But that has been the case for a long time now in regards to the U17 and U19, but we have produced legends of the game recently, such as Hayden Langer Ponting, Gilchrist etc, why has it changed now.

If we want to go ever back further. AB was a pugilist with an eye like a dead fish tho not a great technician, same with Hayden and Gilchrist. Ponting was suss outside the off stump early in his innings and was a walking LB even up till retirement. For mine Steve Waugh was the most technically proficient of our greats. He worked his bum off after he went 20 Tests without a ton. Went onto be the bloke you most want with you in the trenches. Pity he is not the Aussie batting coach.
                                                                                     0                                                                           

MikeR - 29 Oct 2018 1:35 PMWhen I look at Sangha, Edwards, McSweeney etc they have to do time progressing through the ranks, it works out some of their problems. Futures is a step up from Grade cricket and in McSweeney's case he has spent a bit of time in Futures scoring at least one century that I remember, and his promotion to shield you could say was a success being able to last 179 balls on a seaming wicket against a very good pace attack from Tasmania, shows he has something. In Edwards and Sangha's case I don't believe they have played that much Futures, especially Sangha, and I know there hasn't been any innings of note from either. Sangha's work up in the media is all based on grade cricket performances and has been going on for a couple of years now, these players need to sort out their deficiencies before promotion, and they are there, otherwise the quality shield bowlers are going to destroy their potential very quickly. Great example is Handscomb, it didn't take long for the international bowlers to work him out. Smith when he first started was bad and demoting him back to Shield cricket did wonders for him. In Edwards case his initial motion is strange, but he has manged to put together some runs, but Kepler Wessels had a strange style as well.[quote]

Agreed a spell in FL for Sangha will do him no harm. At least with the advent of FL it offers a red ball platform between PC and Shield before which there was nothing. I guarantee Edwards has not played much FL. He is only 18. He should have been playing Premier Cricket for at least another two years. This kid is no Steve Waugh so why has he been fast tracked so soon when more talented players such as Param have been left in limbo.. I know because he has caused a stir in 50 over cricket. Youngest to score a U19 ton.. was it?

         

That would be the big reason for me, lack of match play in a variety of conditions is definitely hurting our players, but we haven't offered a lot to overseas players in the past either, Viv Richards, Botham did a spell once, but I can't think of many otherwise. (Baggers PM)

Martyn, Langer, Mark Waugh, Slater, Hayden and Ponting all broke onto the scene between 91 and 95. 
Were these cricketers better or simply luckier than Siddons, Cox, Love,Law, Di Venuto. There are others. What about Brad Hodge a Test average of @55.. only wore the Baggy Green 6 times!

Competition keeps players on their toes. But when required to fill in for injury they did their country proud. But let's be honest they were special players. The best top 3 I can ever recall in the history of cricket were Langer, Hayden and Ponting. A lot is written about the number of 200 run opening partnerships by Langer and Hayden, but how many times were Australia 1/300+, you can't lose from that position. People may argue Greenidge, Haynes and Richards but Greenidge, Haynes didn't score that many centuries given the number of games they played, Richards was just a master of the game.

Slater was lucky to have played so many games but that was due to Taylor understanding his play. There will always be questions over M Waugh but one cannot argue he wasn't a great opening bat in ODI's which sort of prolonged his test career. I always felt sorry for Martyn, after being dropped for playing a lazy or poor shot, something commentators defend in Warner, go figure.

It is interesting to read your thoughts, Mike.

Mike were these blokes better or simply luckier than Siddons, Cox, Love,Law, Di Venuto, Hodge. 

My question is at the time of their selection. Were those greats just in the correct place at the correct time. I expect they all performed at U17/U19 level, Academy then Aust. U19s. So why were the others selected over the unluckies?

Of these players 2 will always have questions Slater and Mark Waugh. Slater is the one that really is questionable, even at the time of his promotion to the Australian side in 1993 Ashes tour, it was a choice between him and Hayden. Hayden finished the tour as the leading run scorer for Australia in the tour matches even though he never played a test (he scored 1150 runs from the 13 FC matches compared to Slaters 857 runs from 12 FC matches). So yes his promotion to the side over Hayden showed elements of bias as on field results should have seen Hayden promoted. The opening partner at the time was Taylor, his FC partner at shield level.

