Australian foundation got too much credit

Early 90's till late last decade Aussie team was one on tear and domination that Cricket almost got boring as no side was capable of taking field with them let alone win them, when the Names are read out like Justin Langer, Mat Hayden, Waugh Twins, Damien Martyn, Ricky Ponting, Adam the Great Gichrist, M Hussey ,Shane Warne, Glen Mcgrath, Jason Gillespie, Brett Lee etc,.. the opponents almost gave up even before the match started, the worst part is some exceptions players like Blewett, Lehman , Stuart MacGill, Simon Katich, Brad Hogg , M Beven, A Symonds , Michael Slater , Damien Fleming , Stuart Law , Andy Bichel , Nathan Bracken, David Hussey , Brad Haddin , Matthew Elliott etc,.. had their careers cut short simply coz there is not enough space available at the top.

The list of names could easily form Aus A team and beat most top rated teams, so when all these were going on Nations all over the world wondered whats the reason for the Australian team success and the credit was rightly given to then foundation and academies of how cricketers are brought out.
While the credit to academies and foundation is acceptable it became credit to too much credits and followed is the over confidence of the set up and let alone the current team there is no promising youngster  either to take up any of the 11 slots available for granted.

In my view one of the strongest reason for the Australian team success from Late 80's [i,e 1988] to 2008 is the leadership skills at the top along with foundations , domestic setup and finally selectors, the most important point over looked is the leadership and Australian team owe a lot to Allan Border, Mark Taylor and Steve Waugh. I am not including Ricky Ponting name along with the other three legends cause he was lucky enough to captain a strong bunch of players however he was the last of best Aus captains who finished the tenure.

To start with Allan Border slowly shaped a mediocre Aussie team to match winning team in time, and Mark Taylor made that match winning team more consistent while Steve Waugh made them from consistent to ruthless team Ricky Ponting enjoyed all the benefits of captaining the invincible team. So the root cause for the success actually started from Allan Border's captaincy but with time it was all completely forgotton, not long back ago current Australian team captain M Clarke was already spoke of Legendary captain after 1 great series win against then the mediocre Indian test team.

So did the Australian foundations like Academies got too much credit for the Australian success than the Leaderships? I guess yes, if its no then is the current foundations focus more on Big Bash leagues and IPL rather than Test Cricket , are they ready to accept current team's consistent failure due to lack of quality in academy towards Test and One Day crickets?

The Sooner the foundations , academies and Cricket Australia's approach changes from all these Big Bash leagues better it would be for Australian cricket and World Cricket, seriously for me the flaw lies in current Australian system, it good too much credit on the past due to its greats players and leaderships and rightly not questioned enough now on its failures to sort the problems the team facing.

Its ok to lose test matches series but the manner in which no fight offered is pathetic and the worst part is nobody has a clue how the current Australian team could be restored to normality let alone rolling the past.

Of course its a brave new world from the one Allan Border took over. (Small note, he didnt shape the squad, Australian captains have no sajy -With the exception of Clarke 2011 to 13 - in the starting XI or even the squad). Its a lot easier for a prospective pro to try make it in T20, as it is financially more viable. Asking for leaders like Border is a little pie in the sky. As is criticizing Clarke.

In fact Clarke's captaincy win ratio is higher than AB's. Also, I dont think its as bad as many have tried make it seem.

This reminds me of the 2004-05 season when South Africa had to rebuild following Kirsten's retirement, and a few other retirements. We called up AB, Steyn, Amla, and a few other guys who ultimately didnt make the grade. We lost in India, at home to England, And got sparked 5-0 vs Australia in the old three home three away Super Series. Lost to Sri Lanka as well. So in that two year period, we lost quite a few tests... But following that SL series, We have lost only one Test series since.

Hmm. Not sure I see any potential Steyn or Amla in the current Australian team...so far the older bowlers have been the only strong performers , apart from Agar's knock at Trent Bridge.
Recalling Haddin and plucking Rogers from relative obscurity at 35 don't strike me as the work of a selection committee bent on accepting present pain for effective rebuilding...not that I can blame them too much given the iconic status of the Ashes Series.
Do think that they will need to have a bit of a rethink over the next few months if they wish to achieve a similar renaissance as that of SA post 2005.

