The Cricket Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Brishawk said:
I tink we need to walk before we can run....lets see if anyone can bat through a session first or even make it to ten runs or more on a regular basis :drunk:
Click to expand...

It's kind of like that isn't it?

Funny talking about batting earlier, my son has just gone through the whole regional rep trials. It's a massive joke, ig you ask me.

So many vested interests, club affialliations and old boy networks. IAnd of course unwritten selection criteria that had nothing to do with cricket. I saw more than a few kids get through with fundamentally very flawed techniques. And get through at the expense of kids who looked much sounder and better batsmen. But obviously who played for the wrong club, didn't know the right person, wasn;t the son or brother of someone etc. And here I was thinking cricket might just havd cleaned up it's act a trifle. pfffttt

And that situation above highlights two things: how true talent mightn't get the coaching and oppotunities they should get at junior level because of this system in place. (One of the junior comps in Melbourne has just had a huge revamp of their rep trials for this very reason.) But it also highlighted to me that while cricket is booming, and clubs do a mighty job, kids don't often get that specilaised coaching they need at a formative age to develop thos solid techniques . The rep trials certainly showed that to me. You had plenty of kids with decent eyes, heavy bats and a bag-full of shots, but scan few with the really solid game-base one needs to build from. And I reckon you have to learn that stuff young, the real fundamentals, then go out on the ground and put it into practice in your teens. all the while constantly fine-tuning.

My son is 12. And he's been getting private coaching for about a year now. It's made a massive, massive difference to his game and the confidence which he goes out to bat. I was fortunate to be introduced with an old-style coach - used to coach state sides, under age squads and the like - and he maintains that if your technique isn't in place and locked down by about 16, it's a gradual process of being found out as you go through the ranks. But he lamented that at junior level, until around that age, the focus isn't on encouraging and recognising those with technique but more the ones with the eye and stats.

Interesting stuff.
 
Simon_Nesbit said:
Is he good enough with the ball when compared to a Bird/Mennie/Siddle?

I could stretch to seeing him at #7, (Nevill at #8), but only if the incoming #6 can bowl (ie Maxwell).

If the incoming player is then a compromise - then is it worth it?

Maxwell, MMarsh, Neville, (Starc, Hazlewood, Lyon) OR
#6, Neville, ?? (Starc, Hazlewood, Lyon).
Click to expand...

Sadly, I reckon it's a huge stretch to consider Maxwell as test bowler. He's barely a first class bowler.

I get all nervous when people talk of staking the middle/lower order with batsmen who can bowl, or vice versa, because you inevitably end up with a bunch of players who are not effective enough at test level at either skill. And while you have a heap of options on paper, all you end up doing is weakening the batting and bowling at the same time!

It brings back memories of when we had guys like Peter Sleep playing for Australia.
 
grizzlym said:
It's kind of like that isn't it?

Funny talking about batting earlier, my son has just gone through the whole regional rep trials. It's a massive joke, ig you ask me.

So many vested interests, club affialliations and old boy networks. IAnd of course unwritten selection criteria that had nothing to do with cricket. I saw more than a few kids get through with fundamentally very flawed techniques. And get through at the expense of kids who looked much sounder and better batsmen. But obviously who played for the wrong club, didn't know the right person, wasn;t the son or brother of someone etc. And here I was thinking cricket might just havd cleaned up it's act a trifle. pfffttt

And that situation above highlights two things: how true talent mightn't get the coaching and oppotunities they should get at junior level because of this system in place. (One of the junior comps in Melbourne has just had a huge revamp of their rep trials for this very reason.) But it also highlighted to me that while cricket is booming, and clubs do a mighty job, kids don't often get that specilaised coaching they need at a formative age to develop thos solid techniques . The rep trials certainly showed that to me. You had plenty of kids with decent eyes, heavy bats and a bag-full of shots, but scan few with the really solid game-base one needs to build from. And I reckon you have to learn that stuff young, the real fundamentals, then go out on the ground and put it into practice in your teens. all the while constantly fine-tuning.

