When is someone ready...?

[Pratters]

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.

McMillan had a pretty decent early record.

997 (age: 20y 110d) 3 6 0 174 54 54 41 29.00 0 2 1
1998 (21y 110d) 6 10 1 484 142 139 88 53.77 2 2 1
1999 (22y 110d) 10 16 2 598 107* 92 84 42.71 1 3 0
2000 (23y 110d) 9 16 1 587 142 79 78 39.13 1 4 2
2001 (24y 110d) 8 11 1 494 106 98 70 49.40 1 4 1

It was later that he started being poor.

2002 (25y 110d) 8 14 2 282 50* 41 41 23.50 0 1 0
2003 (26y 110d) 4 7 3 290 100* 83* 54 72.50 1 2 0
2004 (27y 110d) 5 8 0 169 82 30 23 21.12 0 1 2
2005 (28y 110d) 2 3 0 38 20 13 5 12.66 0 0 0

 

[Pratters]

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.

I am not saying other countries do not make mistakes. In selection, you would make mistakes any how regardless of age. But the mistakes are much larger in the case of subcontinent players, and even the proportion (failuers/total) is a fair bit larger.

 

[Flem274*]

I am not saying other countries do not make mistakes. In selection, you would make mistakes any how regardless of age. But the mistakes are much larger in the case of subcontinent players, and even the proportion (failuers/total) is a fair bit larger.

Yeah that is very true, something that definitely needs to be addressed.

 

[Manee]

I now think the poll was a silly idea, but the discussion going on is fantastic.

Subcontinental teams seem to yearn too much for another Sachin Tendulkar when they must realise that he is one of a kind and few if any people can excel at that young an age at test level.

 

[Richard]

just as say the English have traditionally left it till too late at times

TBH, I think that's just a stereotype. Certainly in my time, there have just not been enough players demanding selection for selectors to be able to turn down a 22-year-old who's ripping up the turf just because of his age.

 

[Pratters]

TBH, I think that's just a stereotype. Certainly in my time, there have just not been enough players demanding selection for selectors to be able to turn down a 22-year-old who's ripping up the turf just because of his age.

Note the word I used: traditionally.It isn't a stereotype. Your period of watching cricket is small and I didn't restrict myself to the last 10-15 years. Look at the number of debutants England have had who are below the ages of 18/19/20/21/22. It is no secret really.

 

[Richard]

But we don't really know the circumstances in, say, 1962 when these youngsters weren't being selected. For all we know those who were instead could have had much better credentials.

 

[Sanz]

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.

Looking at that list and it seems to me that the selectors didn't really get it wrong majority of times considering some of the more successful players (from subcontinent) are in that list.

 

[Sanz]

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.

Correct. There should be no age descrimination. If a player is good and available, he should be in the team.

 

[Pratters]

But we don't really know the circumstances in, say, 1962 when these youngsters weren't being selected. For all we know those who were instead could have had much better credentials.

It cannot have happened forever. There has to be times in which youngsters were able enough younger.

 

[thierry henry]

*token comment about players from the sub-continent being older than officially listed*

 

[Fiery]

*token comment about players from the sub-continent being older than officially listed*

Racist!!!!!!

 

[thierry henry]

lol

interestingly, I was recently watching the footage of Afridi's 100 off 37 balls in 1996 on youtube, and when he comes out to bat his player profile states his age as 21

 

[Fiery]

lol

interestingly, I was recently watching the footage of Afridi's 100 off 37 balls in 1996 on youtube, and when he comes out to bat his player profile states his age as 21

That's on youtube? Don't suppose you have a link?

 

[Pratters]

*token comment about players from the sub-continent being older than officially listed*

Pakistan. Not the subcontinent as a whole..

 

[Richard]

Pakistan and Bangladesh, TBH.

Never any doubt about ages of Indians and Lankans.

 

[Richard]

It cannot have happened forever. There has to be times in which youngsters were able enough younger.

Able - but having better credentials than those already in the side or who were brought in instead?

What with the relative absence of teenagers in First-Class cricket in these parts, I don't see that there are likely to be many at all who demand Test selection at, say, 21.

 

[Pratters]

Able - but having better credentials than those already in the side or who were brought in instead?

If you are constantly denying players more able a chance over x, y, z based on a, b, c factors, obviously there is some thing wrong some where.

What with the relative absence of teenagers in First-Class cricket in these parts, I don't see that there are likely to be many at all who demand Test selection at, say, 21.

Shows how deep rooted the problem has been.

 

[Richard]

If you are constantly denying players more able a chance over x, y, z based on a, b, c factors, obviously there is some thing wrong some where.

Not neccessarily. Those denied the chance may not be more able.

Shows how deep rooted the problem has been.

Again, not neccessarily. IMO it simply says that most 19-year-olds over here aren't in a situation where they are able or have the desire to play regular domestic cricket.

 

[Pratters]

Not neccessarily. Those denied the chance may not be more able.

I will say it again: It cannot have happened forever. There has to be times in which youngsters were able enough younger.

Again, not neccessarily. IMO it simply says that most 19-year-olds over here aren't in a situation where they are able or have the desire to play regular domestic cricket.

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.