a fan of implementing any age restrictions with regards to selection once you are playing senior cricket. The second XI state comp has been weaker in recent seasons as many of the best players are over 23 and ineligible. If it exists, the CA XI should be an opportunity for the best uncontracted cricketers from across the country regardless of age.

I think it depends on what state you play for though. NSW is very tough to break into. There were 3 or 4 guys that were dropped from the state side for the internationals and all of them should maybe have been given the chance in the CAXI like the WA and Vic boys. One in particular is a great batsman who for some totally unknown reason was left out of the 17's when we all thought he would have been an absolute shoe in. He went into 1st grade and did OK in his first year and then made the 19's. Last season in NSW he scored 3 centuries in his first 4 games or something like that. When NSW played the Vics before this ODI series started he played and scored but wasn't good enough for the CAXI. This kid's father was an international sportsman in another sport and he knows how much politics come into play when selections are made for teams. This whole thing might be a good idea and all of the boys that are playing will be thrilled to be there and yes cricket is a game of mental strength, but I wonder how much getting hammered every game is going to ruin some of their confidence. It can't be enjoyable showing up thinking how much you are going to be beaten by today.

To Answer your question. because the CA XI is meant to nurture elite talent. All the elite U23's have had 5 years as professional cricketers to make an impact. If they haven't They probably aren't good enough. U19's have been out of school for less then a year and the Elite guys are still to be properly identified. Ricky Ponting was playing on the national team as a twenty year old after playing state cricket as a teenager. Steve Waugh similarly made his test debut at 20. Steve Smith is another example of someone who had received national honors before the age of 22. If you are 22 you have had 3-4 post high school years to make it as a cricketer. If you haven't made a state squad by then its probably time to accept the reality that you won't ever be good enough to play test cricket. Just look at Monday's results a couple of players under 23 scored close to 400 runs. None of them were playing for the CA XI Obviously sometimes selectors are wrong and good players can make their way into the national team at later stages in their careers. if these guys were good enough to make it, they will still be able to make the state squad through weight of runs in grade cricket, or changing their last name to Marsh aka the standard developmental pathway.

Well personally I can only go on what I saw and by your reckoning it must have been a strong period(early to mid 90's)

Paul D Fair enough I have been around grade cricket along while everything was always stronger in the old days until you talk to blokes who are a bit more realistic about their ability and realize it changes very little there may be a few waves of strength but that has happened for decades

There is absolutely no way QLD what willingly let go of 1 of Burns, Khawaja or Lynn let alone all 3. They might be able to part with Forrest or Reardon just to add some experience to the CAXI

Maybe the CAXI should get first pick of the squads, then the states get who's left. CA would only need a 13 man squad. States could name their "big 3" and they can't be taken. So khawaja, burns, Lynn for qld. Smith, Starc, henriques for nsw. Voges, m marsh, Behrendorff for WA. Head, ferguson, Richardson for SA. Wade, maxwell, finch or Vic. Bailey, Faulkner, Fekete for Tas. CA can choose from the rest.

Umpiring grade cricket for a couple of years now, watching some of the higher levels of grade cricket. Reading articles, particularly those by Michael Jeh for Cricinfo who has discussed this for a few years now. It's not an exhaustive view by any means, and based solely on my own experience & readings. Hence why I prefaced it with "I think".

Paul D what is your opinion on the gap between grade cricket and state cricket based on

Yes Lachlan, after two performance where they havent reached 100 in total I can see your point. They probably need two or three experienced players in their side to give them the confidence they need. Its obvious young batsmen like Gregory and Bosisto have the makings of doing well and looked like they were on the way. With an experienced hand at the other end to guide them a little, both could have got well out of the twenties in the first two games.

The best under 19s are eligible. Why leave a 22 year old who's in a state squad but not the XI in limbo? Players can get better after they're 19.

Actually, in many respects Gerard Whately wasn't spot on - Australia won the series in Sri Lanka and at least 2 or 3 of the choices made for that tour (Copeland, S Marsh, Lyon) did well. Tinkering with the Shield and lowering the quality of play further (I say "further" because the test players now seldom play, which they did in the past) would in my view be a big mistake. You want that competition to be as strong as it can be to develop and identify the best players. Tinkering with the one day tournament - go right ahead. Hardly a new thing - before the ACT were included and the current experiment, at different times you had Tasmania involved (well before they achieved Shield status) and NZ played at times. Playing a team of young fringe players doesn't strike me as a bad idea. They've copped a couple of kickings so far - but at least that will show the better of them just how far they have to go to compete at the top level.

I think the gap between Grade & State cricket has never been wider. Incidentally the CA XI just got shot out for 79 against Victoria this morning. Only lasted 28 overs. I'm still hoping it's a good experience for these kids, but I could easily be wrong. If they get overwhelmed and mentally smashed we could have some very ugly matches coming up.

I didn't suggest NSW as that is a tricky one to split up and still keep the Blues as a "Brand" to use that terrible word. I think there is plenty of Talent for two more Shield sides. If the gap is that big now between grade and 1st Class cricket then that is an other black mark on CA. When I was playing a good grade batsmen could face international/state bowlers and still make runs, they are just not as powerful or consistent. I am going to guess that is now not the case based on your comments.

Surely NSW has first dibs on having a second side. Their state side is the one most awash with talent. The issue though is that in order to have a balanced shield fixture you'd need 8 sides. You might be able to get one extra team's worth of talent that is competitive, but two, and I think you'd run into a real talent gap - we saw in the Big Bash with 8 teams that blokes were getting a run who really weren't up to scratch, simply because there wasn't anyone else. Sydney Thunder was stacked full of grade players for a while there and they were just cannon fodder for the other sides. I had hoped that the Big Bash would be the sop to the finance gods - for 2 months we get the KFC ads, and the fireworks and all that, and that's the price for funding a state based shield and ODI comp where the emphasis is on quality over profits. It also happens to be quite entertaining and a great summer product. I can live with that. Unfortunately CA have taken the view that it needs to run from December-January to maximise holiday exposure & attendances, so we get the shield and ODI season cleaved in two. I’d prefer to see it run February to early March, after the test season concludes, so that we have shield cricket happening alongside test matches, but I can see the commercial considerations. It’s a tricky one. Anyways, I’ve wandered a bit – I can only agree with your agreeing with me on Greg Chappell, the track record of this bloke with coaching stints is absolutely horrendous, both in Australia and India and it is baffling as to how he continues to be involved with developing players.

I am not remotely a fan of Greg Chappell's influence in the set up and Gerard Whateley was spot on. It is still a insult to the state comps that this team is running around. The A-League is not going to let the Olyroos play a season in the A-League and that is in effect exactly what CA is doing here. If they want more opportunities then bring in Canberra, the NT and even Townsville to give more guys a chance, but young blokes need to come through a system that is solid enough that you do not need to resort to these gimmicks. And if a country like Australia cannot produce a system by now then we are no chance. I personally think the Shield could use a shake up and include those 3 above teams and rename QLD to the Brisbane Bulls. I am a diehard bulls man but lets be honest the bulls have always represented the Brisbane cricket scene and many a country cricketer has complained of that fact so you may as well make the most of that sentiment and make a seperate team for the north.