But thats the thing. Nobody thought Amla was a future Amla in 2004, it got to the point when people said he was only there because of his skin colour. Steyn, similarly had am awful debut series, went to England, had an awful County season. Pattinson seems special to me, only 23, yet averages 25 in Test cricket. Similarly, Jackson Bird seems a potential McGrath. As for the batsman, I can see Khawaja manking the grade

Yeah I take your point , kingraf. Players develop.

But I saw more in Steyn when I first watched him than in any of the current Australian team. I think Pattinson could be a good Test bowler , if he can get a bit more durable , but would be very surprised if he reached that sort of class.
Bird looked promising against Sri Lanka last Australian summer , but the fact that he can't get a place in the team at all in English conditions that were thought to suit him suggests that the selectors do not share your high opinion of him.

I guess we will see in three or four years ,eh ?

Yeah I suppose, although you must understand Im not claiming James Pattinson to be the next Steyn thats a lot of pressure to place on a kid. Basically annointing a Top ten All time great. But I do think he will go on to be very good. But like you said three or four years... They are probably going to lose here, and again in South Africa... But it should improve after that, baptisms dont get much tougher than Away to India, England, and South Africa in three out of four series. They will be hardened by the end...

I agree with Alfie, unfortunately Aussies are having real drought in talent at the moment, and the worst part is the Australian academies that use to turn ordinary mortals to legends is not functioning right now, either the strategy implemented have changed completely with time that the focus is not on the test anymore or the idea and functioning have become outdated and they are not ready to move on with time.

Regarding leaderships, they just don't involve in starting XI, they control the player in the field they act as inspirations for the upcoming players, Allan was one of those, Steve Waugh was one of those, unfortunately Clarke's team is having more controversy on and off field than performance headlines.

So the next question is are the academies failing in teaching the core aspect of the game i,.e the discipline? seems like the case.

Kingraf
When AB and Steyn were picked, there was that touch of something special in them, though it took them a couple of years and an odd drop or 2 for them to really realize their range. It took Amla a bit longer to work out his A game. However, I really don't see an AB or Hashim like batsman in Hughes, Khawaja or Smith. I expect the latter tow to remain useful test batsmen though. Besides, the more senior players aren't contributing either. Even when SA were going through a bit of a difficult couple of years from 2004, Graeme Smith and Jacques Kallis were always there, and Makhaya Ntini led the bowling attack with a large-hearted approach. Unlike that, Shane Watson is struggling big, Michael Clarke has a bad back that might cut down his international career by a couple of years. So neither are the youngsters performing, nor are the seniors prodicing the goods consistently. By the time Khawaja or Smith get themselves, Australia will have fresh problems in the batting lineup. Who are the upcoming hopefuls?

Msp83...

I dont think you understand quite how seriously bad the 2004-2006 period was. We lost the India test series 1-0, lost the England series 2-1, our first home series defeat vs England in 40 years. In fact our only home defeat to a team other than Australia in since re-admission. Then we lost 2-0 to Australia in Australia, and 3-0 to Australia in South Africa. Lost 2-0 to Sri Lanka in Lanka as well.

As you say, Ntini still ably lead the attack, taking 144 wickets in 31 tests at during that period. But Pollock was already on the decline then, taking 85 wickets in 26 Tests. Then there was Andre Nel, who is basically a poor mans Siddle... let that sink in. from the batting point of view, there wasnt as many performing old heads as you would think, Smith scored 2300 runs at 43. And Kallis scored 3000 runs at 66. Otherwise it was guys like Zander de Bruyn, Thami Tsolekile, Martin van Jaarseveld being hopelessly exposed. It wasnt always visionary selecting

kingraf wrote:Msp83...

I dont think you understand quite how seriously bad the 2004-2006 period was. We lost the India test series 1-0, lost the England series 2-1, our first home series defeat vs England in 40 years. In fact our only home defeat to a team other than Australia in since re-admission. Then we lost 2-0 to Australia in Australia, and 3-0 to Australia in South Africa. Lost 2-0 to Sri Lanka in Lanka as well.

