Hussey's average - How long do we have to wait?.......

[FaaipDeOiad]

I disagree- like i said, Ponting did nothing different than the Dravids, Laras, Richards of the world- extremely talented people who were not prodigal talents. And yes, it takes a couple of years to break into FC games. But if Henriques was doing the same thing in grade cricket at age 13, he would've made FC debut by 15. Thats the whole point you miss - Tendulkar was not just lighting up the scene - he was doing it consistently at levels that were 4-5 years his senior from the age of 10. Yes, the OZ system is harder for younger players, but history shows - prodigal talents almost always get fast-tracked and the diffrence between one place or another is a year or two at most. And if Tendulkar was an Aussie, he too would've debuted in 1989/1990- like i said, the 4th best middle order batsman wasnt exactly doing pulling good enough numbers to keep a prodigal talent averaging 50+ in FC cricket out of the team. You are missing the point by calling Ponting a prodigal talent, when infact, the progidal talent of the last 20-30 years is Tendulkar- no one comes close to him in that department. Ponting's junior level feats are no more spectacular than the ones accomplished by lara, dravid, viv, greg chappell etc. But Tendulkar- his feats were extraordinary.

How does history show this? There are no examples of the sort of thing you are talking about in Australia or England because the system ensures that there will not be. Unless you're attempting to argue that Australia and England don't have prodigal players, it simply doesn't hold water. Tendulkar, Afridi, Raza, Waqar... hell, even Partiv Patel and Chawla. These guys debuted at extremely young ages because the system was set up in such a way that they were allowed to do so. Guys like Ponting who shatter all the youth cricket records in their region get sent to the academy and play in youth teams, they don't play test cricket. And yes, it doesn't matter how good they are.

 

[C_C]

How does history show this? There are no examples of the sort of thing you are talking about in Australia or England because the system ensures that there will not be. Unless you're attempting to argue that Australia and England don't have prodigal players, it simply doesn't hold water. Tendulkar, Afridi, Raza, Waqar... hell, even Partiv Patel and Chawla. These guys debuted at extremely young ages because the system was set up in such a way that they were allowed to do so. Guys like Ponting who shatter all the youth cricket records in their region get sent to the academy and play in youth teams, they don't play test cricket. And yes, it doesn't matter how good they are.

Because almost all prodigal talents have gotten breaks very very early ?
Bradman got his break real young by those day's standards.
And yes, prodigal talents are extremely rare - you find a handful, if that, in the entire world at any given time, let alone in just one profession.
Guys like Ponting dont qualify as prodigal talents- simply because they've done nothing extraordinary in their youth compared to heavyweights like Lara, Dravid, Viv, Chappell, etc.
Waqar made his debut when he was 19 i believe- there are several players who debuted around the age of 18 or 19. Besides, regardless of what Afridi(who IMO was a prodigal talent not nurtured) or Raza ( played solely to secure the 'youngest player ever' record) or Chawla/Patel did, it doesnt detract from the prodigal talents of Tendulkar or Sobers or Bradman. Actually apart from these three, i dont think there are any cricketers who would even qualify as prodigal talents.

And you keep missing the point - regardless of what the system was, Tendulkar would've played for any nation in the late 80s. There simply wasnt 4 middle order batsmen doing awesome in any team at that time and a player averaging 50+ in FC cricket at age 15 would've got his break at most a year later than Tendulkar did.

 

[luckyeddie]

I think the word you are looking for is 'prodigious', people, derived from 'prodigium' - an omen.

'Prodigal' derives from 'prodigere' - to drive away.

 

[social]

Because almost all prodigal talents have gotten breaks very very early ?
Bradman got his break real young by those day's standards.
And yes, prodigal talents are extremely rare - you find a handful, if that, in the entire world at any given time, let alone in just one profession.
Guys like Ponting dont qualify as prodigal talents- simply because they've done nothing extraordinary in their youth compared to heavyweights like Lara, Dravid, Viv, Chappell, etc.
Waqar made his debut when he was 19 i believe- there are several players who debuted around the age of 18 or 19. Besides, regardless of what Afridi(who IMO was a prodigal talent not nurtured) or Raza ( played solely to secure the 'youngest player ever' record) or Chawla/Patel did, it doesnt detract from the prodigal talents of Tendulkar or Sobers or Bradman. Actually apart from these three, i dont think there are any cricketers who would even qualify as prodigal talents.