But due to the success of the Australian side during that tour, he was going nowhere. When you look at the final career stats for Slater FC 36 centuries from 216 FC games is poor, average of 40 at FC level is ordinary, and his main competition was Hayden (79 FC centuries from 295 FC games av 52.5) who had no support from a NSW dominated side in Waugh bros, Taylor, Slater esp when Taylor took over the captaincy in 1994. What kept Slater in the side was he was averaging 40 whilst his partner and Captain, Taylor from 1993 onwards averaged 37.5 (including 169* 102* and 334* in 1997 that really increases his average by 5 points.... so how bad was he going, prior to those scores Taylor was averaging 32.5). And I don't think that there would be many arguments when I say Taylor should have been dropped many times post 1993.

Jamie Cox has a better FC record than Slater so there could be an argument for him. In 1994 Michael Hussey was opening the batting for WA, he dropped down the order later. Matthew Elliott had a better FC record (47 average) was around then (but he didn't convert in his opportunity at test level and he did play 21 tests. In 1993 you could have even argued Nobes or Dean Hills were a better options than Slater, but 1992/93 was a good year for Slater at shield level, a level he was never to achieve again and that is what put him on the radar, 1 season (very reminiscent of Peter Nevill's selection on the back of one season and it shows in his performances).

And that is the real crux of the matter, only NSW players have ever been promoted to the Australian side on the back of one good season. Other state players have to prove over successive series that they have talent, not so with NSW. Steve Waugh promoted 8 months after his FC debut, David Warner had played 2 shield games (failed at both) and was promoted. It has happened in the past, it happens now, and it will happen in the future. I can guarantee you as soon as Patterson scores one century he will be in the Australian side, regardless that it has been over 2 years since he has scored one, they've already given him a recent Australia A promotion on the back of his last 2 seasons.

Michael Divenuto started his career at No 6 and though he played 336 FC games his average of 46 didn't match others ahead of them, Same could be said for Siddons. Love and Law both deserved more opportunities and they were on par with M Waugh but when it came to the flip of the coin it was a weighted coin with Steve in the side and his NSW selection. It was always going to fall Waugh's way. Waugh's problem was that after 128 tests only 20 centuries and an average of 41 he was given probably too many tests and apart from 1995 and 1998 he was never a consistent player. And that really pissed off Stuart Law (as you can tell from his media comments) who was consistently producing year after year, he deserved selection yet Australia persisted with Waugh. Martin Love was ultimately Mark Waugh's replacement and they should have replaced Waugh with Love earlier that's for sure, but I will never understand how or why Love was replaced by Martyn, both the same sort of player.

Brad Hodge great tests he played 6 matches av 55.88, but who was he replacing when he played those tests? Michael Clarke, captain in waiting, NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN, he could have had Bradman's average and he was never going to replace Clarke, other options Ponting (C) or Mike Hussey and their records speak for themselves. He could have replaced Symonds I suppose, but a No 6 with an average of 41 was good (Gilchrist still to come) and a bowling option as well. You could argue Hodge over Clarke back in 2005 when Hodge played the majority of his tests replacing Clarke who only averaged 28 in 2005 from 12 tests and was subsequently dropped but C'MON we're talking MICHAEL CLARKE, NSW media loved him, they had him as the next captain even back then. Poor Brad Hodge, just can't fight the media.

I've seen him bat a lot at Bellerive.

Tasmanians   were very disappointed Cox never had the chance to play Test cricket.

However, batters above him in the pecking order were usually doing their job quite well.

Cox would walk into the team now.

I thought DRS would've resulted in a lower test average for Ponting.

I think he received many favourable, close LBW decisions particularly when starting an innings because he was prone to play across the line of the ball early in his digs.

With DRS I think he would've lost his wicket more often early in his innings as fielding teams can review close decisions with DRS.

Ponting was such a punishing  bat when he got going though.

Yes Ponting was always an LB prospect with his head falling across to leg as well playing across his pad. Vulnerable early but dynamite once he was in.

Mike were all Hodges BG caps as a replacment?

