Calling it how it is and saying what position actually best suits Smith? What a dick!
Next Generation
- Thread starter Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Even the man himself is okay with dropping back down.
The_Reaper
Hall of Famer
Smith as opener is the height of arrogance and weakness by the selectors.
Also called him the best batter in the world in the same interview.
Ussie should be looking at his form ....it's been okay many starts not enough hundreds recently...for me this should be his last test series against the Indians.
In regards to Smith as I stated previously I would much prefer Smudge in the middle order and Head to open...just reckon having Head and Marsh...cancels themselves out a bit at 5 and 6 would rather a dasher head at the top. Instead of having two dashers batting next to each..other.....better balance for me
RightWingRoo
All Australian
- Jul 19, 2020
- 877
- 3,180
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
Depends on how Ussie's form is in the Shield and against India, after such a long break.
And if we're still a good shot at making the WTC final, heading to Sri Lanka.
Cleavy
Hall of Famer
we're all set for the "Maddinson kid" as per (probably) NSW media... https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricke...l/news-story/3c66ea4c83e52b77dfd7b41b26596226
Head is a bit too loose for me batting any higher than 5 in red ball cricket. It is a sad reflection of where our development system is at that we are squeezing the absolute maximum out of elite players simply because batting wise we’ve got NOTHING in reserve
Yeah see your point but you can make an argument for both Duckett and Crawley ...being loose and they are going okay with bazball
I just think with the way the team is going...I can see a role for Head at the top and I think he has the technique to pull it off...and come subcontinent conditions Head has to open for me...he has shown he can do it as an opener over there and he just struggles in the middle order on spinning decks.....
But saying that seeing that we play the majority of games in Australia for the tests I can see the concern with Head as opener ...but I just think with the way cricket is going...faster scoring rates...and I believe 4 days tests are going to be introduced sooner rather than later....Head could do a role as a strike weapon up the top.
What does worry me is the lack of youngsters coming through ...we have an ageing test team atm....only Green Dog is under 30 .......Ussie is 37 Lyon 36 Smudge is 35 Starc 34 Hazelwood 33 Carey 33 Marsh 32 cummins head marnus 30...they might go okay against India this summer who also have Ageing team....but come next summer for the Ashes...we could have dads army v the pace of both Archer and Wood 140 plus.......big issue for me
I’ve been on this type of theory for quite a long time - and we have very little quality coming through
RightWingRoo
All Australian
- Jul 19, 2020
- 877
- 3,180
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
I made a thread a months ago saying this and got slammed. Although I was probably a bit melodramatic with the title.
We desperately need the under 19 team that won the world cup last year, to produce 5-6 quality international players like 2010 winning team did. Because on the batting side especially, there's very few players coming through in their early-mid 20s.
Why would this U/19 side be any different to the previous versions where the second coming of Christ has been foreseen but they all turn out to be biblical stories
RightWingRoo
All Australian
- Jul 19, 2020
- 877
- 3,180
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
I agree, it's just hope rather than any actual expectation.
2027 is probably the last time we'll be in major trophy contention, in any format. Likely fall well back into the pack after that.
Hopefully the powers at be start listening to coaches like you, but not holding my breath.
Black Diamond
Sleight of Hand
We really need to get past the u19 side. Marnus would never have had a look in. Neither would Warner.
Plenty of decent players aren't coming good until north of 20, but they are discarded because they are outside the pathways.
Plenty of decent players aren't coming good until north of 20, but they are discarded because they are outside the pathways.
The Pathways are all short form cricket - i have a lad in one at the moment who I am watching his technique which is not properly formed being debased before my eyes. So much of it now is premeditated, high risk and score at all costs.
Around the Wicket
Norm Smith Medallist
- Dec 8, 2021
- 7,599
- 5,018
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Shield pitches need to be flatter to develop our batsmen, look at the 90's / early 2000's we had multiple players in shield averaging 40+ or even 50+ because the pitches were good for batting which helped them develop, people will say that's not good for the bowlers but if the bowler is good enough they'll find a way.
