• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

When is someone ready...?

When is someone ready for Test match cricket

  • As soon as talent is spotted?

    Votes: 2 5.9%
  • 10 FC games?

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 50 FC games?

    Votes: 4 11.8%
  • 75 FC games?

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Depends entirely on quality of player?

    Votes: 27 79.4%
  • Must prove themselves in ODIs?

    Votes: 1 2.9%

  • Total voters
    34

Manee

Cricketer Of The Year
...for test match cricket?

Reading this post in the India Vs Bangladesh Thread:
I love how a guy who has played all of six First Class matches is deemed ready enough to play Test cricket.8-)
I got wondering on what your views are as to the right time in which a player has proved himself enough to play test match cricket.

Is Ishant Sharma ready to play Test cricket with 29 FC wickets in 6 games and 18 wickets in 8 List A games?

Is Joginder Sharma ready with 39 FC matches and 184 wickets from them?

Are you of the view that one should prove themselves in ODIs, and are you of the logical point of view that batsman need to prove themselves for a different time than bowlers?
 

NZTailender

I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Hmm, there's obiously something to be said for getting plenty of experience under your belt in FC before making the step up. It's changed somewhat from the past where great players like McGrath, Warne and Slater didn't play as many games like Hussey, Clark or Hodge.
 

adharcric

International Coach
In terms of the poll, 50 FC games. Really, quality A tours are just as important an indicator. Perhaps 3 full domestic seasons? Nevertheless, I don't have a huge problem with Ishant Sharma getting some exposure against Bangladesh as long as the selectors won't forget about him if he doesn't fire. SS, on the other hand, would disagree ...
 

Manee

Cricketer Of The Year
In terms of the poll, 50 FC games. Really, quality A tours are just as important an indicator. Perhaps 3 full domestic seasons? Nevertheless, I don't have a huge problem with Ishant Sharma getting some exposure against Bangladesh as long as the selectors won't forget about him if he doesn't fire. SS, on the other hand, would disagree ...
Could somebody please add the option: "Must prove themselves in A team cricket?"

Thanks.
 

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Call it as you see it IMO. Some players are ready earlier than others.
 

Manee

Cricketer Of The Year
Call it as you see it IMO. Some players are ready earlier than others.
But when do you think is absolutely too early and when is the minimum time for a player to have proved themselves in.
 

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
But when do you think is absolutely too early and when is the minimum time for a player to have proved themselves in.
I'd say 50 First Class games would be enough to judge whether a player is good enough to make it, but like I said earlier, you can't always put a number on these kind of things.
 

Manee

Cricketer Of The Year
The fact that people have selected "Depends entirely on the quality of the player" surprises me since I think at least 10 FC games are needed to judge someone.
 

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
You can have a situation where a young player absolutely tears fc apart right from the start and it's folly not to pick him purely on the basis of age/lack of experience.

Tehdulkar, who is obviously not the norm, was a ready made test player in his teens.

Others dont look like they have the quality and it's only via years of performances/process of elimination of contenders that they get a go e.g. Stuart Clark

Still others display talent but take time to mature or work out their game in fc before they perform consistently e.g. Brad Hodge and Hussey

So, in summary, there is no hard and fast rule
 

Manee

Cricketer Of The Year
You can have a situation where a young player absolutely tears fc apart right from the start and it's folly not to pick him purely on the basis of age/lack of experience.

Tehdulkar, who is obviously not the norm, was a ready made test player in his teens.

Others dont look like they have the quality and it's only via years of performances/process of elimination of contenders that they get a go e.g. Stuart Clark

Still others display talent but take time to mature or work out their game in fc before they perform consistently e.g. Brad Hodge and Hussey

So, in summary, there is no hard and fast rule
Yes, but how many first class games do you think it takes to put someone in the picture for a call up?
 

Flem274*

123/5
Yes, but how many first class games do you think it takes to put someone in the picture for a call up?
It can be any. It really depends on their mental strength and what they do. Daniel Vettori played his first test at 18. He was mentally ready, but he was not yet fully grown. being a bowler in international cricket he would naturally get alot of overs to bowl of course, but he was not ready physically for test cricket. I would not select a bowler before they are fully grown otherwise there will be problems. With batsmen physical growth isnt as important, it's just thier mental readiness. If they are mentally ready (and physically ready with bowlers) and they have proven themselves to be consistently good in FC for at least three seasons then they deserve a go.
 

