Pontings captaincy

[Sanz]

How old is that quote? It's quite interesting how much the program has changed since, it used to be a whole year scholarship and now there are just two seven week blocks, plus a tour (usually to the sub-continent). Things up there are rather concerning, though - there seems to be no continuity, with staff and coaches leaving very regularly.

I guess it is inevitable that the Academy gets a bit more credit than it really deserves, as many of those players would have ended up playing for Australia even if they hadn't have had an Academy. But I think the ideal of the academy, and creating a system/pathway for the best young cricketers has been integral to the success of the Aus team, ensuring that talent isn't missed.

http://www.sportstaronnet.com/tss2448/24480540.htm

 

[vic_orthdox]

As far as Cricket Academy is concerned, let me tell you that none of the players were picked by it and groomed. All the Academy has done is picked the top performers from the domestic cricket and allowed them to spend 6 months in the academy.

To completely dismiss the Academy as having no effect on the development of players is really ridiculous, AFAIC. Access to specialist coaching will always have some effect. And the other thing is that the players usually haven't played FC cricket, and rarely played more than 10 matches, before they are sent up to the Academy - they're not just picking the best players going around domestically.

At the moment, the Academy isn't even wholly responsible for selecting the players for the intake - they're sent up by the home cricketing association, i.e. Cricket Victoria nominates the four players it would like to be taken up there, Cricket NSW does the same, etc.

Incase you didn't know Players like Warne & Slater were dismissed from the academy because of poor conduct and later claimed as Academy product.

Relevance?

The whole idea of the Academy is to provide an environment where players are readied for FC, and hopefully, International Cricket, but it is still up to the players to maximise the improvement they gain from that environment.

I have heard that before, but am not sure of how long they spent at the Academy before they were "sent home". In the end, investment was made in these players by the Academy, and no doubt the players still took something out of this - I'm pretty sure that it was the Academy where Warne met his mentor, Terry Jenner.

As for Border threatening to quit the captaincy, well I dont know if he did it many times, but I am just aware of one time when he threatened to quit after poor performance of his players and It doesn't really mean much as it could have been just a tactic to fire up his players to perform well and you know what sometimes these tactics do work.

Having actually heard Greg Matthews and Wayne Phillips talk about it - who were playing in Wellington when Border threatened the players with his withdrawal, I can assure you that it was no "tactic to fire up his players" - it was a genuine threat made, and more than once.

Border was not a fantastic captain, but what he did do was stamp a hardness on his troops, and this has been carried on throughout by those who have since captained the side who played under him. Now, though, the current captain never experienced life under Border, and as a result we are seeing a different attitude filtering through, and one that is probably having a negative effect.

 

[Sanz]

I'm pretty sure that it was the Academy where Warne met his mentor, Terry Jenner.

Yes, Warne met Jenner at the cricket Academy, but that's it. It's like I meet my my mentor through a friend once and giving him all the credit to my success and not the mentor.

I do admit that I was wrong in completely denouncing the academy, but I believe that those players who are selected in the academy are already top class and most of them would have ended up playing top level cricket anyway.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I do admit that I was wrong in completely denouncing the academy, but I believe that those players who are selected in the academy are already top class and most of them would have ended up playing top level cricket anyway.

See, the question though is whether the players would have just "played top level cricket", or been the very successful top level cricketers that many of them have become since.

I'm not saying there is a definitive answer - there is none! IMO - but I think it's fair to say that it certainly does enhance the development of players, if done properly. I think it can be argued quite fairly that in the last five years, players in Australia haven't been developed properly - and since Rod Marsh went to England.... well, we're now seeing the results of his efforts in the current series.

 

[tooextracool]

Well if it doesnt change the fact, then all 3 are still in the side. Mcgrath and Warne are still bowling extremely well. .

not sure what the point is there.
pontings obviously facing a stronger side than waugh ever managed to succeed against and one of his 3 best bowlers is throwing garbage.

Williams was in excellent form at the time, and was opening the bowling ahead of Gillespie. He missed, not due to rotation policy, but due to a broken thumb. .

i somehow doubt that.
nonetheless, do you think that williams was a better bowler in his debut ODI series than gillespie? cant really see how missing a bowler whos played 1 ODI in his entire career can be considered much of a loss, especially if you get someone of the quality of jason gillespie to replace him. and even in the game in which brad williams did play in, Australia lost.

You said yourself, that the SA team, is not half the team it was before. Especially at the time that punter took the team there after the VB series.

nope the SA team that played in the VB series was almost identical to the team that played australia in SA.

 

[tooextracool]

being considered the best, if not second best side ever (only second to the invicibles), a world record winning streak in test matches, are just a few feathers in waugh's cap..

yes but being considered the 2nd best test side ever is different from actually proving to be the 2nd best test side in the world. waughs team never beat quality opposition. they had the side capable of doing it, but it never happened. pontings side on the other hand made it happen, not once but twice.

And i've said before, the SL series should not count, as it was rained out and it was ONE test match. ..

well in a 3 match series losing the first match is more often than not prone to disaster anyways. waughs side had plenty of failures actually other than the SL series. they lost the border-gavaskar trophy and then were unable to regain it at home. and they so nearly lost to NZ at home.
i find it extremely strange despite all those failures, the moment ponting has one bad series against a quality test side(and even that series is not finished), people forget about all the successes his side has achieved under his reign.

No, i think anyone could captain a one day side. Yes, tactics are involved, and you need some nous etc. but it's not all that much imo.

thats arguable, for me the way in which this australian ODI has played in this last few years has been staggering. under waughs reign, it always was, any ODI side can beat the other on its day. until the recent ODI series in england most people were saying 'bar australia and bangladesh, any side can beat the other on its day'.

 

[tooextracool]

it was a tongue in cheek comment, hence i put the :P after..

i forgot to put in one of those you see

you'll find, that After Lara's great innings, that Australia had alot to do, to actually win the game. They could have played for the draw, but they went for the win. This was due to waugh's "win at all costs" attitude. This time, it obviously didn't work, as they went on to lose the match, but at least it gave a result, and they played positive.

not sure what the 'at least it gave a result' is supposed to mean. under waughs captaincy ,the side completely forgot about draws. if they needed 6 runs an over to win a game on the last day chasing about 400 they would have gone against all sanity and tried to do it. it cost them at Eden gardens in 2001.
as far as the 2nd test match of the WI series is concerned, Lara may have produced a master class, but you'd have to say that if australia didnt screw up with the bat not once but twice, the result might have been something different.

agree, that the SA side from 96ish, was alot better, than the side of 01/02, but the 01/02 was still quiet good.

no i dont think so at all. the 01/02 side didnt really have a real quality bowler. it was relying on has-beens(donald, kallis and pollock). the batting had gibbs(who couldnt really play warne), kirsten and kallis, and then got very thin. if you ask me, id say that even the current SA test side is better than the one that australia played back then.