Hodge would eat Symonds for breakfast. Should have played far more matches. There was talk/rumor that he has stepped on offiical toes and was never to be selected again. If it was to argue his case for a permanaent Test cap then he had a case. These days CA seems to be more lenient when a player has a winge over non selection. Obviously not when Hodge was smacking attacks around the paddock. From memory did he not score a Test double hundred?

If only we had players the calibre of Cox, Love and Hodge to call on today.

1st test he played Clarke was in the side but subsequently Clarke was dropped for the next test
2nd test-5th test he played was alongside M Hussey replacing Clarke scoring his 203 against SA
6th test was Clarke's replacement in 2008

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, Hodge should have been selected in 2004 following Lehmann's retirement but they went with Clarke, that would have upset Hodge, who had proven himself over many seasons. Clarke for his first 20 tests could only manage 33 average, he was a failure that got plenty of opportunity to prove himself, more than many, many players (not many ever got 20 test in a career and had a lot better average than 33), yet Hodge kept performing at FC level, he never failed at test level, it was a joke.
Then they bought Clarke back for Bangladesh series in 2006 effectively ending Hodge's career, even though Clarke still failed in Bangladesh av 25

Remember Pura Cup 2003/04 was won by Victoria Hodge was 4th leading run scorer, Michael Clarke wasn't even a permanent starter for NSW he only played 2 games and averaged 18.5 yet was selected in October 2004 to play for his country. Only a NSWman would ever get that opportunity, it was a joke and a kick in the guts for Hodge.

You are  an encyclopaedia of cricket knowledge, Mikey.

I can't quite remember all  of this.

Prime Minister's XI: George Bailey (c), Jason Behrendorff, Max Bryant, Ben Dwarshuis, Blake Edwards, Jack Edwards, Sam Heazlett, Kurtis Patterson, Josh Philippe, Usman Qadir, Jason Sangha, Tom Engelbrecht (12th man)

South Africa (from): Faf du Plessis (c), Farhaan Behardien, Quinton de Kock, Reeza Hendricks, Imran Tahir, Heinrich Klaasen, Aiden Markram, David Miller, Chris Morris, Lungi Ngidi, Andile Phehlukwayo, Dwaine Pretorius, Kagiso Rabada, Tabraiz Shamsi, Dale Steyn.


Some great young talent on display at Manuka this arvo against the Saffers. Qadir is a big surprise. Is he a citizen as yet? I think not. Pleased to see the Dorff back wearing national colors. Why is the Canberra rep always the 12th man in these tour fixtures?

I would have had "the beast" Jack wildermuth in for Dwarhuis.

Behrendorff showing why he should be in the Aussie limited overs side..

Compare the stylish Saffer uniform to ours. How long must we wear this garish yellow. Our national soccer and rugby teams have the correct color yellow/gold.

George Bailey shows yet again why he was our best ODI player for many years by anchoring a bunch of kids home in the PMsX1 match.. Joining the old man in the 50s stakes was Josh Philippe with vital support  by Jason Sangha.  Jason Behrendorff took MOM honors with a scything early spell that yielded 3 Saffer top order bats. One can only wonder how much cricket the Dorff would have played for his country if not for his back problems.

Loved  the way Andrew Symonds launched a tirade at CA in the Tele this morning. Roy did not hold back in his criticism of the way our cricket administrator had "pampered" and pandered" some cricketers which led to " a feeling of contentment and an alarming loss of hunger  to reach the pinnacle of Test cricket". Symonds, speaking on a Podcast said "wellness tests, sleep charts and playing  God with  the integrity of the Sheffield  Shield" had ruined the culture and performance of the national team.
 The former all rounder said CA claims of transparency in the wake of the cultural review was "the biggest load of horseshi* he had heard and called on CA to "restore trust across the game or fall on their swords".

With you 100% Roy.

One of our former greats and Australia's most successful captain, Steven Waugh has also sent a shot over the bows of CA this morning in the Tele. He believes today's Australian cricketer "lives in a gilded bubble" which contributed to a " win without counting the cost" mentality. 

Speaking prior to the release of the 145-page independent Cultural Review Report Waugh claimed he could understand how the national men's team reached a point where their decision-making became clouded. 

The current cricketer "may have become detached from reality ".

