gUt
Coach
- Messages
- 16,889
http://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket...m/news-story/a1f4fa352d11422d46e933f5663dfa00
Brett Geeves on the demise of Australian domestic cricket and impact on the Test team
GREG Chappell is an Australian cricketing icon. And lobbing grenades at him is akin to lobbing water balloons at the Queen.
You’ll likely be court-martialed, strung up by all fours and have car battery wires applied to your nipples.
But to get to the core reason as to why Australian cricket is now on its knees, we need to, at the very least, hit Greg with a rubber band or an onslaught of Nerf-related bullets.
Greg Chappell - just named an interim selector - is responsible for taking the lead on a decision that sent cricket in Australia spiralling backwards and to this day, still impacts the development of the game and those aspiring to be contributors to both their state and their country as playing representatives.
2009 was a time when reality TV was with us, but nowhere near as prominent to our social fabric. In many regards, Greg was a cricketing pioneer for attempting to bring a reality TV model to Australian domestic cricket. The Next Top Order Batter.
He so desperately wanted to find the next 15-year top order batter, or handsome fast bowler oozing marketability and the frame of a centre half forward, that he disturbed and shifted the foundation of what had made Australian cricket strong.
Soon after, Pat Howard was appointed high performance supremo and went on to push for experiments in the Shield like pink balls, Dukes balls and new points systems.
But back to 2009. The Australian domestic cricket scene was the one asset not broken, or to be messed with. It didn’t need tinkering. Australian cricket would not prosper if the strongest production line of talent in the world was disrespected. Greg picked it up, without an ear to the screams of the players, and dropped it. Dropped it right on its head. Hard.
Remarkably, he turned the domestic second XI competition into a glorified junior competition; implementing restrictions on how many players over the age of 24 could be selected in each team. Because 25 year-old’s were deemed past it and simply clogging the transition of kids who had nice techniques and success in national junior tournaments, but no runs on the board in the breeding ground of a once hot-spot for talented, battle-hardened men: club cricket.
The change was drastic, with seven out of the 11 players needing to be under 24.
This sent a message to states, and its contracted players, that if you were over 24 and not being selected in the first XI, your days were numbered.
I would love to know how many contracted players lost their spot on a state list, with the impact being detrimental to their motivation and ultimately their want to contribute in grade cricket.
How many grade players that missed out on the talent identification of state junior representation - over the age of 24 - aspiring to play first-class cricket for their state, saw this decision as a smack in the face to their pursuit of their childhood dream?
How many departed the game for the lure of the country synthetic cricket and its offering of cash? How many departed for the lure of family time and a game of golf? How many picked up an extra day’s work?
Having lived in the grade scene for the past five years and consistently being the second oldest in the competition, at age 29 onwards, I can tell you now that it has impacted club cricket enormously. So much so that Australia’s contracted players – international and domestic - contributed close to $20 million dollars from their player payment pool to feed the development of grade cricket, youth pathways, player welfare and a host of other areas.
Be aware that this act is unprecedented in world sport. Players, giving up their own slice of the pie to ensure the game remains in a healthy place.
Concerning is the fact that the players saw this coming. That they felt they had to take ownership, with their own money, to fix the issues created by a management team so focused on believing that the answer sat with the identification of a superstar kid to save the day that they lost sight of what was actually working.
Two years after implementing this drastic change to that national second XI competition, CA eased up on its stance of the restriction of players over the age of 24 and states can now select six ‘over-age’ players. And it is still not enough.
The damage is done and it will only continue while the domestic competition – both first XI and second – are diluted with underachieving kids who aren’t entering the highest levels of the game equipped with the experiences of complete domination through the once-challenging stepping stone to the earnt representation of state and country.
How many times have we heard about the generational talent of Ponting, McGrath, Warne, Hayden, Langer, Lee, Hussey and Gillespie?
The international dominance of the group that took us on their journey of two 16-Test winning streaks - 1999 to 2001 and 2005 to 2008 - was no fluke. All of the players that are put into that once-in-a-generation category were developed in the hardest of schools.
Club games were not gifted to them as teenagers because of their technically correct stroke play. They banged hundreds and took wickets.
They were not gifted state second XI games purely because of their age and dominance against their junior peers. They banged more hundreds and took more wickets.
