I’m troubled. Are you troubled? Have you been taking note of the Australian Test batting selections over the past decade or so, and wondering why our selectors seem so conservative in who they pluck for a meteoric rise only to watch a meteoric fall?
Of course you’ve noticed. The issue dominates these forums with those for and against. But there seems to be this unwritten law among some of the choosers of these chancy challengers.
Select experienced older chumps before potential younger champs seems the motto. Play it safe.
Of course many will say that this is not entirely the Test selectors’ fault given the supposed dearth of potential young batting talent coming through. Ian Chappell rightly points out that Sheffield Shield teams too often are cluttered with dinosaurs (my term), not allowing the next generation to get a sense of what they need to reach the next stage from junior cricket.
Chappell suggests we should be promoting these kids earlier, at 17 or 18 years, and even if they struggle leave them to toughen up and develop their skills more quickly.
But it is concerning when you look at the ages of previous Australian Test batsmen when they began their careers compared to recent selection criteria.
A small sample of debut ages shows: Neil Harvey at 19, Norm O’Neill 21, Damien Martyn 21, Peter Burge 22, David Boon 23, Greg Chappell 22, Ian Chappell 21, Bob Simpson 21, Steve Waugh 20, Bill Lawry 24, Matthew Hayden 22, Doug Walters 20, Justin Langer 22, Donald Bradman 20, Ricky Ponting 21, and Michael Clarke 23.
Even Mark Waugh, who came to Test cricket late, was only 24. Overseas teams are a little different though some promote even earlier, with Gordon Greenidge at 23, Viv Richards 22, Brian Lara 21, Sir Garry Sobers 17, Sachin Tendulkar 16, and Martin Crowe 19.
Just check out the debut Test ages of England’s batsmen and all rounders in their present team. Joe Root 21, Alastair Cook 21, Ian Bell 22, Ben Stokes 22, James Taylor 22, Eoin Morgan 23, Chris Woakes 24, Ravi Bopara 24, and Alex Hales 25.
Despite some younger players finally coming through for Australia the present squad’s debut Tests were: Steven Smith 21, Mitch Marsh 23, Usman Khawaja 24, Joe Burns 25, David Warner 25, Shaun Marsh 28, Adam Voges 35. And that’s an improvement.
Compare that with some recent Australian batsmen and their age when first promoted to a Test position. Chris Rogers at 30, Ed Cowan 29, George Bailey 31, Rob Quiney 30, Alex Doolan 28, and Michael Hussey 29. One or two deserved selection earlier no doubt, but the pattern continued.
Of Australia’s recent group only Smith, who played his first Test at 21, Phillip Hughes at 20 and Mitch Marsh at 23 can be considered comparably youthful as debutants in recent past Australian sides compared to the present English side. And it doesn’t go unnoticed that those they picked earlier such as Smith, Warner, Khawaja (and Hughes would have been in the mix) have been the most successful, with Mitch Marsh a work in progress.
It’s obviously a difficult task getting the right balance and ensuring instant success, but playing it safe seems unlikely to achieve long-term gains. Only the naive would expect a young batsman to succeed immediately. Sometimes it takes years of development. It took Steve Waugh over three years to get beyond a Test average of 30, but selectors persevered with youth then.
Sometimes they don’t make the transition. But as Chappell points out in relation to Shield cricket, it seems the best way to improve skills is to throw the young into the next level early so they know what they have to work on to be successful.
Rather than go backwards by selecting an older and potentially less worthy batsman to fill a vacancy, it should almost always go to an up-and-comer such as Cameron Bancroft, Glenn Maxwell, Nic Maddinson, Marcus Stoinis, Peter Handscomb, Travis Head, Kurtis Patterson and Jono Dean.
At that age subsequently being dropped should not be seen as failure. It should be seen as part of the development of a future Test regular. They will improve quicker if they are given the chance.
Bearfax
Guest
No need to apologise. You were just making a point which I appreciated but was trying to put in perspective. Let me go a step forward with New Zealand's present squad. Now you would expect NZ not to be so risky with players coming through because of a much smaller pool of players. Yet I look at their teams' batter's debut ages. Guptill: 22 Larson: 21 Williamson: 20 Taylor: 23 McCullum: 22 Santner: 23 Watling: 24. Their side would crave for supposed experience and yet like England, their players all start in the 19-24 bracket. Of course there will be exceptions. I'm not saying this as a final word. I'm trying to get across that the present selectors are conservative in their selection policy and dont think first of putting the younger batsman in instead of a much older batsman with a similar average. I think this damages Australia's future performances. Understand if Klinger, Marsh, Cowan, Quiney, Bailey had averages like Voges, Rogers, Hussey etc I would probably agree with their selection, though still maintaining that you must give the younger player some chance for the future of the side. But these guys dont. The selectors are relying on short term form, ODI performance and it seems impressions regarding style. Just to reinforce the point I randomly chose a past Australian side for batting debuts that being 1987 when Australia's batting line up wasnt that strong. And yet we have Border: 23 Boon: 23 Marsh: 26 Jones: 22 Ritchie: 22 Veletta: 24. Only one player selected older than 25 and only just. And that was a year with few stars.