The 53-year-old believes changes are needed now so today's best younger players..who are fast-tracked into development programs and coaching academies from school age..are not  "at risk of developing tunnel vision whereby cricket assumes disproportionate importance".

The man who gave sledging the term "mental disintegration" understands the win without counting the cost 'mentalit'y? Tell that to Trott and Trescothick and many more ;)

People in glasshouses Steve. People in glasshouses. 

Hi Baggy - I stalked you from cricforum :-)

Miss ya bud! :-)

As for Clarke over Hodge - Clarke more than proved himself in the later years. So the selectors in the long run were possibly proven more than right vis a vis Hodge. Lehmann in the early days - that's a different story altogether. But Clarke is not responsible for Marcus North being selected over Brad Hodge. Or many of the further questionable selections that happened in Aus's top 6 when Hodge was more than ready to prove his case. 

In 1993 - Hayden choked the ODI games he was given ahead of Slater - Hayden was later given a chance in the ODI ahead of Aus ODI legend Dean Jones vs Sa and NZ (Damien Martyn remebers this season very well), and again choked. Slater got a 50 in his first test innings, 85 for the match, a 100 in the first innings of his next test - after that - he was the incumbent. No matter how you paint it.

Slater never stole Hayden's test spot. Elliot, Blewett and Taylor did. Taylor was so bad - Bevan was the 2nd spinner and fourth bowler for a while. Taylor was a passenger in the mid 1990's until that tripple vs Pakistan in the late 1990's. It should have been 

1 Slater
2 Hayden
3 Langer

But Tubby managed to keep himself in there long enough for Daikin to love him :-)

1994: Tubby averages 30.1
1996: averages 23.4
1997: averages 29.3
1999 averages 2.0 (put a fork in him)

Yeah - lets blame Slats :-) Who averaging over 48 or 50 for all his first 3 years was dropped after 2 games in 1996 for failing. Wow.

Hello Paddles. Welcome to the forum! You miss us did you? Mike is on hols at present. Lucky buggar.

Hmmmm. I think I'd rather have AB in the trenches than "I am going to bat for my average Steve Waugh and not hit out with the tail". And we all know GIlly and Punter would hit out.

Steve was a great cricketer. A tremendous cricketer. One of the best ever. But he had his faults. AB any day over him for mine. I think Punter has him beat as a batsman also. Hussey seems a tad underrated.

Yeah I missed you n Mike. Feel free in your spare time to read my updates on your Aus thread. I put some quality in there hoping for your return - but when I saw you on LeagueUnlimited - I gave up hope (I see you don't post there anymore neither - nor do I ;) )

As for Clarke over Hodge - Clarke more than proved himself in the later years. So the selectors in the long run were possibly proven more than right vis a vis Hodge. Lehmann in the early days - that's a different story altogether. But Clarke is not responsible for Marcus North being selected over Brad Hodge. Or many of the further questionable selections that happened in Aus's top 6 when Hodge was more than ready to prove his case. 

With you 100% Paddles. What a joke that was Marcus North preferred to Hodge. You did hear of this supposed " pencil thru his name.. never to play for Oz again"? Politics in sport stinks. There is talk following this culture review that selctions are to be based on conduct as well as performance. Is that a retrograde step Paddles?

I do not think it is retrograde in the long term. I was never a fan of Haddin. Warner, I could see him oozing talent, but I have long questioned his personal "spirit of cricket".
I do not think Cricket needs to be played "ugly". But I think a strong Australian cricket team is very good for the international sport because Australia take the sport seriously and make it a priority. 
I do think the bans on Smith and Warner are too long for the ball tampering and subsequent events. But I think Warner's previous bans (i.e. Joe Root - were too short).
I do believe CA needed to clean house, but I do not want to see cricket in Australia losing traction because some boof-head that his team mates were scared of made a booboo. 
I do not believe that Hazelwood and Starc need to mouth off, nor did McGrath for that matter. Quality is quality. And we all know that CA has no issues in making an producing quality seamers.
I hope that short-term damage to the game is outweighed with long-term benefit for CA and all. But this "dream with us, cuddle with us" nonsense is nauseating. 

I'd have to say having seen him bowl at Bellerive a  lot in the  Shield, he has looked innocuous.

I think Behrendorff would be a plodder at Test level.