A lot has been said recently about CA’s top-down approach to favour youth over tried and proven performers at the selection table.
For a long time, Greg Chappell has personified this approach. By his own admission, Greg Chappell is anxiously searching nets throughout the country for another 16-year-old incarnate of Ricky Ponting, who was the most talented kid he’s ever seen, according to him.
He is looking forward to that day with longing in his gnarled old heart. We’d all be happy to hear about the next Ponting or any once-in-a-generation player for that matter. Imagine the narcotic rush of discovering such a player. It must be addictive.
But what exactly is the long-term plan for talented young players?
A year ago, Australia invested in a batch of younger players including Matt Renshaw.
What happens if next year another prodigiously talented 20-year-old opener is discovered and Renshaw is not setting the world on fire?
(AP Photo/Rajanish Kakade)
On the evidence of players like Joe Burns, Alex Doolan, Nic Maddinson, Cameron White, (the list of discards is long) the chances are they’ll be overlooked and Renshaw will be dropped. These players may then languish in state cricket. There are ODI discards also, like Peter Forrest, Mark Cosgrove, etc. who have seemingly disappeared.
The prospect of going back to State cricket and grinding it out for one or two seasons thereafter to regain top form would be perfectly acceptable provided there is an assurance that the player can return, and provided the selectors have a substantial interest in that player doing so. I suspect the second half of this equation may be lacking.
This may explain why some of our discards haven’t set the world on fire back in State cricket. Even if the player goes back and top scores, you may be dropped from your state side like Ed Cowan.
It appears Australian selectors have very little regard for experience, yet we’re all told that the jump up from state level to Tests is substantial and that it’s a mind-game as much as anything else.
Why then does the experience of having played for Australia at Test or ODI level seem to count for so little once players are dropped? Wouldn’t it be logical to closely monitor and support such players and give them every chance to develop the extra few percentage points their games need to fulfil the promise that warranted selection in the first place?
Steve Waugh got 27 Tests before he scored a hundred. Steve Smith did not look like the batsman he is now when he was first selected.
When you add in the disappointment that players who have been dropped from the Australian team have experienced, some of their mediocre results makes more sense. It must be crushing to go from such huge highs, big paydays and exposure to being someone ‘who was dropped’ when you know the selectors are just going to look for youth.
Those players must feel like they had their chance and blew it. Not much of a performance incentive.
You might say, never mind, next year there will be another young player in the Matt Renshaw mould. Or, perhaps we could start prioritising experience, reward all players who’ve earned selection into the Australian team with a long-term program and stronger encouragement they’ll earn more chances.
At the end of the day, a player who has potential and who also has the experience of having once played for Australia, surely trumps a player who just has potential.
George
Guest
Meanwhile, the captain Smith (not a selector) plays favourites (to the detriment of the team) and calls for a mouth behind the stumps because he can't handle the on-field demands of his position properly. At least Cowan, Khawaja and White et al are constructive in their comments.
George
Guest
Yep, and sure enough Mitch (a player who never seems to need to have even one great first-class season) was back in the side in India.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
At the age of 28, Klinger was only averaging 27 with the bat in FC cricket (from 39 matches). Since that age Klinger has pretty much gone ... one great season .... one ordinary season .... one great season .... one ordinary season. That isn't going to get you selected for Tests as an old batsman. Klinger still only has an FC average of 39 yet some people act as if he's been robbed of a long Test career.
The Bush
Roar Guru
The chopping and changing is what does me in (along with selecting players who don't have the stats and form to support selection over others). If you thought he was good enough to play, then give him a chance. Dropping a non-injury replacement after a match is almost admitting you have no idea what you're doing and you're just throwing pins at batsmen's names...
nick
Guest
For sure. Didn't we also used to use the ODI team as a place where test batsmen could cut their teeth? We don't seem to do that as much any more. I can understand why. ODI cricket has such different requirements to test cricket now. Gone are the days when a score of 200 to 230 was enough to win an ODI. Perhaps that also means there are less opportunities for discarded players to take steps towards coming back. What is the solution? A lot more Australia A tours? Perhaps also, hopefully, the selectors will pick and stick with a crop of young test calibre players and not constantly undo their earlier work by going back to youth again and again.
Matth
Guest
Either that or the pitches were tough, they used pink ball and played under lights, and our bowling depth is excellent at the moment.
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
Ferguson had back to back shield seasons averaging 52+, so i get why he was considered. What doesn't make sense is to immediately drop him when only 5 Aussie players made double figures in the match. Adding insult to injury, Maddinson was selected to replace him.
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
Ferguson first class figures 2017 507 runs @ 25 2016 478 runs @ 53 2015 836 runs @ 52 Another experienced player who missed out while selectors piddled around with the Mitch Marsh project. His treatment last summer by selectors was just rude.
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
Maybe, but selected weren't overawed by his 5 tests against England last time they toured. He had a full test series on home soil to stake a strong claim and he averaged 26 against an English side that was destroyed mentally by MJ. I won't even try and get inside the selection panel's head but I would have been more than happy to see Bailey batting at six for the 21 tests Mitch Marsh played. Career averages are a guide to a player's consistent performances and shouldn't be ignored just because the numbers aren't favourable. I will agree that recent seasons should be weighted more highly. Bailey's recall hopes seem to have been lost in the Mitch Marsh project and now Cartwright seems to be as successful as Bailey in recent seasons, but with youth on his side.
beepee
Guest
Its not always about CAREER average. He's been overlooked consistently in favour of other players who have done no better but are more closely aligned with 'the selectors and their whims. Bailey has much more to offer to a struggling Australian team, and if you read widely on the topic, you'll find most agree he is one of the cases that has deserved better treatment.