JW
Guest
Sorry, I didn't mean to twist your argument, I even agreed with you that picking young players can help their development but added that I think only 1 or 2 should be in the side at once if better players are around because your article didn't cover this. I'm glad we agree on this also! I also agree with you that picking Shaun marsh isnt the best idea and now would be a good time to give Bancroft a shot. See, agreements all round! My critique that I didn't want to get into and that other people have commented on was that by listing a bunch of players with their age at debut you can't then jump to the conclusions that a) the selectors used to have a youth policy but don't now, and b) a lot of these players became gun or simply better players because they were picked young. There are a lot of things you are assuming or overlooking to jump to those conclusions. You could be 100% correct but your data doesn't support this alone.
Bearfax
Guest
JW you have an uncanny tendency to twist an argument around to its extremes and miss the main thrust of the argument. I am not for one minute saying that we suddenly throw in a bunch of kids and kick out the elder players. I never said that. I was pointing out what has developed over the past decade, and that is a tendency not to blood young players enough and to pick 30 something players with quite frankly no better averages than the kids. Its a progressive thing. For example the latest selection is a perfect example. Shaun Marsh is 32 in the peak of his career and averaging 38.5 at first class level. Now look at the other contenders. Bancroft 23 averaging 36.3, Handscomb 24 averaging 37, Maddinson 23 averaging 37.5, Stoinis 24 averaging 39.5. Remember Marsh averages 33 at test level after 15 tests. Why on Earth would you pick the older player who is at the peak of his career and only averaging much the same as this bunch of young up and comers who will probably improve and could benefit greatly from the experience of a couple of test matches. If you can see the sense in that, please supply it. By the way Marsh is averaging 39 in Shield cricket this season so far. The issue is that instead of picking Quiney, Bailey, Cowan, S. Marsh etc in the past, they had the opportunity of blooding one young player...note I said ONE... at a time to give him experience. Picking the older players has little short term benefit and no long term benefit. And saying they have to be ridiculously talented suggests we should never pick any but a Bradman. So many who were picked young in the past were not ridiculously talented. The selectors saw something in their performances that suggested a risk should be taken. As I said for example Walters youth career paralleled Maddisons quite closely. Both were champion junior players and both scored two centuries in the initial international games. But a risk was taken with Walters, but Maddinson went back to Shield. Its a state of mind, a preparedness to stop playing safe and take the risk. And if you think the present kids coming through are less talented than those in the past, then you have remarkable foreknowledge that the rest of us missed out on, including the selectors.
The Bush
Roar Guru
Hughes: 114 FC games, 9,000 runs, 26 centuries and an average of 46 at the age of 25 Marsh: 113 FC games, 6,800 runs, 16 centuries, average of 38.5 at the age of 32. They are not comparable. One was a class above his peers, the other is simply a middle of the road batsman with statistics like every other 30 something guy going around Shield.
peeeko
Roar Guru
well said
JW
Guest
This article is so flawed in its causation analysis I don't even know where to start, it would be a classic Exam question for someone to point out the flaws in the argument. Although the examples you have given don't support your conclusions at all, I do agree that giving a young player a taste of test cricket can potentially help their development. The problem is you don't want 5 or 6 of them in the side because you'd likely get bowled out for 20 at times. Mitch marsh is the project player in the side at the moment, and 1 or 2 mitch marshes is the most unproven players u want in your top 6. Too many Mitch marshes and the roar would be roaring for wholesale changes. They would be roaring for about 10 other project players to be given a go based on 1 or 2 good scores. Frankly unless they are ridiculously talented you don't know if they are better than the next guy without sustained 1st class performances, and why compromise the test team to find this out. That's why the shield is there.
