The true value of international experience

[Uppercut]

All I'll say is that it didn't surprise me at all that the blokes who dug us out of 4/27 were the guys with 160 and 70 Tests between them. They've seen it before, they've done it before, they won't be as unnerved by the situation by, for example, an Ed Cowan or Dave Warner.

How do you explain the NZ test, in that case?

Or the fact that Ponting and (to a lesser extent) Hussey have been famously awful at putting the brakes on Australian collapses for the past three years. Something doesn't quite add up.

Both had lbws that were out not given in the 20s too, ftr. There's nothing wrong with this- you can't recover from 24/4 without a little bit of luck somewhere along the line. But it is a bit tiresome that the narrative in sport always derives so heavily from the result when the result is so reliant on fortune.

 

[Spark]

Pretty sure Warner was on 70-odd when the collapse happened.

I mean, experience is only a small thing, and obviously form >>>>> experience but it does help.

 

[Top_Cat]

Would argue that experience played its part there too. The longer the knock went on, the more the situation would have resembled what Warner's been doing in T20 for years i.e. he was 'the man' making all the running in terms of scoring, had to look for innovative ways to score, etc.

 

[Uppercut]

Pretty sure Warner was on 70-odd when the collapse happened.

Ah come on, it was a phenomenal knock in a seriously tight run-chase. If that isn't a player performing brilliantly under pressure then nothing is.

 

[Spark]

Ah come on, it was a phenomenal knock in a seriously tight run-chase. If that isn't a player performing brilliantly under pressure then nothing is.

Where did I say it wasn't?

My point is that the situations aren't exactly comparable. He was set.

 

[Uppercut]

Would argue that experience played its part there too. The longer the knock went on, the more the situation would have resembled what Warner's been doing in T20 for years i.e. he was 'the man' making all the running in terms of scoring, had to look for innovative ways to score, etc.

Can't possibly disagree with that. Experience is what makes people good at things.

 

[Redbacks]

I think the problem is moreso that you can't express the intangible concepts you consider important in anything other than a string of meaningless clichés.

could be tacit knowledge at this stage and I agree there is no better way to refine a concept other than via critical discussion.

My two cents:

If the former Aussie greats being miked up is anything to go by it's shows they are all to some degree able to predict what will happen next to some degree. Some people think it's a kind of 'magic' but I think it's experience as the result of trail and error over many years. Cricket has a good feedback mechanism, constantly make bad predictions and you will be a poor player (ability held equal) with someone who makes good ones. What we have seen:

-Gilly hitting the 2nd of his 3 sixes, called where the next ball would be expecting a reaction to the previous by Anderson (who was too full iirc)

-Hayden last night said he's looking to play straight against this bowler then drives him for 4 down the ground next ball.

-Pidge - calls out how he will get Warner McGrath calls Warner's demise

-And finally Warne to McCullum Warne writes the script

I think there is a link here, or we have witnessed 4 guys pulling it completely out of their a*** at once.

You could give Warne's ability to a 20 year old and I don't think he could perform anywhere near the same level Warne did in the latter stages of his career. He was always thinking about how to get the guy out, during that process many bad ideas are shed over a career like fredfertang explained.

 

[Uppercut]

Where did I say it wasn't?

My point is that the situations aren't exactly comparable. He was set.

Hmm. So do you think that the more experienced batsmen in a side should tend to bat lower than the less experienced (but comparably good) guys?

 

[Furball]

Where did I say it wasn't?

My point is that the situations aren't exactly comparable. He was set.

Watson's been set in the middle of a collapse plenty of times and chucked his wicket away.

 

[Spark]

Hmm. So do you think that the more experienced batsmen in a side should tend to bat lower than the less experienced (but comparably good) guys?

I've never really thought about it this way but now that you mention it, probably. Was a big advocate for Hussey at 6, but for very different reasons. The counter to that is that you want your more experienced guys facing the newer ball if possible.

 

[Spark]

Watson's been set in the middle of a collapse plenty of times and chucked his wicket away.

I think the fact he's Shane Watson is the overriding factor there.

Wouldn't say he's especially experienced either - he's played what, 25 Tests?

 

[Uppercut]

could be tacit knowledge at this stage and I agree there is no better way to refine a concept other than via critical discussion.

My two cents:

If the former Aussie greats being miked up is anything to go by it's shows they are all to some degree able to predict what will happen next to some degree. Some people think it's a kind of 'magic' but I think it's experience as the result of trail and error over many years. Cricket has a good feedback mechanism, constantly make bad predictions and you will be a poor player (ability held equal) with someone who makes good ones. What we have seen:

-Gilly hitting the 2nd of his 3 sixes, called where the next ball would be expecting a reaction to the previous by Anderson (who was too full iirc)

-Hayden last night said he's looking to play straight against this bowler then drives him for 4 down the ground next ball.

-Pidge - calls out how he will get Warner McGrath calls Warner's demise

-And finally Warne to McCullum Warne writes the script

I think there is a link here, or we have witnessed 4 guys pulling it completely out of their a*** at once.