Deal with the root cause of the problem…hint - it’s not the pitches
Around the Wicket
Norm Smith Medallist
- Dec 8, 2021
- 7,599
- 5,018
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
disagree, average score in shield last few seasons is 220 lol
It's still definitely a factor. Hussey has mentioned it many times in commentary that a lot of the shield pitches now are minefields compared to the late 90's and 2000's and don't benefit anyone. Batsman get out to an almost unplayable ball before they are set most of the time, and the bowlers are rarely in positions that they have to work hard for wickets. Obviously not always the case, but the pitches for the most part are far more bowler friendly than they were back then.
It’s still not the main factor
Have you considered when games are scheduled now compared to the glory days?
Or that for some period they use Dukes balls?
Identify me one young player with a solid technique and I’ll find him a Test spot.
And if anyone suggests Fraser-McGurk I’ll spew up.
Last edited:
Explain to me how that proves your theory?
RookiePick
Brownlow Medallist
- Aug 13, 2014
- 28,154
- 50,825
- AFL Club
- West Coast
I definitely think the Shield pitches are a lot spicier than they were back in the 90's/00's.
One could argue that it would prepare players for adverse conditions but it seems to have simply encouraged players to accept a higher level of risk with their stroke-play - You are going to get an unplayable ball so get runs on the board as fast as possible.
There is merit in pointing to the shield being pushed out of it's traditional place in the calendar to where it is no doubt harder to prepare a consistent wicket and the use of a more volatile ball. There is also pressure to prepare result pitches - you are much more likely to harvest bonus points on a result pitch and a win and a loss are equal to two draws on base points, so it becomes about risk over consistency here also.
I think the issue is multi-faceted. There are systemic issues which are favouring "hitters" at shield level (and in conjunction with the growth of short forms) over quite a number of years now and this has been steadily trickling down the development pathways to produce this type of player. Are there kids with good/strong foundations being overlooked for further development in favour of more powerful batters at key age brackets?
I haven't watched enough junior cricket to know this but I have seen a few kids, that seem to struggle to score, easily see off bowlers that have skittled their big swinging counterparts. Great little defences but just lacking a little confidence to try to put the bad balls away or lacking a little timing or strength on their full shots. Are these kids getting seen on their merits if they try out for districts/development teams or will they be overshadowed by the kids that are bolder and can strike the ball harder?
One could argue that it would prepare players for adverse conditions but it seems to have simply encouraged players to accept a higher level of risk with their stroke-play - You are going to get an unplayable ball so get runs on the board as fast as possible.
There is merit in pointing to the shield being pushed out of it's traditional place in the calendar to where it is no doubt harder to prepare a consistent wicket and the use of a more volatile ball. There is also pressure to prepare result pitches - you are much more likely to harvest bonus points on a result pitch and a win and a loss are equal to two draws on base points, so it becomes about risk over consistency here also.
I think the issue is multi-faceted. There are systemic issues which are favouring "hitters" at shield level (and in conjunction with the growth of short forms) over quite a number of years now and this has been steadily trickling down the development pathways to produce this type of player. Are there kids with good/strong foundations being overlooked for further development in favour of more powerful batters at key age brackets?
I haven't watched enough junior cricket to know this but I have seen a few kids, that seem to struggle to score, easily see off bowlers that have skittled their big swinging counterparts. Great little defences but just lacking a little confidence to try to put the bad balls away or lacking a little timing or strength on their full shots. Are these kids getting seen on their merits if they try out for districts/development teams or will they be overshadowed by the kids that are bolder and can strike the ball harder?
It’s all short form cricket - you’re dealing with kids at vastly different stages of development but from a a batting perspective, with winning being everything, the big kid who can slog to leg wil ALWAYS be selected over the kid who plays straight, regardless of long term who actually has a chance of actually making it.
