Future of the Australian Test team

Crawf

Doin' the Mess Around!
What are people's thoughts on the state of our Test Cricket team? You might have the view of 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it.' But i personally would say it is time for certain players to be retired and for more youth to be injected into the side, as painful a process as that might be.

The age of the players being introduced to the Australian team is ridiculous. Alistair Cook is only 21 and he's opening the batting for England. The kind of experience this guy is getting, how good will he be at 30! Admittedly at the expense of Trescothick, but at least he's getting a go.

Compare that to Australia, who were really 'biting the bullet' by putting adding the youthful Hussey and Clark into the team when they're 30 and above! Admittedly they have been very successful, but surely the strategy of introducing such mature players will not always have such success. Why can't Australia bring in an up and coming 20 - 23 year old similar to Cook, and give him Test exposure while there is still a strong contingent of mature players to support him?

Just look at the debut ages of some of our top players-
Shane Warne - Debut 1992 - Age 22 (turned 23 later that year)
Glenn McGrath - Debut 1993 - Age 23
Ricky Ponting - Debut 1995 - Age 20 (turned 21 just days after debut)
Brett Lee - Debut 1999 - Age 23

Now look at those waiting in the wings-
Stuart MacGill - Age 35
Nathan Bracken - Age 29
Phil Jacques - Age 27
Mitchell Johnson - Age 25
Shane Watson - Age 25
Shaun Tait - Age 23

Some of these guys MUST be introduced in the near future, or how will they have a chance to turn into champions like our current players? Leave Clarke in the team for good as well. At 25 he is an investment Australia is ready to cash in on.

If not, Australia could become similar to the Brisbane Lions, where all of their stars retire or get injured at the same time, and suddenly they're running around putting untried youngsters into the team. A line up from Lee, Bracken, Tait or Johnson, at their current fitness, experience and form, would not win Australia the match. One day, but not at the moment.

Bring in Jacques and bring in Johnson now, but also trial more up and coming 21 year olds while we still have our Langers and Warnes carving the opposition up.
 
What are people's thoughts on the state of our Test Cricket team? You might have the view of 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it.' But i personally would say it is time for certain players to be retired and for more youth to be injected into the side, as painful a process as that might be.

The age of the players being introduced to the Australian team is ridiculous. Alistair Cook is only 21 and he's opening the batting for England. The kind of experience this guy is getting, how good will he be at 30! Admittedly at the expense of Trescothick, but at least he's getting a go.

Compare that to Australia, who were really 'biting the bullet' by putting adding the youthful Hussey and Clark into the team when they're 30 and above! Admittedly they have been very successful, but surely the strategy of introducing such mature players will not always have such success. Why can't Australia bring in an up and coming 20 - 23 year old similar to Cook, and give him Test exposure while there is still a strong contingent of mature players to support him?

Just look at the debut ages of some of our top players-
Shane Warne - Debut 1992 - Age 22 (turned 23 later that year)
Glenn McGrath - Debut 1993 - Age 23
Ricky Ponting - Debut 1995 - Age 20 (turned 21 just days after debut)
Brett Lee - Debut 1999 - Age 23

Now look at those waiting in the wings-
Stuart MacGill - Age 35
Nathan Bracken - Age 29
Phil Jacques - Age 27
Mitchell Johnson - Age 25
Shane Watson - Age 25
Shaun Tait - Age 23

Some of these guys MUST be introduced in the near future, or how will they have a chance to turn into champions like our current players? Leave Clarke in the team for good as well. At 25 he is an investment Australia is ready to cash in on.

If not, Australia could become similar to the Brisbane Lions, where all of their stars retire or get injured at the same time, and suddenly they're running around putting untried youngsters into the team. A line up from Lee, Bracken, Tait or Johnson, at their current fitness, experience and form, would not win Australia the match. One day, but not at the moment.

Bring in Jacques and bring in Johnson now, but also trial more up and coming 21 year olds while we still have our Langers and Warnes carving the opposition up.
some good points there...you should become a selector

stuart macgill is the most unluckiest cricketer ever!!!!!!!
 
Macgill is probably one of the best cases of "Right place, Wrong time"

10 years either side he would have been an almost guarantee for selection.
 
MacGill was just born at the wrong time. To me age is just a number, look at the aussie team now, 1 player under 30 and they are still the best by a long way.
 
to me this brings back the 80's when lillee,marsh and chappel left. we went from the second best behind west indies to about 5th, because we did not have the talent or experience players we needed
 
to me this brings back the 80's when lillee,marsh and chappel left. we went from the second best behind west indies to about 5th, because we did not have the talent or experience players we needed
But we do now. Once the openers retire we got jaques to come in, hodge, watson, voges etc. With the depth of Australian Cricket in both batting and bowling these days we will still be on top for atleast the next 10 years. Back in the 80s it was a different story
 
Back in the 80's we lost a few to the South African 'rebel' tours, that made as much of a dent as the big 3 retiring, Alderman(good again after he served his 2 yr ban), Hogg, Haysman, Hughes, 'Squizzy' Taylor(quality opener from vic. who was good enough) reperesented a loss of experince and up and comers that it took a while to replace. Can't remember who else went of those tours, prob find it on baggygreen.com somewhere.
 
Now vs the Lillee/Marsh era.. you can't compare them, two totally different situations. WSC, less professionalism in admin, the list goes on.

I can't see Australia dropping to those depths anytime soon.

As for Stuart MacGill, he would have played 100 Tests for any other country in the world. Why they didn't play 2 spinners in Adelaide remains a mystery.. If you go and compare MacGill's record with Warne's, you'll find he stacks up pretty well really. A little more expensive, but takes wickets much more regularly than Warne.

Stuart Macgill:
class mat balls runs wkts bbi bbm ave econ sr 4 5 10
Tests 40 10211 5387 198 8/108 12/107 27.20 3.16 51.57 9 12 2

Shane Warne:
class mat balls runs wkts bbi bbm ave econ sr 4 5 10
Tests 142 40025 17662 694 8/71 12/128 25.44 2.64 57.67 47 36 10

And while we're comparing bowlers, I remember reading a few saying Warne was the best bowler ever. What about this guy?

Glenn McGrath:
class mat balls runs wkts bbi bbm ave econ sr 4 5 10
Tests 121 28486 11909 551 8/24 10/27 21.61 2.50 51.69 28 29 3

Looking at that, I'd say he would be classed as the better bowler. But each to their own.
 
Back
Top Bottom