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
Klinger averaged 23 last shield season. 47 the season before and 58 three seasons ago. Not convinced his recent form warrants selection. Three years ago, Klinger was overlooked for Voges, who averaged 100+. Hard to argue that was a poor selection. Bailey's career average doesn't scream out "SELECT ME" and his good last summer was matched by Hilton Cartwright so picking youth seems sound. Cowan had a great series last year but only averaged 36 the previous year as he tried to reinvent himself as a test option. This summer would have been important for him to reinforce his claims yet selection bias results in him not playing shield cricket so that Daniel Hughes, on the back of two summers with mid 30 averages, gets showcased, WTF.....
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
Bailey's case is a strange one. His has scored good runs in the past two shield seasons but he seems harmed by his one day performances. He seems branded a limited overs batsman and his career average of less than 40 dismisses him quickly from test side talk, much in the same way Michael Klinger's does.
beepee
Guest
Yes, perhaps so, but it should never, ever have come to this. If Cricket Australia aspire to the highest standards of fairness (which of course, they don't) then neither Cowan's age, nor him acting as a player's advocate, should count against him. In Australian cricket, you're either in the boy's club or you're not.
MJ
Guest
Or in these times, they go back, get a few lucky swings in a 20 over game and all of a sudden they make a motza being a 20 over nomad instead of working hard to get back into test contention.
GD66
Guest
The problem is, you never see what happened years ago : the dropped player sets his jaw, buckles down and demands recall by sheer weight of runs scored. Doesn't happen any more, because they're "disappointed". If they're that soft, they shouldn't be considered test calibre in the first place. Everybody knew the first three shield matches would be included in considerations for the first Test squad, but with a couple of exceptions, even the incumbents have hardly set the world on fire : really rather underwhelming.
Rellum
Roar Guru
Given his comments of selections in the press in the last week I think he has decided his card is already marked and is now speaking his mind
beepee
Guest
Even if it were only those three (Cowan, Burns and Bailey), then that's three too many good players thrown on the rubbish heap for the sake of being the selector who discovered the next big thing. But as Matthew just pointed out, RECENT form should really count, and Klinger has received precious little reward for his last few seasons. The selection panel state that performances in domestic cricket are paramount, and then blindly ignore them in favour of their 'gut-feels' or 'youth policy'. Australian cricket was not always like this. We used to pick the best XI regardless of age, state or who you were (or weren't) related to. And a final point - is Cowan now un-selectable because of his outspoken views during the recent pay dispute? One may think his cards are marked forever.
Matt P
Roar Rookie
That's true enough about the averages of those older players, but there's still a couple of issues there; guys like Ferguson and Klinger, for example, have been averaging well above their career averages over the past few seasons. We're told how important recent form is, does it not also apply here? The other problem is that the younger generation are being pushed up on the basis of one or two seasons - maybe three or so, if they're initially on the outer. Usually they're just "good" seasons as well. None of these players have consistently piled on runs year after year, with the exception of Handscomb, which, like I said above, has to be why he's the only proven success of this new selection policy. If players were consistently given second chances once they'd proven themselves again (especially when they're unfairly dumped), it wouldn't be a problem. When players are left behind for the new young shiny player who hasn't properly proven themselves, that's when it becomes a problem.
The Bush
Roar Guru
Some of the names you've put up there don't quite fit your discussion point. Doolan was 28 when he was selected, not exactly "youth", he should have been (and likely was) in his "prime". This goes for Bailey and Cowan too. The reality is, when you're picked in your late twenties, early thirties, you're only going to get one shot (unless you're Shaun Marsh) and you need to take it. Cowan is 35, the fact is that at this age, his batting could drop off a cliff at any given point. We see this all the time with over-35 year olds (think Ponting, one minutes he's the best in the world, a season later he's dropped right off). I understand the reluctance to go back to a 35 year old. I would be disappointed if a player like Burns had his cards marked. He was picked originally as a 25 year old, he's only 28 now. He is now in his prime - if he puts on a few good seasons, there is no reason he can't be re-selected as a 30 year old like many of our former greats were (Hayden, Langer, Martyn). The two things that do my head in are: 1. Why some players (M Marsh for example) get extended runs, but others are discarded after a few tests. The only time in recent memory we've backed young players to find their feet have resulted in superstars (Warner and Smith); and 2. Selecting players with sub-standard career statistics after a decade of playing (Doolan or Ferguson) but expecting them to be world beaters and/or picking young "talent" when they have inferior form/stats to their competitors (Maddison). Stop picking on gut and pick on performance.
Rellum
Roar Guru
I don't have time to get into this, look into my previous posts if you want. It is more about the system and the Shield as a comp vs a development league. This statement from a foxsports report on the ashes squad says it all to me. They will be training literally across the road from where the Shield game is being played. It would not suprise me to see Warner and Smith rested as well. "Bird, Mitchell Starc, Pat Cummins and Josh Hazlewood will be rested from next week’s Sheffield Shield round and sent to Brisbane where they will train as a unit at the National Cricket Centre before the November 23 Ashes opener"