ok so your saying that inflated shield averages are not a prediction of easy batting pitches. I don't know how that can be sustained (harder pitches means shield averages eventually go up? Really doubt that) but if it can, surely a prediction would be that foreign teams would dominate here too. They don't. In Australia you need incredible technique to handle the bounce, picking the pitch early, having a large contrast in your footwork etc. Another prediction would be that the gaps between career averages and averages in tough conditions have a big gap. I gave more examples before but the gap is normal, its just that apart from smith and warner this is a mediocre team to begin with.

by the way steven smith has an average of 60 in SA, 42 in asia and 43 in England
warners is 37 in England 90 in SA and 33 in asia. The gaps between these performances and their averages are about normal (mark waugh averaged 9 in sri lanka and 32 in asia I wrote a list in another thread). Mitch Marsh and Peter Neville average in the low 20s internationally and thats our lower middle order.

I'm not against any player improving their technique any more than I'm against them improving their concentration, mental strength, hand eye coordination, balance, innings management, power or any part of their game (I'd be crazy too) but I dispute that thats the primary problem

Also in principle you could play different pitches here and make them more like foreign pitches, perhaps even a variety of pitches and this would close the gap between the home and away form at the cost that we lose some of our home advantage. But it would still be a mediocre to moderately strong team.

As far as i can see low shield averages seems to indicate that we have players who aren't particularly strong by the time they get to shield level. This points to youth development

aussies inmost sports lately have struggled with pressure
this points to mental strength

grazorblade

I know you understand that different conditions require different skillsets. But do you genuinely believe that every single Australian track being a road is not linked to our batsmen not having the technique to deal with lateral movement?

I mean just look at how we fare overseas. It's disgraceful.

Don't you want them to make the wickets a bit more balanced and a bit more varied? As they used to be. And if not, why? It baffles me.

grazorblade,

what I've said is  not a contradiction. It's just nuanced and you seem not to have understood. My apologies if I've failed to explain it adequately.

It's not a contradiction, you're just presupposing that with reasonably talented batsmen (as opposed to exceedingly talented batsmen like Dave Warner) will amass truckloads of runs on easy batting tracks and thus have inflated averages. You've said that, because, a good many of the Shield batsmen have not seen their averages bolstered a lot, the pitches are not to blame.

Is this not what you said?

Forgive me, but this is supposition on your part. And, thus, no contradiction on my part.

I accept that the likes of Dave Warner and Steve Smith will be able to dominate on easy wickets (as the stats suggest). However they're in a league of their own in terms of raw talent, as Australian batsmen go at the minute.

I reject the idea that the batsmen in the bracket below (in terms of talent) will be able to do this.

My argument is that when the wickets are easy for batting, they don't develop the batsman's skills properly. This tends to lead to him having poor technique and, as a result, he's not able to exploit easy conditions (unless he's in the Smith/Warner bracket). As a result, they don't average much more than they would if they were accustomed to playing on tougher wickets.

If that medium-high quality of batsman is used to playing on tough wickets, he learns to adapt. Providing we're not talking about every wicket being a minefield, he should be able to score about as many runs as a batsman of the same quality, batting on roads, who has only ever batted on roads.

For those in that bracket, it all evens out.

It's not a contradiction. It's perfectly logical.

As you say, other factors have played no small part. but the pitches do too. They're inextricably linked to a failure in development. No surprise.

Interesting decentric

Do they say what has changed or make specific complaints?
The spectrum of players we are producing seem to be similar to previous generations but at shield level but a lower quality.
This points very heavily toward youth development either coaching or youth infrastructure
It also can't be a case of other countries going forward in development while we stayed stagnant because our shield batters are struggling against shield bowlers (and the best shield bowlers remain competitive if not dominant against all types of opposition in all conditions)
So we must have changed something in youth development that has had a negative effect
The only specific critiques I have heard is that we dont have promising youngsters playing men anymore and young captains don't bowl spinners to get results.

Grazor, I've met a number of suburban coaches who think that coaching is an issue in Australia, as you've suggested for a while.

However, the coaches I vaguely know who are coaching at a higher level are part of the system that produces current players. Unfortunately, they are not going to criticise it apart from to some close confidantes.

quickflick

what you said contradicts itself - you said without justification that collective averages don't go up when pitches get easier but said how averages went down when pitches got harder at home.

What there needs to be is a way of discriminating between different hypothesis otherwise its not more useful than the rants of the old guy at the park. So make it concrete
what is the prediction of cause x?
How can we discriminate between cause x and y?
How can cause x be falsified?
The same process applies to multiple causes (in fact I offered two causes mental strength and youth development falling behind/changing)

the possible causes listed are:
coaching
youth development
mental toughness
20/20
technical ability (relative to overall ability. Relative is an important term.)