Craig

World Traveller
At least two seasons for me. If they come out and do well first up, then an I wouldn't have a problem with an 'A' team tour or match against a touring team. If they go well in their second year, then I don't see why not in picking them for ODI cricket (if they are suited towards it) or taking them on a tour to gain experience (not actually playing Tests, things like tour matches, etc.). But if they are a genius in the making with either the bat, ball (maybe both?) or with the gloves, then why not ift he potential is clearly there?
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
I don't really care if a player had played 1 FC match or 5000. Also, don't care what age a player is. If you are ready, you are ready. Wasim Akram is a classic example. Didn't play too many FC games before he played versus New Zealand did he? If a cricket talent assesser feels a player is ready, he should be playing test cricket rather than wasting his time in the domestic level.
 

Poker Boy

State Vice-Captain
It depends on the player really -some come into Test cricket at a young age (Neil Harvey, David Gower, Ian Botham, Tendulkar Ricky Ponting) and succed at once, and some are late developers. Personally I'd pick them young and see how they do - the advantage of this is even if they fail they will know what is required and if they are willing to do the hard work they can go to domestic cricket and work on their weaknesses. Hayden, Langer and Martyn are three Australian examples. All picked for Test cricket in early 20s, none of them did well at once but went back to domestic cricket knowing what was required and came back to Test cricket in later years better for their experience (I'd use Gooch as the classic example of that approach)
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Pretty well all Australian batsmen of the last 15 years have been in that boat, really, Mark Waugh and Adam Gilchrist being the exceptions.

As to the question - it's very much a case-by-case thing really. The one thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is a case of "if there are places". If you've got 3 players demanding to be dropped from the Test side and a guy who's had 1 season at the domestic level (while there are no other obvious candidates) it's a fairly tricky one. It's never ideal in my mind to pick a guy on one good season, but if your other options are people with no good seasons it's hard to turn it down.

Purely and simply, those who succeed in international cricket at a "young" age (say below 22) are rare, and trying your luck on that front is something that should be avoided where possible IMO. And of course it's always best to get a few games for your "A" side if at all possible.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
I don't really care if a player had played 1 FC match or 5000. Also, don't care what age a player is. If you are ready, you are ready. Wasim Akram is a classic example. Didn't play too many FC games before he played versus New Zealand did he? If a cricket talent assesser feels a player is ready, he should be playing test cricket rather than wasting his time in the domestic level.
The problem is always, how do you know a player is ready?

More often than not they selectors get it wrong when looking at young and inexperienced players.

Take the list of the Test debutants before 19yrs old.
http://rsa.cricinfo.com/db/STATS/TESTS/INDIVIDUAL/TESTS_YOUNGEST_PLAYERS.html
There are obviously a number of superstars on that list (Sobers, Tendulkar, Wasim, Waqar etc) but the list is dominated by players (even when excluding the players from Bangladesh) that had busted careers, poor careers or short careers.

Given that young debutants would be expected to be a bit special and have a rare talent the success rate in selection of these supposed gifted ones is terrible.

Take those that debuted at under 19 years in the 1990s (recent enough to be relevant, long enough ago for a career to evolve).

4 have had decent to good careers (Harbhajan Singh 57 tests, Daniel Vettori 73 tests, Saqlain Mushtaq 49 tests, and Paul Adams 45 tests)

Nuwan Zoysa falls somewhere in the middle with 30 tests and a bowling average of 33.70

The rest have been pretty disappointing. Shahid Nazir 15 tests, Saleem Elahi 13 tests, Shadab Kabir 5 tests, Henry Olonga 30 tests but a bowling average of 38.52, Irfan Fazil 1 test, Imran Nazir 8 tests, Zahid Fazal 9 tests, and Hasan Raza 7 tests.

Guys are certainly getting picked when they are too young. And by that I mean that they are getting selected before their ability can be properly assessed. Thats the problem.

Clearly getting picked young makes you special as you are a mere pup against men but it doesnt mean a player is a special cricketer.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
The problem is always, how do you know a player is ready?

More often than not they selectors get it wrong when looking at young and inexperienced players.

Take the list of the Test debutants before 19yrs old.
http://rsa.cricinfo.com/db/STATS/TESTS/INDIVIDUAL/TESTS_YOUNGEST_PLAYERS.html
Most of the players you see on the list are subcontinent players. It is a common known fact that subcontinent selectors select players too early. So I wouldn't use that to illustrate my point. The subcontinent selectors rush players in just as say the English have traditionally left it till too late at times. Then, there are players who demand selection or or you know they are special enough if you are a good adjudicator even when they have not played much (Wasim Akram, Inzamam ul Haq). Tendulkar for instance barged into the Indian test team. Then there is an example of some one like Brian Lara. Sobers insisted Lara be picked but he was picked a good two years later.

If you think the player is ready, and you know your job, back yourself and pick the player you feel can do the job for you.
 

Flem274*

123/5
It's not just subcontinent players being picked too early. Some kiwi examples are Rutherford, McMillan, Parore(could have had a much longer career) and Crowe. Hayden comes to mind for Aussie.
 

Top