Macca

It's been so long since we've had to rebuild that people have forgotten that the last time we did it, we did it with youth. Border was the only real mainstay when we last did it. If we draw a line through the 1989 Ashes team as when we 'finally' came good after a horrible period, then it's interesting to look at the ages of players in that team when they debuted (and I'm specifically talking about the batsman) Player ... Age on debut ... Age just prior during the 1989 tour. Marsh ........ 26 ... 30 Taylor ........ 24 ... 24 Boon ......... 23 ... 28 Jones ........ 22 ... 28 Border ....... 23 ... 33 S Waugh ... 20 ... 24 Summary ... we picked them when they were young and we bore the fruits at a later date. We did the hard yards through the mid to late 80's but it paid off (apart from when we persevered with Hilditch, Wood and a few others for too long) Picking young blokes in cricket is the way to go. If you pick an old bloke and it doesn't work you've got nothing to fall back on. For this reason I believe that Rogers, Cowan, Katich, Jacques and others should be overlooked. You would only pick an older batsman if he's had an outstanding few years. You might look at Bailey (30) or North in a 'bridging' fashion but ordinarily no.

15 - 20 Tests tops (and they have to have shown something) Steve Waugh was a real late bloomer and really, an aberration. Most batsmen start hitting their straps after they've played 10 - 15 Tests (or earlier) Or, they get found out. If a player hasn't established himself after 15 - 20 Tests then it's time for a spell. A young player can always make a reappearance later on down the track. Langer, Hayden, Martyn and others have come back better players after being dropped for lengthy spells. You can't just gift a player 15 - 20 Tests either - they have to perform. The key is to pick them when they're young. It is a tried and true method in Australian cricket and for the most part, it works. England do it now and many other countries do as well. We've gone away from it a little bit but it's not the sole reason we are struggling. A generation of gun players all retired over a 5 year period and we always had to rebuild.

'dl' ... it's almost impossible to judge players (batsmen) who haven't played Test cricket yet. And those who haven't played Test cricket need to play a certain amount of games in order for anyone to be able to judge their ability against pace and spin. Of those who have played, the only player who does very well against pace and spin is Clarke. That's it. The rest have one issue or another ... Hughes has struggled against spin but at times has played pace well. Smith plays spin ok and is now playing better against pace. Warner struggles against spin but plays pace well. Cowan is reasonable against both pace and spin but gets out when he is set. Watson just can't go on with it after getting starts. I believe we have to place our faith in youth but not all at once. I'd have Maddinson and Burns in now but that probably can't happen for a while. It's rare for the selectors to go outside the squad when picking the batsmen in the team on an overseas tour (although Smith was added to the squad) Interesting aside ...Maddinson is 21 years old and has made 5 first class centuries. Steve Waugh was 20 years old when he made his Test debut and had only made 2 first class centuries leading up to his debut. And ... Burns is 23 years old and has made 5 first class centuries. Allan Border was 23 years when he made his Test debut and again, had made only 2 first class centuries leading up to his debut. Both Border and Steve Waugh were virtual unknowns before they played Test cricket (our memory plays tricks with us) The only 2 young batsmen (in the last 30 years) who were quite well known before their Test debut's were Ponting and Clarke. Mark Waugh was well known but a bit older (25) Hussey and Gilly the same. Comparing a young batsman in cricket to an 18 year old draftee in footy is like comparing chalk and cheese. For the most part a young batsmen has been playing grade or district cricket for 6 or 7 years (against men) and will probably have played Ist class cricket for at least a couple of years.