The arrogance of the players is a huge problem, too. Hazelwood shoots his mouth off (admittedly, at least he bowls well). As do Warner and Smith. They say disrespectful things about the opposition and do disrespectful things, too.

This is, in itself, unacceptable. But it also suggests to me that even if they have the best coach, he'd have some work to do in dealing with the egos.

He'd have to say to the likes of Warner and Smith that they can't go after every ball, for one thing. It seems to me that, because Australian cricket has such a rich history and these guys have been touted as future cricket superstars since they were young, they're not going to be willing to listen to people rationally telling them that they're fucking up big time and they need to go about things in a completely different way.

They went to England believing that England wouldn't come close to them. And they thought they could smack the ball all over the place and it would be easy. How wrong they were.

We need more players like Chris Rogers. Ones who don't carry on like they have a God-given right to win Test matches. They know the challenges and they know their own strengths and weaknesses (plus the technique required). They keep their mouths shut and just get on with the job with a kind of quiet confidence.

At some stage we've got to look at the coaching of this team as well I think. 

grazorblade,

It's not a case of entirely one thing being the cause. This is a broader ontological truth. As with life, the problem cannot be attribute entirely to cause a. It's partly because of cause a, partly because of cause b and partly because of cause c. Does that sound unreasonable (either in describing this or problems in general)? The problem is that that doesn't mean that cause b, for instance, is not a problem and not something we shouldn't be addressing. And this is where you go wrong in not blaming the pitches.

Do you genuinely believe it's not a problem for all Australian wickets to be flat and very batsman friendly? Why?

You're absolutely right that a lack of mental toughness, a lack of powers of concentration and falling behind in youth development are also causes.

As for why the averages not being high despite there being easy batting wickets...

You're assuming that easy batting wickets ensure high averages. This is an assumption. One does not, necessarily, entail the other. It can, in some circumstances, but not always.

The reality is that because the wickets are easy, the technical ability and judgement of the batsmen have suffered so greatly that most batsmen cannot necessarily capitalise that often on easy wickets. Hence the averages aren't spectacular.

What happens when the wickets are difficult?

We get bowled out for about 60. Or the Shield batsmen do even more poorly than they currently do (as with a few seasons back).

Basically the state of the pitches has made the batting across the board so incredibly mediocre that it's only average on flat tracks and it's basically like watching a lion maul a zebra when the wicket is lively.

As for T20. I've already explained, in England, for instance, they don't have the BBL interrupting the County Championship (or requiring flat wickets) and they don't have all their players in the IPL.

Fair enough. May as well spread our legs now whilst we have the room. 

If the home pitches were the problem why aren't shield averages in australia massive? They are poor this generation so that hypothesis doesn't have enough explanatory power for me to buy it. It fails what I would consider a straightforward prediction of the theory.

I just cannot buy that we take 20/20 more seriously than other nations. It is the weakest form of our sport in australia and we have had players refuse to play it to focus on tests just like other nations. If it was a large population issue there would be a greater divergence between the selections in the india 20/20 team compared to test and the australian team. I don't see that. Also india are one country. So again this doesn't have the explanatory power required for me to buy it. It fails simple predictions

mental toughness and falling behind youth development at the moment are explanations - although the latter mainly because our current youth development is a black box to me

If thats good enough, thats good enough 

Australia has failed to win something like the last 12 games they've played on the Subcontinent.

In these 12 games, they've lost 9 and drawn 3.

Atrocious!

It's not much fun watching us get annihilated overseas, though. We used not to be so incompetent overseas. They need to restore the balance.

We don't want to be flat-track bullies.

the thing is, the audience is happy when Australia has batsmen averaging 542 on these pitches, giving a false sense of invincibility.

Australia is still the hardest country for any visiting team to visit because pitches are bouncy and batsmen have to sway and duck (not ours, we hit them for six)

grazorblade

I haven't seen much of this series against Sri Lanka (certainly not session after session). In fairness, the better generations had trouble batting on the subcontinent. But this is definitely, imo, part of the greater narrative of not having the technique or game know-how to play against spin, swing and seam.

Australia's involvement with T20 is different to that of other countries (except India). India is similarly focused on T20, but they have such a huge population and participation rates that it's not too much of a problem.

You need to compare Australia to England, South Africa, New Zealand. In England, the T20 competition doesn't fuck up the County Championship. The England players focus on their county cricket (as Australia's once focused on the Shield). In Australia, the BBL is almost given pre-eminence over the Shield.

Then our cricketers play in the IPL at other points in the year.

Alastair Cook, when he was involved in various short-forms of the game, found his Test batting really suffered. He got rid of those short-forms and got back to basically near career best batting. It definitely plays a part in how you go about things.

The pitches, in general, are a problem as (I think) we've established. In the past, each Australian wicket was different and offered something different. In recent times, they've all tended to be flat as a pancake. Our batsmen aren't developing the technique required to deal with lateral movement. As I said, the one year when they made the Shield pitches more bowler friendly, all our batsmen except three couldn't buy a run. And Michael Clarke chucked a tanty about groundstaff favouring bowlers.

