Lost Generation?

[GuyFromLancs]

Read an excellent article in the Daily Telegraph by Michael Holding today - in it he mentions something that occured to me a few week ago. Bearing in mind I don't follow Austrlaian cricket as devotedly as some, it struck me that Australia have a legion of youngsters who aren't actually very young at all.

For some reasons, probably a combination of inexperience, inconsistency, technical issues, and whatever else, I think of Watson, Tait, Johnson, Hilf, and couple of others off the top of my head as kids who in 5 years will rule the cricketing world. Except they are clearly not. They are all, more or less pushing 30. Not much younger than Ponting, Hayden, Langer et al were 5 short summers ago when we reclaimed the Ashes after 16 years.

The difference being that the latter by this time were proven world-beaters, giants in status and deed. The current lot, Clarke included despite his exposure to test cricket, still seem and have the aura of talented kids.

Have they been held back by superlative elders, or are they simply not good enough to rule the world?

The worrying thing for Australian cricket IMO is that they need a new generation beyond this new generation and pretty quickly.

[Spark]

Simply not good enough IMO.

[Howe_zat]

Don't forget that Watson and Tait had a great deal of injury issues holding back their earlier careers. Mostly they just don't compare to the previous generation.

[Eds]

The new generation after The Golden Australian Generation was always, always going to be worse. Many, many selectors, let a lone the torrid Australian ones, are going to be too fixated on the short term, and find it tough to integrate youth into the team. The Golden Generation were always going to play into their 30s and with the next lot of players only being 5 or so years younger, they're going to be around 29-30 by the time they become regulars. That's surely poor for development.

[Debris]

I think Australia's problem was that they did not have a missed generation. Picking players like Katich and North who were already 30ish was never going to succeed long-term.

[Rant0r]

To be fair cricketers traditionally and even these days have played well past their mid 30's. On your basis for selection players like Hussey, Clark, Hayden, North, Harris would not have gotten a chance.

And I would hardly call Katich's selection a failure.

[Debris]

Katich's selection was neither a success or a failure really. I guess I should clarify it a bit, I would pick someone who is 30-ish if they are hugely superior to everyone else in contention for the position. And I really mean hugely. How many great cricketers were first picked for their country at 30? I can't think of many.

[Bun]

Hodge and Dussey epitomises this

[GuyFromLancs]

Originally Posted by Eds

The new generation after The Golden Australian Generation was always, always going to be worse. Many, many selectors, let a lone the torrid Australian ones, are going to be too fixated on the short term, and find it tough to integrate youth into the team. The Golden Generation were always going to play into their 30s and with the next lot of players only being 5 or so years younger, they're going to be around 29-30 by the time they become regulars. That's surely poor for development.

This is exactly the point. The golden generation had benefited from early debuts and long careers in general. But what can you do? It might have been benefical in the long run to have dropped Hayden for Watson (even though Watson isn't really an opener) 4 years ago, or Langer for Hughes etc, but anyone who suggested it would have been laughed out of town.

Thing is, the old timers then play until they are 35 + and the kids end up being in their late 20s pushing 30 before they can genuinly command a place.

Does having a golden generation mean you lose the next generation?

[GingerFurball]

At the same time, the batting depth that existed 10 years ago just isn't there. There's no guys like Stuart Law, Darren Lehmann, Michael Bevan who given their First Class records you would think would have been a success at Test level (I'm aware Bevan was a failure at Test level but I think he'd have come good if he was persevered with). There's not even a load of guys currently like Justin Langer, Matthew Hayden or Damien Martyn who all had excellent Test careers but who could potentially have had even longer, better careers. David Hussey, Chris Rogers and Brad Hodge can count themselves unlucky, but they're all about 33 - there is absolutely no-one in the 25-31 age bracket who has a stellar record and should be next in line based on performances the way someone like Michael Hussey was. I don't think that has anything to do with the Golden Generation and limited opportunities.