My son is 12. And he's been getting private coaching for about a year now. It's made a massive, massive difference to his game and the confidence which he goes out to bat. I was fortunate to be introduced with an old-style coach - used to coach state sides, under age squads and the like - and he maintains that if your technique isn't in place and locked down by about 16, it's a gradual process of being found out as you go through the ranks. But he lamented that at junior level, until around that age, the focus isn't on encouraging and recognising those with technique but more the ones with the eye and stats.

Interesting stuff.
Click to expand...
Doesn't surprise me. My own experience as a young player was one of frustration. I was probably the only kid of my age who could reliably land leg breaks on a length but was lucky if I got a bowl each week and if I did it was for an over or two to rest the 'quicks'. I also went through two seasons and only went out twice and despite smashing our bowlers around at training they wouldn't bat me above 8. We also had a guy good enough to open the batting and bowling for us used as a part-time bowler and never batted higher than 6. Was basically the coach and his son (the captain) picking friends and kids whose parents helped out around the club. So after two seasons of that I quite (the other bloke changegd clubs). As an 30 year old I batted all the way up the order as high as opener and have been able to challenge grade cricketers with my leg breaks playing in a T-20 comp. not saying I would have been even good enough for even grade cricket but if kids out there have been through the same thing then I guess we Have a large opportunity cost imposed by the system which compromises our talent at electric level.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Brishawk said:
So handscomb has put his hand up with 215 against nsw. Only averages 38 but his past 10 innings are the type of form you want to see.
Click to expand...

Definitely if you take Waugh at his word. We'll see what Patterson and Maddinson do for NSW.
Reckon Dean might be a smokey to replace Burns.
 
Dean seems to be pretty much feast or famine at first class level.

I've got a funny feeling that Renshaw won't be far away.

The two young Queensland kids - Renshaw and Hazlett - are both excellent talents.

Renshaw has huge applcation and dedication. Dunno, wouldn't surprise me.

Is he test level yet? Possibly not, but I think he'd be a better selection than Burns.

He'll be in the test side sooner rather than later, I reckon.
 
Brishawk said:
You don't think Bancroft will get a go ahead of renshaw?
Click to expand...

I just have a feeling about Renshaw. Nothing rational, just a feeling.

I also reckon if Sam Whiteman continues to put it together, he won't be out of the test side for too long,

You'd think Handscomb would come in for Voges. With Smith and Handscomb, we are going to have two quite unorthodox batsmen at 4 and 5. Nothing wrong with that, just saying.

The question I have is given that Lyon is so woefully out of fowm, with most the press outlets saying he's a real chance of being dropped, who comes in?

I cannot really see any test spinning option out there. Maybe Holland. O'Keefe even. But neither is screaming 'pick me' like Lyon is yelling out 'drop me'.
 
Yeah, renshaw really impressed me last year. Not seen any domestic cricket this year or even followed it at all apart from in the past week to scour the country for test players haha

Lyon has to stay. No one else is close to as good. He is closing in on grimmet and beneau for wickets and people think he is complete shit because he isn't Shane Warne. People should probably watch okeefe bowl if they think he is the answer. I'd rather give zampa a bowl than the other two. Holland too many shoulder injuries. Never going to be what he might have been.
 
Brishawk said:
Yeah, renshaw really impressed me last year. Not seen any domestic cricket this year or even followed it at all apart from in the past week to scour the country for test players haha

Lyon has to stay. No one else is close to as good. He is closing in on grimmet and beneau for wickets and people think he is complete shit because he isn't Shane Warne. People should probably watch okeefe bowl if they think he is the answer. I'd rather give zampa a bowl than the other two. Holland too many shoulder injuries. Never going to be what he might have been.
Click to expand...