There definitely is a difference in how our current batsmen's technique and shot-selection compared to when we were good at cricket. Sure there have always been some batsmen who operate with minimal footwork, but we had plenty of others with beautiful crisp footwork (Mark Waugh, Justin Langer, Damien Martyn, Mike Hussey, etc.) who would take themselves to the pitch of the ball.

And then what they'd do is they'd know when to leave the ball and when to play at it. Our lot currently have no idea where their off-stump is. And then those guys would often use soft-hands to play the ball.

When you block the ball, you're not supposed to throw your hands at the ball. If you edge it, it will likely carry. When blocking, you're supposed to wait for the ball to come to you and not to grip the bat too firmly.

This is why Chris Rogers fared so much better than our other batsmen in England.

Well we are over 500 runs for the test which is good on a turning pitch given the moderate talents of this team.

We lost the toss 3 times which doesn't help. So this third test is fine given where we are at

The bigger concern was the first two tests, we let the first game slip and the second game we weren't competitive. No centuries till the third test.

I don't think its a technique problem their techniques look about the same as previous generations that has done well
I also don't think it is a problem with home pitches being too easy since that doesn't explain the poor sheild averages for this generation
Innings management has improved but that still doesn't make enough difference (though some batsmen like bird neville and khawaja are likely to improve with experience)
I don't buy that its a 20/20 problem since every country has 20/20
I do buy that its partly a problem with home ground advantages increasing over the years (since every team has this) but that doesn't explain the poor shield averages

So that leaves mental toughness, an unlucky generation or inferior youth development strategies\
Unlucky generation doesn't explain why we have gone backwards in other sports

Mental toughness means there might be an australian wide cultural change. What made us mentally tough was the ability to be relaxed, enjoy ourselves without losing work ethic (i.e. staying determined). It went with the work hard, avago and she'll be right mate attitude of that generation. Has the culture changed? Mental toughness has a lot of explanatory power across sports.
Mental toughness can also be changed if media coverage changes. NSW state of origin (like England football) media is constantly crucifying their best players after a loss whereas QLD rally behind their team after a loss talking up their players. When they make changes they do so quietly keeping the dropped players dignity so they can fight back. QLD SOO team are one of the few mentally tough modern australian sporting team and I think contrasting media coverage contributes to it. QLD have a lot of patriotism to their state as well which I think has always helped. Is there less patriotism this generation? Generally there has been a trend to see a choice between patriotism and social justice - an unfortunate false dichotomy

Youth development being behind the times could explain why we are going backwards in most sports but forward in football where we have tried to modernize our development (and tried is the operative word since we are a fledgling football nation).

hmm interested in other peoples thoughts

well done steve smith, you ubermensch, you were the future and the impregnable captain and now youve lost resoundingly to a minnow team



We look forward to the team smashing the visiting teams at home this summer to give back the team that false sense of aura we have

We're the new England (for just about every sport, apparently, except one which I won't name for fear of jinxing it). Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is our thang.

Nepotism prevails in Australian cricket. Neither of the Marshes should be in the Test side. Shaun Marsh has done bugger all in his f/c career. We've been talking about Olympic athletes lacking the mental prowess, absolutely the case with him too. And Mitch Marsh isn't a good enough batsman or bowler. He's a stand-and-bash-the-ball type of batsman. But that's what's popular with CA. Rather than batsmen who know how to craft innings.

James Faulkner is a much better option. As far as mental toughness goes, look no further. He basically decides he can win matches on his own and does so. Unlike Mitch Marsh, he actually has experience of success in England. He helped his county side gain promotion to Div 1 of the County Championship (on one occasion, getting a hat-trick). His bowling average is substantially better than that of Marsh. And he has all the tricks in the book to get runs. Very clever. Plus, he just goes up to Mikey Holding and says "you used to play cricket with my father".

An aura of success but not stupid smacking the ball has hard has possible with no footwork.

Laziness and a lack of concentration. 

How we let the Lankans get away with that one I have no idea.

Yet again. Yet again we can't close out matches. 

Starc has bowled very well in Sri Lanka.

Just before stumps Lyon was also getting prodigious turn and bounce.

australia probably 25 runs behind in the game so its still close

but momentum and form massively with sri lanka

need to dig deep here

Absolute idiocy from Sri Lanka to send out a nightwatchman to take strike first against Starc and go 4 . 4 W

What a collapse really

After thinking that Mitch Marsh's footwork looks cumbersome against spinners, I really like the look to Nevill's nimble feet.

What do you think?

That is, if they get on again after the rain.

I missed a little to put the bub to bed

looks like we only lost 3 in the lunch session which is a drawn session

Mate, after only one cricket thread in Extra Time, I  prefer a thread for each test.