[Bun]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

At the same time, the batting depth that existed 10 years ago just isn't there. There's no guys like Stuart Law, Darren Lehmann, Michael Bevan who given their First Class records you would think would have been a success at Test level (I'm aware Bevan was a failure at Test level but I think he'd have come good if he was persevered with). There's not even a load of guys currently like Justin Langer, Matthew Hayden or Damien Martyn who all had excellent Test careers but who could potentially have had even longer, better careers. David Hussey, Chris Rogers and Brad Hodge can count themselves unlucky, but they're all about 33 - there is absolutely no-one in the 25-31 age bracket who has a stellar record and should be next in line based on performances the way someone like Michael Hussey was. I don't think that has anything to do with the Golden Generation and limited opportunities.

Maybe it is. As the so called 30-35 year olds who couldn't progress to the National sides, clogged the domestic sides. Hence when Australia were at their peak, their domestic competition was also imho the best in the world. Some state sides could challenge and easily beat even the lower ranked sides back then.

[Woodster]

With the volume of cricket played nowadays, will sides be more willing to utilise their whole squad of players, and ensure they do not find themselves in this predicament when the top players call time on their careers.

So for the series against perceived lesser opposition, a handful of the more senior players are rested, if required, and exposure is given to more inexperienced players. When they then have players retiring, the incoming players will have maybe a handful or more of Tests behind them.

It is of course a difficult balancing act, It's important to win the series and in theory weakening your side is a dangerous game, but would surely have its benefits in the long run. I know sides are changed around due to injuries/loss of form, but the resting of players may become increasingly popular.

That said Australia don't play another Test series till August, so they should all be fresh and ready to go.

When England went to Bangladesh I was all for making a number of changes, there was one or two forced upon them with the decision made by Strauss to miss the tour, but I would have made one or two more changes.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Woodster

With the volume of cricket played nowadays, will sides be more willing to utilise their whole squad of players, and ensure they do not find themselves in this predicament when the top players call time on their careers.

So for the series against perceived lesser opposition, a handful of the more senior players are rested, if required, and exposure is given to more inexperienced players. When they then have players retiring, the incoming players will have maybe a handful or more of Tests behind them.

It is of course a difficult balancing act, It's important to win the series and in theory weakening your side is a dangerous game, but would surely have its benefits in the long run. I know sides are changed around due to injuries/loss of form, but the resting of players may become increasingly popular.

That said Australia don't play another Test series till August, so they should all be fresh and ready to go.

When England went to Bangladesh I was all for making a number of changes, there was one or two forced upon them with the decision made by Strauss to miss the tour, but I would have made one or two more changes.

To be fair we debuted Finn, Carberry and Tredwell and gave 2 games to Bresnan, a veteran of 2 Tests, as well as Ali Cook making his captaincy debut. Trott had only played 5 Tests up until that point. That's plenty of changes that have reaped benefits without overly weakening the side.

[Woodster]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

To be fair we debuted Finn, Carberry and Tredwell and gave 2 games to Bresnan, a veteran of 2 Tests, as well as Ali Cook making his captaincy debut. Trott had only played 5 Tests up until that point. That's plenty of changes that have reaped benefits without overly weakening the side.

There wasn't too many changes for the opening Test. Yes Carberry and Finn debuted, and Bresnan got another cap, but as I said I would have made one or two more changes, rightly or wrongly, that's how I felt at the time.

[Mister Wright]

During Australia's reign in the mid 90s-early 2000s there were batsmen all round the country that were scoring a mountain of runs, because they grew up in an era where that is what you needed to do to get into the side, so they had the desire to pile on runs, season after season. However, the players that have played domestic cricket the last 10-15 years knew no matter what they did domestically they had little chance of making the test team.

The guys in the test team were either making huge scores or had enough 'selector currency' that if they had a form slump they could get carried by the others in the team because they were winning. And the philosophy was, 'why change a winning team?'

Over the next 7-10 years we'll see some young players come through that know to get into the Aussie team they will need to churn out the runs or wickets season after season.

It was posted before, and I think that person is right. The current crop aren't just good enough. I mean, look at Hilfenhaus' continual selection, but who else is there? That's the problem.