I reckon it might be because the selectors are taking the 'safe' route. Or what they perceive as the safe route. I doubt that many of the players I listed who were aged 24 or younger when they debuted, were dominating at Shield ranks at the time (apart from Ponting?) It's a bit like hugging the boundary line in footy, I see that as high risk, not low risk. Picking older blokes in cricket is probably a higher risk in cricket (unless they are an obvious star like Hussey or Gilly) T20 is a lousy excuse and is another way for people to look for an easy way out. The South African players play just as much t20 cricket and it doesn't seem to effect them. In fact, all the countries play t20 except perhaps England (who invented the game). 50 over cricket has been extremely popular since the late 70's so that's another excuse. It comes down to technique, temperament, attitude and placing faith in youth. (except perhaps in the case of spinners) Oh and 'dl', I might try and find out the aggregates and averages of those listed players before they debuted. At a guess I reckon their averages might range between 35 and 45 (with the odd exception) Right now, the young batsmen in the Sheffield Shield may not be setting the world on fire but I'm guessing that's nearly always been the case (except for maybe Ponting and 1 or 2 others)

Cowan out for 66 and Hughes out for 84 in the tour match against Sussex ... currently 2/171 ... scorecard Further to that list of top bats or gun bats to emerge in the last 30 years is the age of the players on debut. S Waugh (20) Ponting (20) Martyn (21) Clarke (21) Jones (22) Hayden (22) Langer (22) Slater (23) Boon (23) Border (23) Taylor (24) M Waugh (25) Katich (25) Marsh (26) Gilchrist (27) Hussey (30)

Keiko Matsui with 'Black Lion' Macca's jazz 6.5

My biggest controversy of the year will most probably involve Rex, the Jets, a tattoo and Geno!

There are a surprising amount of away winners in the NFL. I counted up 7 or 8 away winners in 3 of the first 4 weeks last season. Anyway, we'll see how it goes. If enough people join in then we can keep it going - if not, no harm done. Just a recap ... 1 point to anyone who gets all 3 (or 4?) right and we could also have a few 'bonus' weeks where 2 points are up for grabs. Keeping it small and straight forward is probably the best way to go. I remember Dappa, myself and 1 or 2 others having a go at all the games a couple of years ago but it took a bit of time. Just picking 3 or 4 away winners is far easier. Don't believe we need another thread for it either. I'd probably just keep it at 3 so that we can at least get 1 winner per week! As for the season prediction, I've no doubt I'll make a complete mess of things again. I had the Eagles and Packers meeting in the NFC Championship game last season for instance. Can't remember any of my other predictions but they would have been way off the mark

Here's the cable schedule for the Preseason games ... Fri 9th August 10am ... Cincinnati at Atlanta ESPN 2 Fri 16th August 10am ... San Diego at Chicago ESPN 2 Tues 20th August 10am ... Pittsburgh at Washington ESPN Fri 23rd August 10am ... Carolina at Baltimore ESPN It's not much although there might be some other games added at the last minute (OneHD may well be covering a few games) The above games will no doubt be replayed at night. Nothing scheduled for week 4 of the Preseason games (yet) 'Monday Night Countdown' precedes the scheduled Preseason games and 'NFL Live' returns as well.

The thing that has to be remembered is that in some sports (like Cycling and Track & Field) there is a lot of testing done. In some sports like those 2 examples, an athlete might be tested 50 or more times a year (Craig Mottram reckons he gets tested every week - on average) In other sports (especially team sports) there is hardly any testing done in comparison. Transparency vs non transparency needs to be factored in. Boomer Harvey of the Roos said a couple of years ago that over a 10 year period, he was never tested. Not once. Whilst not excusing O'Grady, I often wonder how many athletes in some team sports have gotten away with taking PED's for their entire career's. Baseball is in the news in the States but their drug testing and actions against PED's is getting quite strong (compared to other team sports around the world) Why should sports which take a pro-active stance against PED's be copping it when other sports who often only have 'token' testing, escape the same scrutiny? Those who think we should just give up and let the chemists and scientists control sport haven't thought of the end result. Many or most sports followers would lose interest and it would then become a battle between the athletes who can withstand the most 'roids in their system. It doesn't bear thinking about. Oh and Cards, I agree with your sentiments on the UCI but we could point the finger at a number of other organisations in other sports. Many sports still don't test for HGH or do blood testing. Cycling and Track & Field catch the most cheats because they test the most.

How's it go, Biff ... ...yes, no, wait, oh .... !