As you say, Ntini still ably lead the attack, taking 144 wickets in 31 tests at during that period. But Pollock was already on the decline then, taking 85 wickets in 26 Tests. Then there was Andre Nel, who is basically a poor mans Siddle... let that sink in. from the batting point of view, there wasnt as many performing old heads as you would think, Smith scored 2300 runs at 43. And Kallis scored 3000 runs at 66. Otherwise it was guys like Zander de Bruyn, Thami Tsolekile, Martin van Jaarseveld being hopelessly exposed. It wasnt always visionary selecting

Well, I'd still say the South African situation was much better than that of the Australians at present. In the period between 1st Jan 2004 to 30th October 2006, Ashwell Prince averaged over 48, Herschele Gibbs averaged over 40, and even the newcomer AB de Villiers averaged over 41. Besides Smith and Kallis, these players, regardless of some understandable inconsistencies, performed relatively well. There were a few odd selections, but unlike the Australian selectors, the South African selectors quickly gave up on players who didn't really look international class and stuck with the likes of AB who had a touch of genius even at that age.
In contrast to that, how mmany in this Australian batting lineup average above 40 other than Michael Clarke? The likes of Cowan and Hughes are getting chance after chance. How many among that emerging lineup gives the impression that AB managed to provide at the beginning of his career?

Ashwell Prince's average would have been helped by a gimme series vs New Zealand, while ABDV would have been helped by a similar series vs West Indies.

I take your point, though, but I've already said I see something special in Agar, as a batsman. Maybe the selector have been too slow to release players who aren't obviously good enough. But time will tell.

I think Pattinson has the potential to be pretty special if he keeps fit. When I saw him bowl against New Zealand and India early on in his career he excited me in a way no fast bowler has since Steyn.

The first time we saw Amla he was hopeless let's not forget. They didn't give up on him; rather, he was given time to go away and work on his game and when he came back he quickly established himself as a world class player. The tragedy of Phil Hughes's career so far is he hasn't been afforded that luxury. Like Amla when he was first picked he had obvious talent but equally obvious flaws. Unlike Amla he was forced to work on these flaws whilst playing test cricket (this in itself wouldn't have been too much of a problem) but with the axe constantly hovering over his head, which is a terrible environment to work and improve in.

I compare Hughes and Amla because IMO they are comparable in their talent and their work ethic. The difference is Amla has been allowed to figure out his game whereas Hughes has not. It is of course quite possible that Hughes would not succeed in working over his game, but as of yet he hasn't had the chance.

Smith had a bit longer out of the side, and it seems to have done him good.

Khawaja's main issues were never technical, so it is a bit different again.

There is no reason why the latter 2 and someone like Warner shouldn't be able to average 45+ in test cricket.

Where I agree with msp is the Australian selectors have really bundled things, and as I said on the other thread, I believe they are at a stage where they need to invest in players who could be good test cricketers in 2 years time if given a run in the side and the chance to play their natural game. At the moment IMO that excludes Hughes, because he needs longer than 2 years, so he should be dropped, but not forgotten about; Khawaja, Smith and Warner need to be given an extended run, in their favoured positions, as does whoever they decide on their spinner. Their fast bowlers need to be kept fit.

Going back to the original article, I believe the accademy system still works: the issue is the first class structure, which used to be the toughest in the world and create the perfect bridge between the academy and the test team (once you graduated from the academy you proved your worth in shield cricket and then made the test squad). Now I suspect the environment is tougher at the academy than in the Shield sides. I had this very conversation a couple of European Aussies, namely Joe Scuderi (current coach of Italy and one of the original party of 30 for the 92 WC squad) and Jeremy Bray (ex-Ireland) a bit more than a year ago.

Mike Selig wrote:I think Pattinson has the potential to be pretty special if he keeps fit. When I saw him bowl against New Zealand and India early on in his career he excited me in a way no fast bowler has since Steyn.

The first time we saw Amla he was hopeless let's not forget. They didn't give up on him; rather, he was given time to go away and work on his game and when he came back he quickly established himself as a world class player. The tragedy of Phil Hughes's career so far is he hasn't been afforded that luxury. Like Amla when he was first picked he had obvious talent but equally obvious flaws. Unlike Amla he was forced to work on these flaws whilst playing test cricket (this in itself wouldn't have been too much of a problem) but with the axe constantly hovering over his head, which is a terrible environment to work and improve in.

