Next Generation

Remove this Banner Ad

Cleavy said:
statistically, Starc's worst bowling Tests are 4 & 5 in a 5 Test series. same for Hazlewood
Click to expand...
Yep. Will be better if he has a rest. If Haze is fit next test rest Starc, rest Cummins for BD and then big 3 for Sydney
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Black Diamond said:
Look at his scores for the season.
Click to expand...
I have. It's a nice season, and he should be proud of himself for getting back to this level of performance.

I like him as a player, but considering the vast gulf between this season and the past couple, I'd want to see it continue for more than a handful of matches before considering him for test selection.
 
big_e said:
I have. It's a nice season, and he should be proud of himself for getting back to this level of performance.

I like him as a player, but considering the vast gulf between this season and the past couple, I'd want to see it continue for more than a handful of matches before considering him for test selection.
Click to expand...
I take your point but I would sooner back in his experience than risk burning a younger player.
 
Some Idiot said:
Averaged 67 in the shield last year, career average 43. Given the lack of Australian players averaging 40+, stats alone give him a chance.
Click to expand...
Agree with this in philosophy. If he'd maintained his form I'd have backed his selection but he has had a few light FC games this season so doesn't get there right now. But broadly, we aren't exactly in a position to be sniffing and laughing at the idea of selecting guys who average 40 because he doesn't have a traditional technique. Warner developed one after being picked and grew by playing in the role.

Hate to use them as an example, but England have plucked guys from seemingly nowhere yet they've worked. Even picking a guy with 0 FC centuries to debut at 3. I'm not advocating that, but they picked him on the fact he's been hyped as a generational talent since he was a teen, so they just got him in the team. Sometimes you just have to pick the guys, finding this perfect 24 yr old FC gun averaging 50 with 10 centuries with the dreamy test technique is a fallacy, they don't exist anymore.

It's why I've found some of the commentary around Konstas weird, who actually does have FC tons, and one against almost this exact attack sans Bumrah, yet we're wrapping him in bubble wrap and saying "No he'd get cooked by this attack, he's not ready!".

Cummins debuted at 18 against peak South Africa - Graeme Smith, Hashim Amla, ABDV and co. Was everyone saying "No he'll get smashed by those guns, he's not ready and it could burn him long term"?
 
Black Diamond said:
I take your point but I would sooner back in his experience than risk burning a younger player.
Click to expand...
Where's this concept of being afraid of burning youngsters come from? Just because a kid gets picked but didn't perform doesn't mean it's going to ruin the next several years of his career and he'll have to rebuild everything. Loads of guys have been picked, not done well but been better for the experience and used that experience at shield level to come back better than ever.

If anything, it used to be a right of passage. But now we're worried it'll break guys? Come on now.

He has the best form of any batter at the level, I take his 100s over Pattersons 50s (even though they were 90s), especially as one was against the very attack we're scared will destroy his career aside from 1 guy. At 19 yrs old we should be falling over ourselves to see him at the top level.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Coops93 said:
Where's this concept of being afraid of burning youngsters come from? Just because a kid gets picked but didn't perform doesn't mean it's going to ruin the next several years of his career and he'll have to rebuild everything. Loads of guys have been picked, not done well but been better for the experience and used that experience at shield level to come back better than ever.

If anything, it used to be a right of passage. But now we're worried it'll break guys? Come on now.

He has the best form of any batter at the level, I take his 100s over Pattersons 50s (even though they were 90s), especially as one was against the very attack we're scared will destroy his career aside from 1 guy. At 19 yrs old we should be falling over ourselves to see him at the top level.
Click to expand...
Times are not what they used to be. Picking a 19 year old today would be like picking a 15 year old in the 70s.

These kids are going to suffer a dip in form at some stage. I am a big believer in letting that happen at Shield level first, away from the scrutiny.

Patterson has now done this and would be better for the experience.

25 is young enough IMO.
 
Black Diamond said:
Times are not what they used to be. Picking a 19 year old today would be like picking a 15 year old in the 70s.

These kids are going to suffer a dip in form at some stage. I am a big believer in letting that happen at Shield level first, away from the scrutiny.

Patterson has now done this and would be better for the experience.

25 is young enough IMO.
Click to expand...
I don't agree at all. Not the same sports, granted, but we have 18 yr olds coming into and playing the AFL every season. How many of them are scared away and never seen again? In a physical sport where fully grown men can actually cause damage, not just make you perform poorly, and they embrace it more than ever.