And you keep missing the point - regardless of what the system was, Tendulkar would've played for any nation in the late 80s. There simply wasnt 4 middle order batsmen doing awesome in any team at that time and a player averaging 50+ in FC cricket at age 15 would've got his break at most a year later than Tendulkar did.

C_C

the point you are missing is that Tendulkar would not have played for Aus because it is almost certain that he wouldnt have been selected for first class cricket at his age in the first place.

Needless to say, this would've been Aus' loss.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

I think the word you are looking for is 'prodigious', people, derived from 'prodigium' - an omen.

'Prodigal' derives from 'prodigere' - to drive away.

Summon the Pickup exorcist.

 

[luckyeddie]

Summon the Pickup exorcist.

It was just a little dig at someone who made a great issue the other day regarding his knowledge of the English language.

 

[marc71178]

And you keep missing the point - regardless of what the system was, Tendulkar would've played for any nation in the late 80s. There simply wasnt 4 middle order batsmen doing awesome in any team at that time and a player averaging 50+ in FC cricket at age 15 would've got his break at most a year later than Tendulkar did.

Because if he had been Australian and playing FC Cricket in 1988/89 he'd most definitely have averaged 50+ wouldn't he?

Call me a cynic, but bearing in mind that his average of 64.77 was beaten by 24 other batsmen in India that season but would've gained 2nd place in Australia - I don't think the average is comparable.

 

[Goughy]

And i dont personally consider Ponting to be a prodigy at all.Almost every great batsman shows brilliance for their age group and get all sorts of labels attached to them

If Ponting was not a prodigy then he was cerainly a teenage phenomenon. Whispers and reports were coming out that there was this young kid that could be the best seen in generations.

As a young man the reputation of Ponting, within cricketing circles, was global despite never playing FC cricket. He was seen as someone the like of which had not been witnessed for a long time.

The system forced him to wait until in this 20s to become a test cricketer. Just because Sachin was given a debut in under a different system at a younger age does not mean he was more talented. Im not saying he was not, but you cannot compare based on debut ages when they come from very different cricketing cultures.

Ponting was an immature and over praised player in his younger days and people were worried that he would never reached the levels expected.

Now with maturity we are witnessing what was predicted 15- 20 years ago

 

[aussie]

Guys like Ponting dont qualify as prodigal talents- simply because they've done nothing extraordinary in their youth compared to heavyweights like Lara, Dravid, Viv, Chappell, etc.

You sure about that, i have heard that Ponting did may great things in his teens.

And you keep missing the point - regardless of what the system was, Tendulkar would've played for any nation in the late 80s. There simply wasnt 4 middle order batsmen doing awesome in any team at that time and a player averaging 50+ in FC cricket at age 15 would've got his break at most a year later than Tendulkar did.

Thats the thing i may not be an expert but looking at Australia's system, i dont think if Tendulkar was an Australian in the late 80s he would have played. I strongly believe initially he would have been sent to the academy then given a chance to play in his early 20s.

 

[Autobahn]

Maybe not late 80's but Dirk Wellham was averaging 50+ in the FC season in 1980-81 and got his debut in the 1981 ashes (after only playing 5 FC games compared to Tendulkar's 11) and he's was 22 at the time.

And if they going to play a guy with little FC experience and he's already 22 i doubt they would go with anyone younger no matter how good they were.

 

[C_C]

If Ponting was not a prodigy then he was cerainly a teenage phenomenon. Whispers and reports were coming out that there was this young kid that could be the best seen in generations.

He was definately a high-flying teen, but as i said- compare his teen achievements with those of Lara, Dravid, Viv, etc - it doesnt stand out in 'spectacular' category as Tendulkar's does.

Thats the thing i may not be an expert but looking at Australia's system, i dont think if Tendulkar was an Australian in the late 80s he would have played. I strongly believe initially he would have been sent to the academy then given a chance to play in his early 20s.

