Youth/seasoned player conundrum
3 posters
Page 1 of 1
Youth/seasoned player conundrum
The declining form of Mr. Snicket and the perennial inconsistency (one could argue that he's consistently inconsistent) has raised the argument over the past few days regarding the wisdom of ignoring callow youth in favour of those who've done the hard yards at Shield level.
Several years ago some were heralding the Australian method of allowing players to come in after thousands of Shield run and even hundreds of matches as the blueprint because of Hussey's original success. They were lauding the idea of wise heads and experience prevailing over youngsters who have potential but not tons of runs on the board. Arguably Hussey in his early days justified this template and ironically the nursery that was once characteristic of Aussie cricket has become somewhat a 'Dad's Army' which used to be England's domain.
A further problem here seems to be that the selectors persist with these players longer because dropping them may invariably mean the end of their career. This persistence can result in the big score which shores up their credit for another stint and the cycle repeats.
In the meantime youngsters are ignored and sometimes lose form without gaining valuable experience at the top and injecting some vitality into the squad.
An example of someone who was identified early by a country is AB de Villiers who was picked at barely 21, dropped briefly but who in his mid-twenties has justified the selectors' faith and now has a blend of youthful reflexes and experience to launch the second part of his career.
Arguably the likes of Mr. Snicket miss out on their prime.
Is it time for Australia to change its blueprint and revert to days of yore when the likes of Harvey,Walters, G.Chappell and even more recently Michael Clarke were playing tests before drawing their pensions?
Several years ago some were heralding the Australian method of allowing players to come in after thousands of Shield run and even hundreds of matches as the blueprint because of Hussey's original success. They were lauding the idea of wise heads and experience prevailing over youngsters who have potential but not tons of runs on the board. Arguably Hussey in his early days justified this template and ironically the nursery that was once characteristic of Aussie cricket has become somewhat a 'Dad's Army' which used to be England's domain.
A further problem here seems to be that the selectors persist with these players longer because dropping them may invariably mean the end of their career. This persistence can result in the big score which shores up their credit for another stint and the cycle repeats.
In the meantime youngsters are ignored and sometimes lose form without gaining valuable experience at the top and injecting some vitality into the squad.
An example of someone who was identified early by a country is AB de Villiers who was picked at barely 21, dropped briefly but who in his mid-twenties has justified the selectors' faith and now has a blend of youthful reflexes and experience to launch the second part of his career.
Arguably the likes of Mr. Snicket miss out on their prime.
Is it time for Australia to change its blueprint and revert to days of yore when the likes of Harvey,Walters, G.Chappell and even more recently Michael Clarke were playing tests before drawing their pensions?
Red- Number of posts : 17109
Reputation : 17
Registration date : 2007-10-28
Flag/Background :
Re: Youth/seasoned player conundrum
Australia should have probably axed Hussey after the last ashes. Only that century at the Oval saved him, but barring the hundred he made against Pakistan where Kamran dropped him about 5 times, he's done next to nothing since.
But they wont drop him so close to the ashes. He'll get at least the first 2 tests.
But they wont drop him so close to the ashes. He'll get at least the first 2 tests.
Henry- Number of posts : 32891
Reputation : 100
Registration date : 2007-08-31
Flag/Background :
Re: Youth/seasoned player conundrum
Nice tits , Red
- Spoiler:
- Watson was 23 on debut ...picked on promise...took time to find his place ...wasnt in his his original allrounder role
Katich was 25 on debut ...a number 3 batting at number 6 in place of an injured SRW ...Re born as an opener
Ponting was 20 on debut ...arguably best Oz bat since Bradman definitely was at his peak
Clarke was 23 on debut ...got his ave up to 50ish finally ...
Paris was 30 on debut ...picked on the back of a shedload of CC runs and a Bevanesque start in JAMODIs ...had a purple patch at the start of his career ...in (serious) decline at the moment and has been dropped a batting spot to number 5
North was 29 on debut ...has always struggled early but scored big if he survives ...and surprisingly has done the same at Test level
embee- Number of posts : 26339
Age : 57
Reputation : 263
Registration date : 2007-09-03
Flag/Background :
Similar topics
» Trott named player of the year, Cook gets test player
» The all-rounder conundrum.
» The Moeen Conundrum
» The Ntini conundrum
» The SA captaincy conundrum WTF is going on?
» The all-rounder conundrum.
» The Moeen Conundrum
» The Ntini conundrum
» The SA captaincy conundrum WTF is going on?
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Today at 12:56 by Norfolk Ian Goode
» Upcoming Test Cricket
Today at 12:11 by lardbucket
» Australian Domestic Season 2024/25
Today at 12:00 by lardbucket
» Current International One Day Cricket
Today at 10:42 by skully
» Alan Jones gets his England cap... and #700 approaches
Today at 04:35 by skully
» Australia v India, 1st Test, Perth, 22-26 November, 2024
Yesterday at 22:43 by lardbucket
» International Rugby Union Thread
Yesterday at 22:37 by Norfolk Ian Goode
» Celebrity Death List MMXXIV/The Death Thread 2024
Yesterday at 06:55 by Fred Nerk
» Article on Pant's road to recovery from near fatal car crash
Yesterday at 02:29 by Red