• 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

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I will say it again: It cannot have happened forever. There has to be times in which youngsters were able enough younger.
Able enough to do what? Have better credentials to play international cricket than those of a few years older? I don't find it especially inconceivable that such cases have been extremely rare over here.
You are just defending me rather than arguing against me. If country x didn't produce more younger cricketers traditionally, it can be for various reasons. Even if I take each of your assertions, it would only show that the problem is so deep rooted because of x,y,z reasons, various ones which you are even providing.
I don't especially think of it as a problem - just the way things are. As you say - there are many reasons why 19-20-21-year-olds rarely play for England. You seemed to me to be suggesting that it was often a result of selectorial whim - the conscious thought "don't pick him because he's too young". When the chance to even have such a candidate to be a remotely plausible pick is pretty rare.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Able enough to do what? Have better credentials to play international cricket than those of a few years older?
Better able to play international cricket. Simple as.

I don't find it especially inconceivable that such cases have been extremely rare over here... I don't especially think of it as a problem - just the way things are. As you say - there are many reasons why 19-20-21-year-olds rarely play for England. You seemed to me to be suggesting that it was often a result of selectorial whim - the conscious thought "don't pick him because he's too young". When the chance to even have such a candidate to be a remotely plausible pick is pretty rare.
It is definitely a problem if the end result is that fewer younger cricketers are being able to play at the top level. What the reason is - selection, x, y, z is not important. Saying it as just the way things are would be pretty irresponsible if you were, say, a cricket administrator. If I was the cricketer administrator in the country and I was asked why more younger cricketers are not coming up and I would say it is just the way things are, that wouldn't hold good. The reasons you have given are all negatives which means addressing is required. There is an opposite reason for younger players not coming through in a country like say Australia at times because older players are occupying spots. However, that case is different because there are battles for places and only after a Langer retires can a new player be given a chance. A young keeper might face a similar problem in Australia because of say Gilchrist right now. When younger talent cannot come up because of better talent being there at the top, it is perfectly fine. However, when younger talent is not coming up because of x,y,z aspects which can be addressed, it is not just okay to say it is the way things are.
 
Last edited:

FBU

International 12th Man
I would want a player to have played two seasons before being picked for the A Team tour where hopefully they would be assessed on their temperament and skills away from home. Then they would need to get into the ODI squad before Tests. About half the players that do go on the Academy tours that have sounded like very good players have just vanished back to their counties and some have even moved counties. I don't think it is a good idea to pluck someone out of county cricket straight into Tests.

Wagh, Kenway, Peng, Wood, Wallace, Kirby, Hogg, Muchall, Stevens, Newman, Napier, Tredwell, Lumb, Shafayat, Francis, Wagg, Khalid, Harrison, Powell, Gidman, Wright, Footitt are some of them.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Better able to play international cricket. Simple as.
I'll say it again - better than someone older? If so, I don't see that there will have been that many cases of it.
It is definitely a problem if the end result is that fewer younger cricketers are being able to play at the top level. What the reason is - selection, x, y, z is not important. Saying it as just the way things are would be pretty irresponsible if you were, say, a cricket administrator. If I was the cricketer administrator in the country and I was asked why more younger cricketers are not coming up and I would say it is just the way things are, that wouldn't hold good. The reasons you have given are all negatives which means addressing is required. There is an opposite reason for younger players not coming through in a country like say Australia at times because older players are occupying spots. However, that case is different because there are battles for places and only after a Langer retires can a new player be given a chance. A young keeper might face a similar problem in Australia because of say Gilchrist right now. When younger talent cannot come up because of better talent being there at the top, it is perfectly fine. However, when younger talent is not coming up because of x,y,z aspects which can be addressed, it is not just okay to say it is the way things are.
I don't see a heck of a lot of teenagers playing domestic cricket in Australia, either. Nor South Africa for that matter. I'm less sure about New Zealand and West Indies as I don't take much note of domestic cricket in those parts, but the subcontinent is the only place where you see teenagers playing international cricket all that often.