I dont think so. Like i said, Tendulkar didnt get fast-tracked. He perinally achieved far more than people his age or even 3-4 years older since he was 10-11 years old. People like that end up being 2-3 years ahead of the pack throughout the juniors.

 

[aussie]

He was definately a high-flying teen, but as i said- compare his teen achievements with those of Lara, Dravid, Viv, etc - it doesnt stand out in 'spectacular' category as Tendulkar's does.

I'd know about Lara & Tendulkar, but what did Dravid do so spectaculary better than Ponting?

I dont think so. Like i said, Tendulkar didnt get fast-tracked. He perinally achieved far more than people his age or even 3-4 years older since he was 10-11 years old. People like that end up being 2-3 years ahead of the pack throughout the juniors.

Fair enough then.

 

[C_C]

I'd know about Lara & Tendulkar, but what did Dravid do so spectaculary better than Ponting?

Nothing.
Lara, Dravid, Ponting, Greg Chappell, Graeme Pollock, Viv,etc. were all excellent talents at the teenage levels.They all did awesome and none of them did 'much better' than the others in this group. Many great batsmen show a lotta talent and play excellently in their juniors like what Ponting did. Tendulkar on the other hand was prodigious. He was way way above the curve in his youth.

 

[honestbharani]

Oh you can be sure that Gavaskar, Harvey, Walters and Worrell in the early stages of their careere looked like supermen.. They did by all accounts.

I am not sure Hussey is in the same bracket as these four.

Didn't get to see them. That is why I qualified my statement with "those in that list that I have seen".. I think he looks a better player than Adams, SAmaraweera and the like.

 

[GotSpin]

If Ponting was not a prodigy then he was cerainly a teenage phenomenon. Whispers and reports were coming out that there was this young kid that could be the best seen in generations.

As a young man the reputation of Ponting, within cricketing circles, was global despite never playing FC cricket. He was seen as someone the like of which had not been witnessed for a long time.

He had a sponser at the age of 14.

 

[Matt79]

I personally don't think "being a prodigy" is under-rated at all. Being a prodigy does not equate to greatness. Some prodigies go on to achieve greatness, but equally history is replete with prodigies in all fields of endeavour who fail to translate the talent they manifested at an early age into achievement. Tendaulkar is a great not because he demonstrated the talent to test cricket well at a comparitively early age, but because he used that talent, and coupled it with focus, commitment, etc etc. Hence its not how early somebody manifests a talent, ie whether they're a prodigy that matters, its what anyone does with that talent that counts.

 

[C_C]

endaulkar is a great not because he demonstrated the talent to test cricket well at a comparitively early age, but because he used that talent, and coupled it with focus, commitment, etc etc. Hence its not how early somebody manifests a talent, ie whether they're a prodigy that matters, its what anyone does with that talent that counts.

Traditionally, prodigies + success ( Mozart, Sara Chang, Gauss,etc.) = extremely high rating in most fields.

 

[Matt79]

And most really good players have stories about their phenomenal achievements as juniors. Michael Slater's talents led to a rule change where he could retire when he got to 50 and then return as last man in so his team mates could have a chance to bat. He went the best part of on of his junior seasons undismissed. Both Steve and Mark Waugh played under-16s when they were 12/13 (I'm pretty sure). Garry Sobers was a star at around five different sports at once as a kid. As much as anything its the selection philosophy of country their in (ie do they take punts on youngsters or prefer mature players), the strength of their FC competition, and the strength of the Test team that influences when such player's debut. For Ponting to have broken into the team as a 16 year old, he would have had to displace someone like Dean Jones, Allan Border, Steve or Mark Waugh, Justin Langer or David Boon. He would have had to displace one of those players ahead of people like Damien Martyn, Darren Lehmann, or Jamie Siddons, who were also great (if not quite as great) talents but also extremely success, established FC players. Had Ponting been 16 in 1985 he may well have ended up playing for Australia, but by the mid-90s, players who had been averaging 50+ for years in FC cricket couldn't get a game.

 

[Matt79]

I could come up with many more examples of child prodigies who weren't successes, but you won't have heard of any of them because in the end, despite their talent, they did nothing of note.

 

[luckyeddie]

He had a sponser at the age of 14.

Even I have had a sponsor