Lost in translation probably jazza ... I don't have an issue with Cowan's technique (although, like most of the others in the squad, he's not great against spin) It's his possible inability to become a bona fide top batsman going forward. He's not alone though, as apart from Clarke and perhaps Khawaja, the rest of our batsmen in the touring party have one issue or another. At some stage the sample size becomes big enough where we can start making a reasonable appraisal. My reckoning with batsmen is if they are not a 'Star' by the time they reach the age of 26 - 28 they probably never will be. Hussey was a star at that age - he just wasn't playing Test cricket. Ditto for Gilly. To my way of thinking, a player must be a potential star when they get picked for the Test side. 'Ok's', 'all right's', 'role players', 'fill in player's' and 'NQR's won't take you anywhere in the long term. It's not like footy where you have to put up with those sort of players. In fact, the comparisons to a footy side are often largely irrelevant. You can often end up with a whole team of NQR's if you continue to accept 2nd best. Graeme Wood played 59 Tests and in the end only averaged 31.83. He always seemed to make a big score to save his bacon but on an overall basis, he played far too many Tests. There are a number of other examples where the selectors have shown too much faith. Sometimes they don't show enough faith. It's a fine balance. I'd be making changes to the Test side now (from outside the squad) My reckoning is that we're most probably going to have to make those changes sooner or later and you don't necessarily want to be doing that at the start of an important series (like the one starting in November this year) We probably will stick pat with the current lot but what happens if they continue to get smashed? We'll then start the November series in a real quandary.

Whatever the reason might be, we are just not producing Test class batsmen and haven't really produced one since Michael Hussey debuted. All others since then either haven't come on or were good for a while and then fell away. Since Greg Chappell retired we've had a number of top bats or gun bats. I'm not telling anyone here anything new when listing the following batsmen (age on debut in brackets) ... Border (23) , S Waugh (20), Boon (23), Marsh (26), Jones (22), Taylor (24), M Waugh (25), Ponting (20), Slater (23), Hayden (22), Langer (22), Martyn (21), Gilchrist (27), Clarke (21), Katich (25) and Hussey (30) were all either gun bats or top bats who could be relied upon. It would be easy to point the finger at t20 cricket but the South Africans are living proof that that can't necessarily be the reason. Most of their players play in the IPL and their own domestic t20 comp (as well as other comps in some cases) That article with Greg Chappell as the centrepiece did outline a number of reasons for our dearth of talented batsmen and I guess we just have to wade things out until good batsmen emerge. Happy to be proven wrong on our current lot (apart from Clarke and maybe Khawaja) but I reckon we've seen a big enough sample size with a few of them. If Warner comes into the side and bats at no.6 then he will be facing Swann 1st up. That's the reality and most other Test nations now know that probably our biggest issue is the ability of our batsmen to play good spin bowling. Out of Warner, Hughes, Smith and Watson, I can maybe only see one or 2 of them surviving long term. And it's a fairly big maybe. Rogers and Cowan need big runs right now to survive. From all accounts the Manchester wicket takes a bit of spin so there will be no respite. There was some talk that Panesar might play as well but that would mean that Prior would have to bat at no.6. (a 7,8 and 9 of Bresnan, Broad and Swann is fairly handy though!)

Yeah that's a good idea cfh, let's just embarrass ourselves even more so hey? But seriously, we could have a bit of a go at things such as Division winners, MVP, biggest improver, biggest fall in the standings, biggest controversy etc etc. I was thinking of a weekly comp where we have to pick 3 winners in any given week with only 3 picks ... the proviso being that the tips all have to be visiting sides (or away sides) One point to anyone who gets it right .... contributing towards an overall winner (for the season) No prize - just the kudos! We could make it 4 or 5 picks to make it even more difficult! Entry is optional - if you forget or can't be bothered you just miss that week. Might get a few more people contributing to the thread. Everyone loves a tipping comp! Just a thought.