Patterson isn't a great comparison, by your methodology they did the right thing but not picking him until he was 26 but that didn't really help. He's 31 now. Also, he's nothing close to like for like in career trajectory. He wasn't a 19 yr old prodigy, he was/is a classic Shield grafter averaging mid 30s.

Age should not be a reason to not pick Konstas, if anything, it should be in his favour. Especially given the demographic of the team.
 
Black Diamond said:
Times are not what they used to be. Picking a 19 year old today would be like picking a 15 year old in the 70s.

These kids are going to suffer a dip in form at some stage. I am a big believer in letting that happen at Shield level first, away from the scrutiny.

Patterson has now done this and would be better for the experience.

25 is young enough IMO.
Click to expand...

Completely disagree. If they're talented enough bring them in. If they suffer a dip they get dropped like all good players have and know what they need to work on.
 
Coops93 said:
I don't agree at all. Not the same sports, granted, but we have 18 yr olds coming into and playing the AFL every season. How many of them are scared away and never seen again? In a physical sport where fully grown men can actually cause damage, not just make you perform poorly, and they embrace it more than ever.

Patterson isn't a great comparison, by your methodology they did the right thing but not picking him until he was 26 but that didn't really help. He's 31 now. Also, he's nothing close to like for like in career trajectory. He wasn't a 19 yr old prodigy, he was/is a classic Shield grafter averaging mid 30s.

Age should not be a reason to not pick Konstas, if anything, it should be in his favour. Especially given the demographic of the team.
Click to expand...
A 19 year old in cricket would be like a 16 year old in the AFL. Cricketers naturally mature later. Pretty much always been the case because of how much of the game is between the ears.

Patterson was a justified pick at the time because of his body of FC work. He had been in the system several years. His ups and downs are partly injury related and he will be better for the experience.
 
Coops93 said:
I don't agree at all. Not the same sports, granted, but we have 18 yr olds coming into and playing the AFL every season. How many of them are scared away and never seen again? In a physical sport where fully grown men can actually cause damage, not just make you perform poorly, and they embrace it more than ever.

Patterson isn't a great comparison, by your methodology they did the right thing but not picking him until he was 26 but that didn't really help. He's 31 now. Also, he's nothing close to like for like in career trajectory. He wasn't a 19 yr old prodigy, he was/is a classic Shield grafter averaging mid 30s.

Age should not be a reason to not pick Konstas, if anything, it should be in his favour. Especially given the demographic of the team.
Click to expand...
An 18-year-old footballer is one of 400+ players going around on any given weekend, with supporter bases spread across 18 teams. Their contribution to the game can be minimal, and that's OK.

But a 19-year-old playing test cricket suddenly becomes one of the most high-profile sportsmen in the country and is a key member of Australia's only national team that anyone actually cares about. There's nowhere to hide.

Footballers and football fans are used to seeing a kid come in for one or two games and then go out again. Meanwhile, in test cricket, a player being dropped is a huge deal.

It's not even close to being the same thing.

I've nothing against Konstas, I just think we (and he) would be better off being patient, giving him this season and into next season so we can see if he can keep up this form for a longer period.
 
Black Diamond said:
A 19 year old in cricket would be like a 16 year old in the AFL. Cricketers naturally mature later. Pretty much always been the case because of how much of the game is between the ears.

Patterson was a justified pick at the time because of his body of FC work. He had been in the system several years. His ups and downs are partly injury related and he will be better for the experience.
Click to expand...
They do typically mature later, definitely, but that doesn't mean you should overlook a young person who's performing at a level to warrant selection.
 
big_e said:
An 18-year-old footballer is one of 400+ players going around on any given weekend, with supporter bases spread across 18 teams. Their contribution to the game can be minimal, and that's OK.

But a 19-year-old playing test cricket suddenly becomes one of the most high-profile sportsmen in the country and is a key member of Australia's only national team that anyone actually cares about. There's nowhere to hide.

Footballers and football fans are used to seeing a kid come in for one or two games and then go out again. Meanwhile, in test cricket, a player being dropped is a huge deal.

It's not even close to being the same thing.

I've nothing against Konstas, I just think we (and he) would be better off being patient, giving him this season and into next season so we can see if he can keep up this form for a longer period.
Click to expand...
On the last point, I'm not trying to drive a bandwagon to select him, I'm fine with McSweeney for now, he's warranted selection too. I'm just challenging the point that his age is a reason not to select him.