As I say - if it were a problem, for me, that'd suggest it was a case of selectors being prejudiced against a player purely because of his age. But I don't see that this is the case. Most 19-20-year-olds are simply occupied doing other things (often University) and only become the sort of people who are up to and into playing full-time pro cricket at a slightly later age.

Nor do I see that it matters if 19-20-21-year-olds aren't playing at the top level. You don't need to - as long as you get there, it's not a problem if you're not there as a teenager.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
I'll say it again - better than someone older? If so, I don't see that there will have been that many cases of it.

I don't see a heck of a lot of teenagers playing domestic cricket in Australia, either. Nor South Africa for that matter. I'm less sure about New Zealand and West Indies as I don't take much note of domestic cricket in those parts, but the subcontinent is the only place where you see teenagers playing international cricket all that often.

As I say - if it were a problem, for me, that'd suggest it was a case of selectors being prejudiced against a player purely because of his age. But I don't see that this is the case. Most 19-20-year-olds are simply occupied doing other things (often University) and only become the sort of people who are up to and into playing full-time pro cricket at a slightly later age.

Nor do I see that it matters if 19-20-21-year-olds aren't playing at the top level. You don't need to - as long as you get there, it's not a problem if you're not there as a teenager.
The subcontinent is an extreme and at the other end of the problem where a lot more players are given chances. England's traditional aspect in this area cannot be justified by it or various situations in other countries. It is not that difficult to see why it is a problem area. If say a player with the talent of say Akram or Lara exists in England, it would be far better than he made his debut earlier than later. If that cannot happen because of x, y, z reason, obviously it needs to be made sure that it is rectified.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
What about if he can't make his debut because his parents and himself are more concerned with getting his degree?

I don't think it matters too much, myself, TBH - if he doesn't make his debut at 19, he'll make it at 23 and still excel.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
What about if he can't make his debut because his parents and himself are more concerned with getting his degree?
Football has younger stars going through. Now you might say football is more general population and cricket is more elitist. What about tennis then? Even tennis has some one like Andy Murray. Whatever. I shouldn't even go into other sports for this because more often than not a person whose goal is to play cricket would select sports opportunities before any thing else.

I don't think it matters too much, myself, TBH - if he doesn't make his debut at 19, he'll make it at 23 and still excel.
It does matter! If Cook,x, y , z played international cricket, say 2 years later, obviously England would be devoid of his services for those 2 years.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Football has younger stars going through. Now you might say football is more general population and cricket is more elitist. What about tennis then? Even tennis has some one like Andy Murray. Whatever. I shouldn't even go into other sports for this because more often than not a person whose goal is to play cricket would select sports opportunities before any thing else.
As regards football, there's absolutely no doubt that there are more people destined for the cricket scene who, for instance, take education further. Not remotely elitist to say that, it's just the way things are.

I'm not terribly familiar with many other sports, TBH, but there's no doubt that a good deal of the best cricketers take education to the early 20s. And there's no combining Uni with international cricket.
It does matter! If Cook,x, y , z played international cricket, say 2 years later, obviously England would be devoid of his services for those 2 years.
But the chances are someone else would be playing and doing reasonably.

If Cook was playing cricket (and not, say, attending Uni) and performing as he has been, he'd automatically be up for selection.

And if he chose to go to Uni instead of start playing full-time cricket, that'd be his choice - it might even be a good one, who knows. Either way, he'd almost certainly end-up having a good career in the end.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
As regards football, there's absolutely no doubt that there are more people destined for the cricket scene who, for instance, take education further. Not remotely elitist to say that, it's just the way things are.
Which is why I mentioned the same and gave another example.

I'm not terribly familiar with many other sports, TBH, but there's no doubt that a good deal of the best cricketers take education to the early 20s. And there's no combining Uni with international cricket.
Nopes. As I said earlier, more often than not a person whose goal is to play cricket would select sports opportunities before any thing else.

