International Cricket 2012/13

What does that say to Uzzie and Hughes? FMD they have done what has been asked of them

It's beyond stupid. What's the point of picking a s*** 30 year old and hoping he gets better
 
It's beyond stupid. What's the point of picking a s*** 30 year old and hoping he gets better

So much this. A 30 year old with a test average of 3 and a first class average of 36. There is nothing there to suggest he's any good and even if he becomes a solid player by the time he achieves it he'll be 2 years off retirement.

Conversely, Phil Hughes is 6 years younger, has a first class average 10 greater and in his first two tests showed way more than Quiney ever did. If they pick Quiney I'm going to hope he gets out for a duck every innings.
 
We aren't going to pull world class players out of the shield. It takes times for them to develop into quality test players. Cown and Warner are still early on in their test careers. We need a number 3 to replace Punter and we need to shift Watson down the order or out of the team. Our bowlers are either young and not up to test cricket yet or just **** like Hilfy and Siddle. We had such a long run as number 1 test playing nation it was always going to take time to rebuild. We just don't have the talent at the moment.

See this is the thing I don't understand because I think raw "talent" is only a portion of what makes great cricketers. I always believed ( from my teenage days reading 'Inside Edge') that our system - ie the cricket academy & our Shield competition - was what set us apart from the rest of the world.

We had young guns like Shane Warne, Damien Martyn, Justin Langer ect ect all spilling out of the academy and even the guys who didn't go that route like Matty Hayden were well and truly groomed for test cricket via the grind of shield cricket. Heck, for a long period there in the late 90's and early part of this decade, we probably had at least two XIs that were superior to the second best test nation in the world at that time.

So why in 2012 are we suddenly in a position where we aren't producing players who're test match worthy ? Are we still working and pushing as hard at development levels as we were in the 90s ? I haven't heard squat re the cricket academy for years ….

What I'm trying to say is, in this day and age where sport and athletes are so far advanced on what they were even 15 years ago, why is cricket in Australia so far behind what it was 15 years ago ??
 
I think participation levels are dropping, or more critically, other sports are more proactive in enticing and recruiting young players to go down an elite path in their sport.

I'm talking AFL, Rugby League, Soccer, Rugby Union (less so). Let's face it, most talented kids in cricket are also talented in some of those other sports. Berrick Barnes is a great example. He could've potentially been a Test cricketer from what I hear, but league and union chased him mercilessly and he picked them as his focus.

For whatever reason, cricket is less appealing for kids to focus on as they hit their mid-late teens than the football codes. I don't think it's any real coincidence it's happened since the Super League war, Union going professional and the AFL lifting its game in the 90s with the goal to become the national sport.

Those sports have dominated the grassroots while cricket has tread water.

Just my opinion.
 
So now Hazlewood is out of the Sri Lankan series.

Something seriously needs to be done.
 
I think Coxy is right, the other main sports in Australia seem to be more attractive than cricket, and let's face it, relative to the size of our population, no other country has so many mainstream sports, so it's always going to be hard to keep producing so many stars. It will be interesting to see the effect T20 ultimately has as the youngsters who have more grown up with this format haven't really reached that age yet.
 
I can tell you now the cricket club I play for has had a massive drop in junior numbers. We had 2 teams of each grade growing and now there is lucky to be 1 team in each grade.
 
It's really sad to see all these kids drop out of cricket or not try it at all. When I was a kid living in the West End area, every single kid I hung out with played it. We all wanted to be A Craig McDermott or Allan Border, we had plenty of heroes to choose from.


I just hope the kids growing up now don't think that the future is T20 and that you have to smoke the ball over the fence every delivery. I hope they learn that playing test cricket is the ultimate gaol.


Cricket Australia needs a great campaign to win them back!
 
I really think Test cricket is going downwards. I don't think it will ever die per se, but if Israel Folau has taught us anything, it's that cash is king. Test cricket can never bring in revenue like T20, so I reckon that's the skillset that everyone will focus on more and more. You already see it with some players who opt to play in these events at the risk of not being available for tests.
 
I really think Test cricket is going downwards. I don't think it will ever die per se, but if Israel Folau has taught us anything, it's that cash is king. Test cricket can never bring in revenue like T20, so I reckon that's the skillset that everyone will focus on more and more. You already see it with some players who opt to play in these events at the risk of not being available for tests.

Test cricket is as strong as ever. Tv ratings are still massive. There is plenty of room for all forms of cricket. When the players say T20 cricket is the pinnacle then we have a problem.
 
Ratings here don't really matter though. India is the cricketing landscape, and single day formats are what dominates their ratings, which frankly is all that really matters from a cash perspective.

I don't think Australians will ever come out and say that T20 is the pinnacle, but their actions will probably compromise their test careers, if not by the style of play they grow up playing then by their actions. Didn't Watson play a T20 contest a few weeks before the test series began?
 
Ratings here don't really matter though. India is the cricketing landscape, and single day formats are what dominates their ratings, which frankly is all that really matters from a cash perspective.

I don't think Australians will ever come out and say that T20 is the pinnacle, but their actions will probably compromise their test careers, if not by the style of play they grow up playing then by their actions. Didn't Watson play a T20 contest a few weeks before the test series began?

Yeah Watson did but so did many other test stars who had test series beginning in the near future. If you are signed by a team you have an obligation to perform for them when they are playing in those kinds of competitions. Watson was injured in shield cricket anyway. India are the problem not T20 cricket.
 
Hughes is in for Punter

Clarke, Watson, Warner, Cowan. Hussey, Hughes, Wade, Siddle, Hilfenhaus, Lyon, Starc and Johnson are the 12 named for the Hobart test.
 
Better him then Quiney but would prefer Uzzie
 
I'd guess Johnson or Starc will be 12th man, unless Hilfy or Siddle aren't passed fit.

I'd like to see this batting order:

Cowan
Warner
Hughes
Watson
Clarke
Hussey
 
Hughes is better than Uzzie - he is an absolutely prolific century maker of which we have very, very few. I have mail that Uzzie is also not very highly respected amongst the players - there is a strong perception he is a lazy trainer. Hence the fielding and running between wickets becoming probably a bigger issue than what they are.

I'd also play Johnson ahead of Starc.
 
Hughes is better than Uzzie - he is an absolutely prolific century maker of which we have very, very few. I have mail that Uzzie is also not very highly respected amongst the players - there is a strong perception he is a lazy trainer. Hence the fielding and running between wickets becoming probably a bigger issue than what they are.

I'd also play Johnson ahead of Starc.

With Johnson and Starc it's a battle as to who delivers the most shit. When Johnson's at his best, the shit dries up and he becomes nearly unplayable. But when he's not at his best he bowls about 7 shit balls an over (that's right, including a wide)...

Starc at least is consistent...he'll deliver 2 shit balls an over.
 

Active Now

  • Harry Sack
  • john1420
  • BroncosAlways
  • TwoLeftFeet
  • marw
  • Morkel
  • ChewThePhatt
  • Loch Ness Monster
  • Culhwch
  • Shane Tronc
  • BruiserMk1
  • thenry
  • Payneinthehaas
Top
  AdBlock Message
Please consider adding BHQ to your Adblock Whitelist. We do our best to make sure it doesn't affect your experience on the website, and the funds help us pay server and software costs.