I compare Hughes and Amla because IMO they are comparable in their talent and their work ethic. The difference is Amla has been allowed to figure out his game whereas Hughes has not. It is of course quite possible that Hughes would not succeed in working over his game, but as of yet he hasn't had the chance.

Smith had a bit longer out of the side, and it seems to have done him good.

Khawaja's main issues were never technical, so it is a bit different again.

There is no reason why the latter 2 and someone like Warner shouldn't be able to average 45+ in test cricket.

Where I agree with msp is the Australian selectors have really bundled things, and as I said on the other thread, I believe they are at a stage where they need to invest in players who could be good test cricketers in 2 years time if given a run in the side and the chance to play their natural game. At the moment IMO that excludes Hughes, because he needs longer than 2 years, so he should be dropped, but not forgotten about; Khawaja, Smith and Warner need to be given an extended run, in their favoured positions, as does whoever they decide on their spinner. Their fast bowlers need to be kept fit.

Going back to the original article, I believe the accademy system still works: the issue is the first class structure, which used to be the toughest in the world and create the perfect bridge between the academy and the test team (once you graduated from the academy you proved your worth in shield cricket and then made the test squad). Now I suspect the environment is tougher at the academy than in the Shield sides. I had this very conversation a couple of European Aussies, namely Joe Scuderi (current coach of Italy and one of the original party of 30 for the 92 WC squad) and Jeremy Bray (ex-Ireland) a bit more than a year ago.

Hughes has already come through a couple of drops hasn't he? After the 09 Ashes, and then after the NZ series. Each time he was brought back, we were told he has ironed out his technical issues but each time there were more chinks found in his technique. There are far too many issues with his batting technique that makes him a long way away from real test class at the moment. He might find ways to overcome those issues perhaps, but that needs a hell amount of work that can't be done within the test fold. Send him back to domestic cricket, keep a watch on him, but don't rush him back to national duties the moment he scores a couple of tons at the domestic level.
Pretty much agree on Pattinson though. And even Pat Cummins and Mitchell Starc could develop into good test bowlers in due course of time.

Don't think we disagree on Hughes. My point is he has never really been given enough time away in the first class game to sort out his issues (as you say, he has been rushed back every time), or made secure enough in the test team that he can work them out there.

Beyond Hughes, Warner and Smith, who can the selectors look to?

It is true Hughes has never been left for an extended period to play just Shield cricket , unlike , say , Hayden. He has perhaps been unlucky in that injuries to Watson and failures of other players have rather forced the selectors hands : although he was deliberately kept away from South Africa's attack last Australian summer (when Quiney was sacrificed !).
Unless he scores some serious runs in the remaining Tests - if selected - I can see him getting plenty of time to work on his game away from the Test arena though. I doubt they will forget him - he has enjoyed something of a Golden Boy status with the selectors , who clearly believe he may achieve great things. I am not so sure.

msp83 wrote:Beyond Hughes, Warner and Smith, who can the selectors look to?

I think they could do a lot worse than try George Bailey. I know his FC record is not startling , but I think he is an intelligent cricketer , who can adapt his game to circumstances , and might actually do surprisingly well iin the Test arena , as he has at limited overs.

I am a believer in selecting on character as much as ability , and I think Bailey has that attribute. Perhaps more so than one or two of the current Test squad.

alfie wrote:

msp83 wrote:Beyond Hughes, Warner and Smith, who can the selectors look to?

I think they could do a lot worse than try George Bailey.  I know his FC record is not startling , but I think he is an intelligent cricketer , who can adapt his game to circumstances , and might actually do surprisingly well iin the Test arena , as he has at limited overs.

I am a believer in selecting on character as much as ability , and I think Bailey has that attribute.  Perhaps more so than one or two of the current Test squad.

Agree on Bailey, worth a chance for sure.
Who else among the young crop who could come into the frame?

It's a good point that sometimes you have to pick someone because they have shown the right character rather than great flair. Paul Collingwood had a more than OK international career considering his relative limitations technically as a batsman - no one ever questioned though whether he was giving all he had for the team, unlike with some more apparently talented contemporaries...

I also liked Bailey's press conference after Warner was suspended - said something along the lines of 'Warner is a very talented player, wish I was as good as him...'. Deems to me to have the sort of attitude that the Aussies need in their team at the moment.