Bearfax
Guest
Dave, I dont HATE Shaun Marsh. In fact I think he's very talented and a fine international short cricket form player. But so is Bailey, Klinger, Finch, Ferguson, Quiney. Put a List A / ODI shirt on them and you'll get a fine exponent of the game. But one thing that troubles about these types of players. They are over 30, yet cant get their first class average over 40. To me that is the starting line for test cricket consideration at that age. If they cant maintain consistency at first class level, its highly unlikely to happen at test level. Shaun Marsh was nothing like Hughes. Shaun was only ever selected for test cricket, because he looked stylish, especially at limited overs cricket, and could score the occasional impressive century. And selectors were too conservative about taking the risk and promoting someone younger with potential. He lacked consistency even up to today, in my mind an essential for an experienced test cricketer. Hughes was a kid first introduced to tests at 20. He burst on the scene but as so often with young debutantes his weaknesses were found out and he struggled for a while. This happens a lot with young players, some more than others. I compared Hughes often with Steve Waugh who also struggled for a couple of years before it 'clicked'. What was convincing about Hughes was that he picked himself up each time and continued to score big and consistently at first class level. At such a young age, that showed his pedigree. He was a star test batsman in the process of becoming. Some may challenge it, and certainly we will now never know, but I was convinced he was just about to explode back onto the test team and become potentially the equal of Warner and Smith. The difference between Shaun Marsh and Hughes. Hughes was consistent even in his early twenties and by 24 he was averaging in the high 40s at first class cricket. Shaun could never seem to get beyond 40 average even now in his 30s. Consistency is seemingly the most important product. Hughes deserved promotional early for the experience and the experience I believe made him a better player.
dave
Guest
I know everyone hates s marsh but i think if he and hughes and kawaja had been given long oppurtunities over the last decade,they would be doing ok now. Remember when aussie batting was useless and clarke had to score double centuries just to give us a score. Im sure some of these guys were in and out of the team at the time but any of them given a long chance would have succeeded and would now be estabilished/experianced batsman. We are not in hussey times now where he was so good but the team was too good for him to get a crack,we need to pick some youngsters and let them create that situation again. Picking 30+ guys that may be brilliant but are guarunteed retire in 2 years is not helping aussie cricket.
Nudge
Guest
Great article Bearfax. Spot on mate
Bearfax
Guest
Using Rogers and Voges is fine in my opinion because they are both top line first class cricketers and are invaluable for experience. But you only need one in the team for that. As you say they are also using similarly aged players who just arent up there for consistency. You may as well bring in a young player who is inconsistent, because you know he'll most likely improve.
Bearfax
Guest
Totally support you there Andy. Its not about state preferences, who's performing best at the moment or ageism, good grief I just turned 65. But if you are going develop these young guys into the next test elite, you've got to give them what they need to learn the skills and that's playing tests. I'm looking at the recent breed coming through of the very young generation such as Doran, Labuschagne, Dean, Heazlett, Steketee, Bosisto, Paris and Patterson. An impressive group of kids on the rise. If one or two of them start to show championship skills, give them a taste of test selection in a year or so. Delaying may only stifle their development. They dont have to hold the position, but every test they play increases their awareness of what they need to move to the next level.
Andy Hill
Roar Pro
Totally agree Bear. I did some analysis of the stats a while back in my article in September that supports this idea of throwing the younger batsmen in at the deep end. http://www.theroar.com.au/2015/09/12/what-does-history-tell-us-regarding-crickets-youth-vs-experience-debate/ Would have been good to have seen someone like Bancroft or Handscomb in for Adelaide instead of Shaun Marsh again. .
Bearfax
Guest
What I'm saying John is that today we over assess young players and expect unrealistic performances. Maddinson is only questionable because we have scrutinised him so much. Remember he is the highest averaging under 25 year old player in Australia and still only 23. In past generations I think he would already have played several tests. What I'm suggesting is that our selectors have been blinded by a champion side in the past 10 years, and are looking to pull a rabbit out of a hat with younger players. England as I've show has not one batsman who was 25 or older when they played their first test. Are they any better than the kids coming through in Australia? We got too used to success and forgot how we got it. But those champion players each struggled in their early test years. That's the apprenticeship. That's how they learn to up their game. Using older underachieving players to fill the gap is self defeating, because we're ensuring those young kids dont get the experience they need to move to the next stage.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
smiley face dingle
The Bush
Roar Guru
I don't actually have a problem with picking experienced players, as long as those players have records that justify selection. Chris Rogers and Adam Voges had FC careers/statistics/records that basically swamped all of the other players playing. They screamed selection and I don't mind that. I also don't mind picking young players based on potential. I am happy to give guys like Maddison, Lynn etc a chance moving forward. What has confounded me recently and continues to confound me, is why we pick players that are almost thirty or above and average well under 40. What do the selectors think is suddenly going to happen? Doolan, Quiney and everyone's favourite punching bag, S Marsh, all average 38 in FC cricket after 10 year careers. Why did we expect them to do any better at Test level? Marcus North is another who comes to mind as a guy that struggled and he averaged 2 runs more than them (40) at FC level. Yet despite the clear evidence that it doesn't work, we still hear guys calling for Ferguson and Klinger. The reality is with the selection of Voges there is no other longer term batsman playing Shield right now with an average, centuries and runs scored that is anything like the players of old. On that basis, moving forward, until some player simply bats himself so far into contention he can't be ignored (like Voges and Rogers did), we should stick to a youth policy and hope that a few of them fulfil their potential. P.S. Give Maxi a chance.