You could give Warne's ability to a 20 year old and I don't think he could perform anywhere near the same level Warne did in the latter stages of his career. He was always thinking about how to get the guy out, during that process many bad ideas are shed over a career like fredfertang explained.

Hmm, but those guys have been incredible cricketers for almost their entire careers. They've always had a superhuman ability to read the game. How can you tell that these incidents show the value of experience as opposed to the value of being Hayden, Warne, McGrath or Gilchrist?

 

[Top_Cat]

Can't possibly disagree with that. Experience is what makes people good at things.

Depends on what you define as experience. I don't think it's just doing the same thing over and over but internalising what's important and ditching what's not. The old 10000 hours rule isn't really saying 'do something for 10000 hours and you'll be an expert', it's saying that by doing something for 10000 hours, along the way and incidentally, you'll do what I said above. Many people won't, though.

Remember Warnie describing someone quite brilliantly a few years back as not really having 50 Tests of experience but having played the same Test 50 times or something similar.

 

[Redbacks]

Hmm, but those guys have been incredible cricketers for almost their entire careers. They've always had a superhuman ability to read the game. How can you tell that these incidents show the value of experience as opposed to the value of being Hayden, Warne, McGrath or Gilchrist?

You are right it would be difficult. Neuroscience is probably the answer. We would want to test players during their careers.

Remember Warnie describing someone quite brilliantly a few years back as not really having 50 Tests of experience but having played the same Test 50 times or something similar.

Monty Panesar.

Another good example is the man who spent a year writing down observations and then submitted it to the Royal Society only to be told it was completely useless. Useful observations are theory laden, one mans mould is Fleming's penicillin.

 

[Uppercut]

Depends on what you define as experience. I don't think it's just doing the same thing over and over but internalising what's important and ditching what's not. The old 10000 hours rule isn't really saying 'do something for 10000 hours and you'll be an expert', it's saying that by doing something for 10000 hours, along the way and incidentally, you'll do what I said above. Many people won't, though.

Remember Warnie describing someone quite brilliantly a few years back as not really having 50 Tests of experience but having played the same Test 50 times or something similar.

Yep, Monty Panesar.

I reckon it's all in the level of application. Improving at something takes time and effort, not just time. I think that those studies even mention that what they really mean is 10,000 hours of devoting your entire critical and physical capacity to getting better at it.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Depends on what you define as experience. I don't think it's just doing the same thing over and over but internalising what's important and ditching what's not. The old 10000 hours rule isn't really saying 'do something for 10000 hours and you'll be an expert', it's saying that by doing something for 10000 hours, along the way and incidentally, you'll do what I said above. Many people won't, though.

Remember Warnie describing someone quite brilliantly a few years back as not really having 50 Tests of experience but having played the same Test 50 times or something similar.

Panesar - a classic case of nail-on-head.

The guys listed above all had experience, and nous. Panesar had experience, but no nous. Players such as Eoin Morgan (in ODIs at least) or potentially James Pattinson look to have nous but little experience. They're not interchangeable terms, but correlated in certain types of players, and if you get them together you're often going to be a step ahead.

 

[Zinzan]

This is what impresses me most about the English batting lineup. I keep bringing them up, but their cricketing intelligence is just miles ahead of every other team. In a tight spot, commentators say things like "they ought to counter-attack here and knock the bowlers off their rhythm" or "they need to keep it tight for a while, it's absolutely crucial that they don't lose another wicket before lunch". But Trott or Cook don't go with either of those strategies, they just play the way that's likely to get them the most runs. Every single time they come to the crease. Someone like Brad Haddin, meanwhile, seems to overcomplicate the game. He either plays a stupid shot in an attempt to counter-attack or misses out on scoring opportunities trying to stop the rot. He hasn't quite found the secret third option of simply playing every ball on its merit.

Agree in the main, but don't make out the likes of Cook & Trott are somehow immune to mental frailty.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Experience isn't the be all and end all, but it can't be co-incidence that a lot of players seem to grow into their abilities once they've got a few games under their belts. I'd say Ian Bell is a prime example, there's no doubt he's always had the chops for test cricket but it's only now he's a few dozen tests into his career he's finally doing justice to his immense ability.

It's obviously way too simplisitc to put his improvement completely down to experience, but he now looks as if he believes he belongs in contrast to the diffident soul he looked early on in his career.

 

[Furball]

How many young players come in and instantly look the part anyway? Even of the greats of this era, Kallis wasn't much cop in his first couple of years of Test cricket, Ponting spent a few years as a good rather than great Test batsman, and while Tendulkar obviously showed an enormous amount of promise to be picked at 15, it must surely have taken him a good few years before he was doing more than showing flashes of his greatness?

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Experience can be explained very simply in my opinion:

Play cricket at the highest level for a good while, and you'll become a better player from simply being immersed in a high standard of cricket. A mediocre player can potentially become a good one, with experience. A good player can potentially become a great one, with experience. "Experience" is just about playing the game and learning, as with anything in life. Of course, in order to learn a player must be focused and willing, you've got to keep working at it.