This could sound controversial but...

[Craig]

With Australia's team getting older, and whilst they are performing admiraly and nor could you fault them for it, after the Ashes and there isn't a few retirements (at this stage it is buckley's and none), do you think that the Australian selectors might to have make a tough call and face load of critism from the media, here, your average punter at work, at the bar, or on the street (ie Steve Waugh from the ODI team), look to end the careers of some of the older player's and bring in some younger players so they don't at one point all have a mass exodus of players and be found wanting (like what happened to the West Indies and Australia when Lillee, Marsh and Greg Chappell all quit at once) against other teams?

Now before I'm burned at the stake, I'm not suggesting McGrath, Warne, Ponting or Gilchrist (although you never know if he becomes Flintoff''s prag [more or less a b***h] again this summer) be given the axe nor I'm saying it should happen in one big foul swoop, but a gradial thing. Like what they did to the Waugh's etc. Australia's cuurent crop of player's can't last forever and it would be a good time to eventually to test out their depth and look to rebuild.

I'm thinking it could end up happening to Martyn or one of the openers first.

Bear in mind I'm not calling that it should happen, but I'm trying to think outside the box and see other people's opinion/s.

 

[Son Of Coco]

With Australia's team getting older, and whilst they are performing admiraly and nor could you fault them for it, after the Ashes and there isn't a few retirements (at this stage it is buckley's and none), do you think that the Australian selectors might to have make a tough call and face load of critism from the media, here, your average punter at work, at the bar, or on the street (ie Steve Waugh from the ODI team), look to end the careers of some of the older player's and bring in some younger players so they don't at one point all have a mass exodus of players and be found wanting (like what happened to the West Indies and Australia when Lillee, Marsh and Greg Chappell all quit at once) against other teams?

Now before I'm burned at the stake, I'm not suggesting McGrath, Warne, Ponting or Gilchrist (although you never know if he becomes Flintoff''s prag [more or less a b***h] again this summer) be given the axe nor I'm saying it should happen in one big foul swoop, but a gradial thing. Like what they did to the Waugh's etc. Australia's cuurent crop of player's can't last forever and it would be a good time to eventually to test out their depth and look to rebuild.

I'm thinking it could end up happening to Martyn or one of the openers first.

Bear in mind I'm not calling that it should happen, but I'm trying to think outside the box and see other people's opinion/s.

That's controversial!

 

[Nate]

Craigos should be burnt at the stake IMO.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

[more or less a b***h]

There's a filter for a reason, thanks. Bitch is not in it though.

 

[Matt79]

Please use the street sanctioned alternative beaatch.

 

[Josh]

Yeh, I agree that Martyn would probably be the first to go if that were to happen, but at the rate which the current team is succeeding; I really can't see it happening.

 

[Dravid]

What's amazing about Australia is if all the senior players to be dropped, or retire today, the young players would still own the rest of the world I think.

 

[silentstriker]

If they are performing, you'd be absolutely insane to drop them.

You're the best team in the world, and that by a huge long shot....BUT THATS NOT GOOD ENOUGH DAMN IT!

 

[Nishant]

Tye team is successful! Why drop any players? But i could see one of the openers getting the axe first!

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

What's amazing about Australia is if all the senior players to be dropped, or retire today, the young players would still own the rest of the world I think.

Disagree. The gap would be significantly smaller.

Considering that neither Warne nor MacGill are young, the next candidate for the spin position would be a damn sight worse than the incumbent. Also Ponting is so far superior to Clarke as a batsman, it's hardly funny. Hussey is also a massive superior player to young Australia. Mitchell Johnson and Shaun Tait are largely unproven and Stuart Clark is not young.

England could retain the Ashes against young Australia.

 

[silentstriker]

England could retain the Ashes against young Australia.

Nah, they have Harmison.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

If they are performing, you'd be absolutely insane to drop them.

You're the best team in the world, and that by a huge long shot....BUT THATS NOT GOOD ENOUGH DAMN IT!

The West Indies were the best team in the world. Then all the great players retired within a short span of time. Haven't come close to recovering yet.

 

[silentstriker]

The West Indies were the best team in the world. Then all the great players retired within a short span of time. Haven't come close to recovering yet.

But if the talent wasn't there to replace them when they retired, was it really there two years earlier?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Nah, they have Harmison.

Tongue in cheek aside, Harmison is more proven at international level than Johnson and Tait. It's not fair to say that either Johnson or Tait is a better Test bowler than Harmison in that light.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

But if the talent wasn't there to replace them when they retired, was it really there two years earlier?

You're saying that there's a lack of talent in the West Indies? Are you serious? If West Indies cricket has anything, it's talent. It's the reason there have been moderately successful players despite a terrible domestic system. The problem is that the talent wasn't allowed to develop.

These players were thrust into international cricket and forced to carry the team when they really weren't anywhere near ready to do so. Dillon, for example, may have been so much better had he been privileged with the opportunity to share the new ball with Walsh or Ambrose more often.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Worth noting that Australia does have a much better grassroots system in place and therefore will likely not fall off as dramatically as the West Indies did, but there will more than likely still be a downfall of sorts. You can't just thrust an inexperienced team into international cricket and expect the players to dominate immediately. No matter how talented the players are, it simply does not work that way.

 

[silentstriker]

You're saying that there's a lack of talent in the West Indies? Are you serious? If West Indies cricket has anything, it's talent. It's the reason there have been moderately successful players despite a terrible domestic system. The problem is that the talent wasn't allowed to develop.

These players were thrust into international cricket and forced to carry the team when they really weren't anywhere near ready to do so. Dillon, for example, may have been so much better had he been privileged with the opportunity to share the new ball with Walsh or Ambrose more often.

Well if its not an issue of talent, and WI became hugely dominant for a long time despite the domestic system, why did that not continue?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Well if its not an issue of talent, and WI became hugely dominant for a long time despite the domestic system, why did that not continue?

Did you not read my post at all, bar the first couple of lines?

I stated that there was an exodus of experienced and great players and suddenly it was a young and inexperienced team forced to carry on the legacy. Sound familiar?

 

[silentstriker]

Worth noting that Australia does have a much better grassroots system in place and therefore will likely not fall off as dramatically as the West Indies did, but there will more than likely still be a downfall of sorts. You can't just thrust an inexperienced team into international cricket and expect the players to dominate immediately. No matter how talented the players are, it simply does not work that way.

Oh, I think there will definatley be a downfall. I'm just saying it wouldn't be appropriate to drop someone who just averaged 80 in the last year or something.

Your test team should not be a place to 'develop' the talent. They should already be fairly good by the time they reach you, in terms of experience and development.

 

[silentstriker]

Did you not read my post at all, bar the first couple of lines?

I stated that there was an exodus of experienced and great players and suddenly it was a young and inexperienced team forced to carry on the legacy. Sound familiar?

OK, fair enough. But was there really? I mean even after most of the stall warts of the 80's left, you still had Ambrose/Walsh/Lara up until this century almost where there was plenty of time for others to develop...who has?

Actually, I agree with you. There definately will be a downfall when they retire. Its probably inevitable. But the question is will it be much better if the older players are axed while still performing?