Greg Chappell left a gaping hole in our batting when he retired after the 83/84 season, as the batsmen around him were no world beaters (apart from Border and to a lesser extent, Hughes) In some ways, it's history repeating itself with Clarke being our only established star these days. We need 2 star batsmen to emerge (3 would be even better) and we'd be right up there again. If Ahmed or at least a gun spinner emerges at the same time along with a fit bevy of top quality fast bowlers, we'd soon return to being a power again. Here's a possible future XI (circa 2014/15/16) Silk Khawaja (can't see another opener yet and Usman could probably open the batting anyway) Maddinson Doolan/Burns Clarke Mitch Marsh Paine Pattinson Starc Cummins Ahmed / Agar I reckon we will find that a couple of the above who haven't debuted yet will get their chance soon enough. Maybe as early as when England visit our shores in November. Bringing in 1 new player for every new series for the next 5 or 6 series' is maybe how they'll do it. Protecting a new player against a top nation is fraught with danger. Whether it's a soft start or a tough start shouldn't be a huge factor. At some stage the selectors have to bite the bullet. If any of Smith, Warner, Hughes or Watson can turn their careers around then well and good. I can't see Rogers or Cowan being long term solutions but happy to be surprised. Khawaja does have good technique but needs to learn how to go on with it. There may well be 1 or 2 other batsmen (or bowlers) who could emerge in the next couple of years. Every 10 years or so an absolute star batsman emerges. Sometimes you might get a couple. Since Greg Chappell retired we've had more than our fair share of top batsmen surface. The last one was Michael Hussey and he's already retired (Hussey debuted after Clarke)

Interesting article here featuring some ideas, comments and a way forward from Greg Chappell ... rather enlightening and it's not all doom and gloom according to Greg. Just might take a few years by the looks of it. We unearth 2 star batsmen and everything can change. Just need to find them ... The thoughts of GS Chappell

I'm quite big on history not being ignored. The AFL's team of the century did not include one player who played prior to 1930. In my book that makes it a flawed team. In cricket, we've got all the numbers for proof and let's not forget that batsmen played on uncovered wickets back then. Any batting average above 35 - 40 would have been some sort of achievement. Couple all that with the fact that there isn't a person alive who saw any these past greats (prior to around about 1920) and they can easily be overlooked. All we've got is the history books and the numbers but I trust the accounts of the day. Liked all your teams though TD. Test Cricket has a very rich history. Btw, Victor Trumper only averaged 39.04 but he is widely renowned as one of the greats. Blokes like Macartney, Noble, Armstrong and others had excellent numbers (all things considered)

I think we're all getting tired of that lousy excuse that because others doped, it somehow justifies an athlete cheating themselves. It's a cop-out and it doesn't cut it with me. All these individuals make a choice. Though we do know that some 'teams' have doped, as a whole, I still can't blame the sport or the tours. It's not like all the thousands of volunteers and organisers of the Tour de France wanted all this. On the contrary, they're most probably all dead against doping. It's a shame that innocent athletes are getting tarred with the same brush. It's unfair. Here's the latest from the arguably the biggest cheat of all ... Armstrong: U.S. Postal Service got 'what it bargained for' I've got my fingers crossed for a truthful and just outcome.

Yeah, picking that best XI was good fun. Doing it over January was ideal as well. The BBC lads along with Jim Maxwell picked a best Ashes XI and this is what they came up with (in batting order) Jack Hobbs Len Hutton Don Bradman Wally Hammond Allan Border Ian Botham Adam Gilchrist Shane Warne Harold Larwood Dennis Lillee Glenn McGrath 12th Keith Miller I would have had to have found a spot in the XI for Miller but who do you leave out? Here's the write-up ... The greatest Ashes XI

Here's a bit of Thommo for ya TD! It's a pity he hurt his shoulder a couple of times as he could have gone down as one of the all time greats. As it was he certainly left a lasting impression. We were a good side prior to the 74/75 season but with Thomson added to the mix, we became a great one. Btw, Dave Warner is now 110 not out. You'd reckon with that knock he might get a recall.