JohnB
Guest
Some fair points. My response remains that even in the past they haven't tended to put a slew of young players in - they've been introduced here and there, which still happens - and to repeat that the same number of openings for young players (as there would have been in the past) aren't there in Shield cricket, because solid established players play longer. That raises the standard of opposition which the young players who do come through get to face. I don't know that the likes of Maddinson (or say Jordan Silk) are particularly good arguments. They both had people touting them on the basis of initial good performance, then fell right away. If they learn from that, come back and perform at Shield level, pick them. However picking players based on an initial burst of form before other teams are familiar with them, and then letting them learn on the job in Test cricket seems to me to be handicapping your Test team unduly and treating it as something that's there for the benefit of individuals rather than to win Test matches. Shield cricket, and ODIs, should be where most of the learning occurs and where credentials are established, before players get the opportunity to show whether or not they can make it at Test level.
Bearfax
Guest
You are justified in saying I chose a number of the more familiar names. But they are familiar in hindsight because they became champions. I would doubt many of them had significant first class averages when they first played test cricket and they werent champions back then. They were chosen because the selectors were willing to take a chance on someone who looked to have the goods. A good example, without pushing this kid's case is Maddinson. This kid was an outstanding junior spoken in the same terms as Doug Walters. Dougie was chosen when he was just under 20 years old based on potential. In fact his first class average even at the end of his career was under 45. But he started with a bang with a couple of centuries and his career was made. Maddinson played for Australia A when he wasnt much older and also scored two centuries. But the difference was that Walters was given the chance at the top early, while Maddinson wasnt, despite a similar junior reputation. As happens with young players, Maddinson was found out for a time and has been fighting back, but I suspect if he had been given the opportunity in the test arena, he would have learned a lot more quickly. Smith was considered school yard in his first test, one of the few given an early chance. That experience I suspect contributed to the star performer he is today. That's why I feel the selectors erred in selecting Shaun Marsh for the next few tests, when they could have gone for young Bancroft, Handscomb or Stoinis. The experience would have been invaluable to any of those players and would be investing in our future international side. The opportunity has been missed We look at these young players and dissect them, focusing on their faults and therefore not taking the risk to give them a chance. But we forget too quickly that those champions of the past also had to go through their apprenticeships, some taking years to exceed test averages in excess of 40. We have champion players among the young, maybe just as good as many of those I mentioned. But if you treat them like children, they will continue to perform like children. Performances are raised by the opposition you face.
Dingleberry Hufflethwaite III
Roar Rookie
MY GIDDY AUNT > MARSH
dan ced
Guest
In our more successful years we blooded young players in the shorter forms. I still think that is smart, less risk. Test spots should always go to the best, in form, candidate. Trust the shield. If your youngsters make ODI runs, and continue to make runs in the shield, the international exposure should have them more ready for a test birth. KLINGER > MARSH
JohnB
Guest
Take a list of the very best batsmen to have played for Australia, and most of them started young. That does not equate to saying every young player could become a very good test batsman. The ones you list became very good batsman because they were very good, not because they started young. Even in that list, you'll see there's generally been 1 (and not more than 2) in every 5 or so years. Selectors over the last decade were happy to push Michael Clarke and Steve Smith into the side (and Phil Hughes) - roughly maintaining the trend. The other factor that has changed is that since the 1980s cricketers could actually make a very good living at test level and a living at Shield level, meaning good players stay longer and don't drop out prematurely as they did in the past. That raises the standard of the competition, and means the young players who come in have to earn it and have to raise their games to stay in. Don't forget CA changed the second tier competition to encourage more youth, by virtually shutting out anyone who could shave - and found that affected standards and didn't bring young blokes through.