How many new batsmen did Australia blood in the last ten years at the top? How many new batsmen have India come up with in recent years?
Have you considered that new talent needs incentive to develop and if the test side becomes a closed shop, it discourages them.
The best way to stay top of the tree is to maintain a strong team with strong reserves. Both Australia and now India are suffering from failing to do so.
They didn't 'blood' them because they weren't coming through. You don't blood someone if they aren't up to it.
I disagree with your perception that the best way to try and get someone to develop is to 'give them a chance'. We went that way once back in the 80's and were giving everyone a chance, there was no continuity and hence no organization in the side. Yes of course we need reserves and thats why we have England A tours and MCC sides etc. The way to get young talent to emerge is by giving them something to aspire to, not to blood them for two games and then drop them if they fail. Once picked they need a long stint in the side.
I guess your screenname of 'hopeforthebest' is typical about how you'd approach the England selectors job!!
Stop putting words into my mouth and stop being so arrogant. So you have an opinion well done, I'm sure you'll stick to it through thick and thin whether it's good or bad.
If you were an England selector the future success of England in tests, would be pretty short lived.
I was agreeing with Boss who said the backbone of the team for the next five years was as it stood. If you were in charge we'd presumably have a much different side by the next series? I don't think we should carve up whats a succesful side
Of course the backbone of the test side will hopefully remain for a long while.
That doesn't prevent a batsman being rested against weaker opposition and blooding another within the test camp.
The gap between a Lions game against a SL 'A' side and a two test series against Bangladesh is enormous.
That's after all how Morgan got his chance when Collingwood was rested.
@hopeforthebest
"The best way to stay top of the tree is to maintain a strong team with strong reserves. Both Australia and now India are suffering from failing to do so."
Were Kasprowicz, Law, Hodge, MacGill, Bichel, Miller, Bracken or Love poor reserves? Australia just has a lack of talent currently, it is not to do with not blooding youngsters.
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
Were Kasprowicz, Law, Hodge, MacGill, Bichel, Miller, Bracken or Love poor reserves?
----------------------
Yes!!!!
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.
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.
Miller was a poor back up. I think the others were ok or like Hodge and Macgill, very good.
"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!
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.
They were both in their late thirties so they couldn't have played much more anyway, how is that proving your point???!
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?
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.
Sign in if you want to comment
Next 5 years...................
Page 2 of 2
posted on 2/8/11
How many new batsmen did Australia blood in the last ten years at the top? How many new batsmen have India come up with in recent years?
Have you considered that new talent needs incentive to develop and if the test side becomes a closed shop, it discourages them.
The best way to stay top of the tree is to maintain a strong team with strong reserves. Both Australia and now India are suffering from failing to do so.
posted on 2/8/11
They didn't 'blood' them because they weren't coming through. You don't blood someone if they aren't up to it.
I disagree with your perception that the best way to try and get someone to develop is to 'give them a chance'. We went that way once back in the 80's and were giving everyone a chance, there was no continuity and hence no organization in the side. Yes of course we need reserves and thats why we have England A tours and MCC sides etc. The way to get young talent to emerge is by giving them something to aspire to, not to blood them for two games and then drop them if they fail. Once picked they need a long stint in the side.
I guess your screenname of 'hopeforthebest' is typical about how you'd approach the England selectors job!!
posted on 2/8/11
Stop putting words into my mouth and stop being so arrogant. So you have an opinion well done, I'm sure you'll stick to it through thick and thin whether it's good or bad.
If you were an England selector the future success of England in tests, would be pretty short lived.
posted on 2/8/11
I was agreeing with Boss who said the backbone of the team for the next five years was as it stood. If you were in charge we'd presumably have a much different side by the next series? I don't think we should carve up whats a succesful side
posted on 2/8/11
Of course the backbone of the test side will hopefully remain for a long while.
That doesn't prevent a batsman being rested against weaker opposition and blooding another within the test camp.
The gap between a Lions game against a SL 'A' side and a two test series against Bangladesh is enormous.
That's after all how Morgan got his chance when Collingwood was rested.
posted on 2/8/11
@hopeforthebest
"The best way to stay top of the tree is to maintain a strong team with strong reserves. Both Australia and now India are suffering from failing to do so."
Were Kasprowicz, Law, Hodge, MacGill, Bichel, Miller, Bracken or Love poor reserves? Australia just has a lack of talent currently, it is not to do with not blooding youngsters.
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.
Page 2 of 2