Yeah, some excellent teams there TD. I'd only make a few changes with the bowling (Thommo and Garth to swap with Merv and Billy) but you've done well with the rest of the line-ups. Monty Noble and 'The Big ship' Warwick Armstrong would find their way into my XI's as well. Charlie Macartney was another player with strong claims. You'll be giving HT some more ideas about 'Best XI's ! (which passes the time nicely in the Holiday period whilst we're all watching the 'Big Bash' )

If you look at our team, we don't seem to have a lot of natural leaders. We are coming off a hugely successful era filled with strong characters and self starters. The last few years and probably the next couple of years are very similar to that '83 to '88 era. Even though I'm generally against picking older blokes, I think we could do a lot worse than to bring George Bailey into the side. If we were to revisit a past player, Marcus North might also be a good fit for what we need right now. Both Bailey and North are highly regarded for their leadership which is what we so badly need. Clarke would have a couple of 'Go to' men along with Haddin. It's time we got a couple of new young batsmen into the side as well. We've got to bite the bullet at some stage. Of the current 8 batsmen in England, only Clarke and possibly Khawaja have long term futures. The others have huge question marks over them. Many of them have had enough chances (Rogers excluded) and it's time to move them on. Our current batsmen's ability to play spin is diabolical. We're tentative, there's a lack of footwork and we're missing too many straight balls. Katich is about to turn 38 and along with Punter and Hussey, he's had his time. Wouldn't surprise me if they called on him though. North is still only 33 and bowls reasonable off spin. Bailey is 30.

Tactically, Clarke is excellent. As a batsman, he's world class. As for leadership, it's so hard to know. He cannot be blamed for our current state. If you're representing your country, you've got to be naturally motivated and if you let the backroom stuff distract you, you probably shouldn't be there. Character comes from within. Our lack of performance with the bat is part technical and part temperament. The rest of it is up to the player himself and there are no excuses.

Yeah well I grabbed that mirror, peered over my shoulder and all I could see was the towel rack! Seriously, all that back room stuff doesn't really interest me. We've no idea what's really going on anyway. Everything we hear about is 2nd and 3rd hand news so what are we supposed to believe or not believe? There's a lot of rumour and innuendo and I don't give it a lot of credence. The easiest way to judge things is to simply comment on what we see out on the ground. We're not much chop and that can't be disputed. All the selectors can do is to give others a chance and see what they come up with. It's my belief that we need to rebuild with youth (21 - 26 year olds) but I wouldn't be against a short term rescue plan with a couple of wise heads so that we can at least be competitive. But talk of bringing back retired greats comes with it's own issues. They've had their time. It won't be getting any easier any time soon. After England visit our shores we embark on a tour of South Africa to face Steyn, Morkel and Philander. I wonder if the selectors will go outside the squad to strengthen the current team? Obviously the Australian A team who are playing in South Africa could offer up some candidates. But in reference to the captain and coach, every player is responsible for his own actions. Batting, bowling or fielding for the team still remains an individual act in this sport. There's very little a coach or captain can do once you're in the moment. Oh and TD, I like that team! You had to leave out a few champs ... Punter, S Waugh, Grimmett, Benaud amongst them. Thommo 'live' was astonishingly fast. He was a freak with an almost perfect high release. Scary quick and at his best, was almost unplayable.

If Watson goes then 4 or 5 should go before him. Faulkner can't bat in the top 6 and Watson will probably stay because of his bowling. I agree that Watson should go but right now, he is better value (all round) than Rogers, Hughes, Khawaja, Smith, Cowan and Warner (none of whom bowl ... Smith bowls occasionally but is a real part timer) With Patto out we will need Watson's bowling even more so. Watson should drop down to no.6 for now as he's not an opener and we could replace him with Henriques or Mitch Marsh (but probably not whilst we're in England) How the other batsmen escape the same scrutiny is astonishing. It's a team game and it's never one persons fault when a team is playing as diabolically bad as our team. I'm not excusing Watson as he should be dropped but so should all the batsmen (bar Clarke) We've got far bigger fish to fry. Rogers adds nothing and is too old, Cowan the same, Hughes is back to his non productive ways, Warner should have been sent home, Smith isn't up to it and Khawaja can't go on with it. If Watson goes, so should the lot of them. Sacking Watson on his own won't solve anything and we'll be down to 4 bowlers (without a strike bowler - Patto) Faulkner is a no.7 or no.8. He is not a test standard batsman.