There's something about Renshaw's temprement that's impressive. Seems to have an unusual mix of patience, concentration and power too. Has a very good technique as well. It just wuldn't surprise me if they blooded him.
 
Brishawk said:
Yeah, renshaw really impressed me last year. Not seen any domestic cricket this year or even followed it at all apart from in the past week to scour the country for test players haha

Lyon has to stay. No one else is close to as good. He is closing in on grimmet and beneau for wickets and people think he is complete shit because he isn't Shane Warne. People should probably watch okeefe bowl if they think he is the answer. I'd rather give zampa a bowl than the other two. Holland too many shoulder injuries. Never going to be what he might have been.
Click to expand...

Lyon seems down on confidence to me. Just not getting into a rhythm and a plan for batsmen.

I do feel for him. He's not a big spinner of the ball. Nor does he seem capable of spinning it consistently - top spin, yes, but not so much the lateral sort. He's always relied on bounce with a bit of turn.

Can't see Zampa playing tests in the immediate fuuture. The one I watch with interest is Agar. he's very young. Debuted very young for a spinner. He might just be, in the future, at least, a very good all-rounder. But a long way off that now.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Brishawk said:
Not sure on agar. Averages 26 with the bat and 40 with the ball. If the numbers were the other way he would be a star :)
Click to expand...

Agar is quite young. I think both is batting and bowling will develop given a little more time. Not sure if he'll end up test stabdard, or regularly that, but I think he has the raw attributes to be a very good player.
 
Brishawk said:
Anyone know why berendorf isn't being considered for a test spot? Please don't tell me it's his batting! Averages 25 with the ball and is 26 which is the perfect age range for a quick.
Click to expand...

I been wondering the same for a while now. Last season, I thought he was a standout of the shield bowlers. The only thing that I can think of is that the selectors have a bias against having two tall left handers in the team.
 
Langford4FBOTC said:
I been wondering the same for a while now. Last season, I thought he was a standout of the shield bowlers. The only thing that I can think of is that the selectors have a bias against having two tall left handers in the team.
Click to expand...
Yes I can see the dilemma. Have two wicket takers goes against the selectors Starc and friends approach :)
 
Brishawk said:
Yes I can see the dilemma. Have two wicket takers goes against the selectors Starc and friends approach :)
Click to expand...

Ha, yes. It's such a potent strategy. It could also be part of his load management.
 
Brishawk said:
I read Alan boarder wants him in the side. But Clarke doesn't want to make wholesale changes....like dropping mennie for berendorf would be a vast loss of experience lol
Click to expand...

Clarke?

By the sound of Smith's presser in Tasmania he wants the side to be gutted.

I susoect that it might also include his coach too.
 
grizzlym said:
Clarke?

By the sound of Smith's presser in Tasmania he wants the side to be gutted.

I susoect that it might also include his coach too.
Click to expand...
Ouch! I agree with gutting the side but I think we need to retain Lehman. I think most of our issues are selection and attitude. Maybe Lehman has more impact early and his influence is wearing thin but I think he has always been a good thinker and he showed ability to unite the players before. If you bring in new players his message will be a new one anyway so I'm inclined to retain him now.

Edit: yeah Clarke was arguing that big changes won't get the team anywhere. Alan boarder had only a few specifics changes anyway but the article frames them as having completely divergent opinions.
 
Brishawk said:
Ouch! I agree with gutting the side but I think we need to retain Lehman. I think most of our issues are selection and attitude. Maybe Lehman has more impact early and his influence is wearing thin but I think he has always been a good thinker and he showed ability to unite the players before. If you bring in new players his message will be a new one anyway so I'm inclined to retain him now.

Edit: yeah Clarke was arguing that big changes won't get the team anywhere. Alan boarder had only a few specifics changes anyway but the article frames them as having completely divergent opinions.
Click to expand...

I get the feeling the coach is in control not the captain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Good batting changes for mine. I ike the look of Renshaw. Maddison will slot in nicely at 6.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

The Cricket Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top