In practicality that's not necessarily true. How much media attention does Daicos get? That's not spread across 400 players every weekend, he's the most hyped and talked about player in the country. Harley Reid is getting attention constantly in Vic, let alone the hype in WA which is frequently memed. The AFL media is far larger and harsher than cricket, it's the busiest newscycle around constantly looking to criticise. If anything, playing for a top 4 Vic team would be far harder criticism wise than being a cricketer playing a paltry 5 tests at home a year.

In a direct comparison, India would be insane to have picked Jaiswal or have persisted with Gill who has had form issues. The Indian media and social pressure is 10 fold what Konstas would get, but they're picking kids. By a similar token, England shouldn't have picked Harry Brook or Joe Root. The English media is way more relentless than ours, they're surely both too young. Our own Pat Cummins famously was only 18. Even Ponting was barely 20 when debuting.

Again, not driving the bandwagon to pick him, I'm just calling this "playing him now could ruin him" idea a complete nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Coops93 said:
Agree with this in philosophy. If he'd maintained his form I'd have backed his selection but he has had a few light FC games this season so doesn't get there right now. But broadly, we aren't exactly in a position to be sniffing and laughing at the idea of selecting guys who average 40 because he doesn't have a traditional technique. Warner developed one after being picked and grew by playing in the role.

Hate to use them as an example, but England have plucked guys from seemingly nowhere yet they've worked. Even picking a guy with 0 FC centuries to debut at 3. I'm not advocating that, but they picked him on the fact he's been hyped as a generational talent since he was a teen, so they just got him in the team. Sometimes you just have to pick the guys, finding this perfect 24 yr old FC gun averaging 50 with 10 centuries with the dreamy test technique is a fallacy, they don't exist anymore.

It's why I've found some of the commentary around Konstas weird, who actually does have FC tons, and one against almost this exact attack sans Bumrah, yet we're wrapping him in bubble wrap and saying "No he'd get cooked by this attack, he's not ready!".

Cummins debuted at 18 against peak South Africa - Graeme Smith, Hashim Amla, ABDV and co. Was everyone saying "No he'll get smashed by those guns, he's not ready and it could burn him long term"?
Click to expand...
Two main points

Warner always had a very traditional and solid technique, always. The knock on him was whether his outlook ie. very aggressive would translate but never his technique.

Pat Cummins played in a Shield final under Katich while still supposed to be on bowling restrictions because of his age, bowled a shit load of overs - went into a Test Match at the blew his back to bits and never played another Test for 5 1/2 years.
 
Here’s a next gen XI of current Shield players who haven’t played test cricket - you can be the judge as to what it says about our depth…
  1. Sam Konstas
  2. Henry Hunt
  3. Jason Sangha
  4. Jayden Goodwin
  5. Ollie Davies
  6. Aaron Hardie
  7. Jake Doran
  8. Xavier Bartlett
  9. Corey Rocchiccioli
  10. Fergus O’Neill
  11. Lance Morris
 
RightWingRoo said:
Gilly was a unicorn, we'll probably never see someone like him again.

De Villiers and Sangakkara only kept for part of their careers, and played their best cricket as specialist batsmen.
Click to expand...
De Kock was more a Gilly clone than the other two you mentioned. He was good enough to be in the team as a specialist batsman like Gilly. Right now we have a keeper batsman of the Marsh or Healy style in Carey and that's ok as long as he contributes consistently and not once in a while.
 
Black Diamond said:
We should resist comparing the development of fast bowlers to batsmen anyway. Simply not the same game.

We should also resist doing what England do. What have they achieved exactly? They go for the out-of-the-box picks because there is no normal option.
Click to expand...
When it works though they can absolutely hammer teams which they have to NZ, 2nd test was as 1 sided a match as you could see. Dominated bat and ball. We have similar pitches here in Australia but bigger grounds. Would be harder to to K the ball to all parts on big grounds which makes the Ashes next year must watch viewing.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Next Generation

Similar threads

Jascave
Test Pick a likely Australian Test team for next summer's series against India
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
6K
cricketnut14
C
Wormkilla
Test Who will be in the next overseas Aussie Ashes test team?
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
GreekLunatic
GreekLunatic
C
Next Aussie T20 captain ?
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
Redline
R

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top