But the chances are someone else would be playing and doing reasonably.
Some else playing? It is not easy to produce international quality cricketers. The best players being ready and making debut as early as possible is always better as, I repeat, England would be devoid of player x's services for y years if it doesn't happen.
 
Last edited:

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
50000

Well, maybe not. I would say 50 is the starting point. People are right in that there is no hard and fast rule, but you need some way to judge a player. If he's tearing FC apart, let him do it for about 50 games, and prove it's no fluke, and then pick him. Even if a player is clearly head and shoulders above his competition, it does not mean he is wasting his time. Usually, they are young and are learning a lot in terms of how to manage their diet, health, responsibilities, etc that come with playing cricket full time. Their bodies are also becoming used to all the stress that constant cricket gives you, and are learning to emotionally deal with that.

50 games, minimum.
 
Last edited:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Nopes. As I said earlier, more often than not a person whose goal is to play cricket would select sports opportunities before any thing else.
In my experience that simply isn't true. So many who are destined for international cricket over here nonetheless spend 3 years (sometimes more) at Uni.
Some else playing? It is not easy to produce international quality cricketers. The best players being ready and making debut as early as possible is always better as, I repeat, England would be devoid of player x's services for y years if it doesn't happen.
Let's give a hypothetical example: if Alastair Cook hadn't been playing, Marcus Trescothick was instead. And had Trescothick not had his problems, that's what would likely have happened. And so long as Trescothick was performing, Cook's non-presence wouldn't really have mattered. Had Trescothick stopped performing, Cook could then have been picked.
 

Swervy

International Captain
Let's give a hypothetical example: if Alastair Cook hadn't been playing, Marcus Trescothick was instead. And had Trescothick not had his problems, that's what would likely have happened. And so long as Trescothick was performing, Cook's non-presence wouldn't really have mattered. Had Trescothick stopped performing, Cook could then have been picked.
at least you know what hypothetical means:laugh:
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
In my experience that simply isn't true. So many who are destined for international cricket over here nonetheless spend 3 years (sometimes more) at Uni.
Which would mean some thing is wrong some where. A sports person or a person who has sports as a career goal would chose an opportunity to play at the higher/highest level above every thing else more often than not.

Let's give a hypothetical example: if Alastair Cook hadn't been playing, Marcus Trescothick was instead. And had Trescothick not had his problems, that's what would likely have happened. And so long as Trescothick was performing, Cook's non-presence wouldn't really have mattered. Had Trescothick stopped performing, Cook could then have been picked.
What about a tour where Trescothic declined to go earlier because of personal reasons? Having more able players at your behest is always an advantage.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Which would mean some thing is wrong some where. A sports person or a person who has sports as a career goal would chose an opportunity to play at the highest level above every thing else more often than not.
Maybe somewhere other than Britain. It's been discussed many times that the British don't put sporting success as high a priority as some other places do. But I don't, myself, believe that is wrong. If someone is more interested in what they're going to do after their cricket career has finished (or what they'll do if they don't make it) than how early they can start that cricket career, I don't believe it's wrong myself - not at all.
What about a tour where Trescothic declined to go earlier because of personal reasons? Having more able players at your behest is always an advantage.
That tour was after the initial tour where Cook replaced Trescothick (ie India). If Trescothick had never had any problems, and had played all cricket between the start of 2006 and now, it's perfectly possible that Cook would be yet to make his Test debut.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Maybe somewhere other than Britain. It's been discussed many times that the British don't put sporting success as high a priority as some other places do. But I don't, myself, believe that is wrong. If someone is more interested in what they're going to do after their cricket career has finished (or what they'll do if they don't make it) than how early they can start that cricket career, I don't believe it's wrong myself - not at all.
I beg to differ. Look at football, tennis for one.

That tour was after the initial tour where Cook replaced Trescothick (ie India).If Trescothick had never had any problems, and had played all cricket between the start of 2006 and now, it's perfectly possible that Cook would be yet to make his Test debut.
a) Trescothic couldn't go to India. So what if Cook wasn't available?

b) Is having more able players at your behest not an advantage?
 
Last edited:

Top