In my opinion, the next 5-10 years test cricket will be dominated by England and South Africa. Both have relatively young/average age players and both have a great balance between batsmen and bowlers….. The series next year between the two will be special…..
Regards to the other teams, Aussies will be come in at number 3. and I see Clarke getting a settled side in the next few years, but not enough quality bowling wise to topple the saffers and English…. Indians will be scratching the surface with the main 4 retiring…. Lankans also will have a poorer batting line up with mahela and kumar retiring, so don’t see much of a challenge from them….. Pakistan have a quality bowling line up, but as usual will probably struggle to find enough quality batsmen to climb into the top 4……..
Next 5 years...................
posted on 2/8/11
good comment Duncan - yknow I just looked at the Aussie squad to tour Sri Lanka and I was like, who the heck is he??! Maybe by the time the Ashes comes round we may have heard of these guys, but heck, maybe not? It occurs to me that if you are still picking Ponting then the wheels are really coming off the trolley.And players like Marsh and Beer wouldn't make Englands second team
posted on 2/8/11
Were Kasprowicz, Law, Hodge, MacGill, Bichel, Miller, Bracken or Love poor reserves?
----------------------
Yes!!!!
posted on 3/8/11
Kasprowicz - 113 test wickets at around 32, Hodge test batting average of 55, MacGill 209 Wickets at under 30, Bichel 58 Wickets at 32, Love test average 46... i would hardly class THEM as poor reserves.
posted on 3/8/11
I was talking exclusively about batsmen, your list has only two. Hodge played 6 tests, Love only 5. Clearly those high averages didn't impress the Oz selectors.
posted on 3/8/11
Miller was a poor back up. I think the others were ok or like Hodge and Macgill, very good.
posted on 3/8/11
"Clearly those high averages didn't impress the Oz selectors..."
They did actually, but both batsmen were unfortunate because they played when Australia had a side that included the Waughs, Mark Taylor, Ponting, etc, so THEY DIDN'T GET IN.
Thats my point (which you spectacularly fail to get) - that if its not broke you don't try and fix it!
posted on 3/8/11
You keep proving my point that Australia hung onto the old guard so long, they are now in trouble. Loves last game was 2003 and Hodge 2005, Clearly it is broke now and they are running around in circles trying to fix it.
posted on 3/8/11
They were both in their late thirties so they couldn't have played much more anyway, how is that proving your point???!
posted on 3/8/11
Ok, well Lehman and Martyn were not always in the team. Hussey has been there or thereabouts for years, Katich was a replacement and he is no slouch. Hayden too was a reserve for many years between his first tests and his reinstatement. Clarke himself has been dropped, there was huge strength in all departments a few years ago, the problem is now there is none. As for not blooding youngsters, how old do you think Warne, Ponting, Clarke and McGrath were when they started their test careers?
posted on 3/8/11
To sustain dominance across many years, the way WI did in 70/80s and Aus did in 90/00 requires a continuous supply of quality young players.
When a player in the early mid 20's and on the way up becomes as capable as a player in his early to mid 30's and on his way down, the new player is blooded (to use your terminology - I'd just say the best 11 changes).
There's absolutely no point in dropping an established player to 'blood' a player of similar age but lesser ability or mental toughness. You don't do anything for long term sucess, because you can expect both players to decline and retire at similar times.
All you do is:
* Disrupt a winning team,
* Short change the paying public who have the right to expect to see the best 11 for the money they pay,
* Worst of all create the impression that a test cap is a matter of buggins turn, and not about working tirelessly to become the best in country at what you do.