Their emergence as state players and development into international greats? Hundreds. Wickets. Lots of them. All of which came in a domestic competition seen as the strongest in the world.
Adding to the disrespect of the domestic competition is the current scheduling of the Matador Cup and the introduction of the Cricket Australia XI; a collection of technically nice-looking kids who have shown promising junior careers, but have not earned the right to represent their state; like Phillip Hughes did as a 19 year old. And Cameron White did as skipper of Victoria at 20. And George Bailey at 19. And Ricky Ponting at 18. The best kids will get their chance, and the great ones will make it work.
So not only has Chappell’s individual pursuit to whittle down the contestants to find The Next Top Order Batter impacted on the depth of grade cricket and the development opportunities of those in the system, contestants now get a free shot at the big time of first-class cricket. And this isn’t even made up.
For as long as the domestic cricket scene is being treated as a play thing for Pat Howard, the schedule of one-day cricket and Shield cricket is condensed and compromised to ensure that the Big Bash gets maximum exposure and the search for Greg’s Next Top Order Batter continues with age restrictions on the second XI and the ongoing free ride to first-class cricket for kids with nice techniques, Australian cricket will continue to spiral into the ugly murkiness of the 1980s.
----------
At least we have pink balls tho
Brett Geeves on the demise of Australian domestic cricket and impact on the Test team
GREG Chappell is an Australian cricketing icon. And lobbing grenades at him is akin to lobbing water balloons at the Queen.
You’ll likely be court-martialed, strung up by all fours and have car battery wires applied to your nipples.
But to get to the core reason as to why Australian cricket is now on its knees, we need to, at the very least, hit Greg with a rubber band or an onslaught of Nerf-related bullets.
Greg Chappell - just named an interim selector - is responsible for taking the lead on a decision that sent cricket in Australia spiralling backwards and to this day, still impacts the development of the game and those aspiring to be contributors to both their state and their country as playing representatives.
2009 was a time when reality TV was with us, but nowhere near as prominent to our social fabric. In many regards, Greg was a cricketing pioneer for attempting to bring a reality TV model to Australian domestic cricket. The Next Top Order Batter.
He so desperately wanted to find the next 15-year top order batter, or handsome fast bowler oozing marketability and the frame of a centre half forward, that he disturbed and shifted the foundation of what had made Australian cricket strong.
Soon after, Pat Howard was appointed high performance supremo and went on to push for experiments in the Shield like pink balls, Dukes balls and new points systems.
But back to 2009. The Australian domestic cricket scene was the one asset not broken, or to be messed with. It didn’t need tinkering. Australian cricket would not prosper if the strongest production line of talent in the world was disrespected. Greg picked it up, without an ear to the screams of the players, and dropped it. Dropped it right on its head. Hard.
Remarkably, he turned the domestic second XI competition into a glorified junior competition; implementing restrictions on how many players over the age of 24 could be selected in each team. Because 25 year-old’s were deemed past it and simply clogging the transition of kids who had nice techniques and success in national junior tournaments, but no runs on the board in the breeding ground of a once hot-spot for talented, battle-hardened men: club cricket.
The change was drastic, with seven out of the 11 players needing to be under 24.
This sent a message to states, and its contracted players, that if you were over 24 and not being selected in the first XI, your days were numbered.
I would love to know how many contracted players lost their spot on a state list, with the impact being detrimental to their motivation and ultimately their want to contribute in grade cricket.
How many grade players that missed out on the talent identification of state junior representation - over the age of 24 - aspiring to play first-class cricket for their state, saw this decision as a smack in the face to their pursuit of their childhood dream?
How many departed the game for the lure of the country synthetic cricket and its offering of cash? How many departed for the lure of family time and a game of golf? How many picked up an extra day’s work?
Having lived in the grade scene for the past five years and consistently being the second oldest in the competition, at age 29 onwards, I can tell you now that it has impacted club cricket enormously. So much so that Australia’s contracted players – international and domestic - contributed close to $20 million dollars from their player payment pool to feed the development of grade cricket, youth pathways, player welfare and a host of other areas.
Be aware that this act is unprecedented in world sport. Players, giving up their own slice of the pie to ensure the game remains in a healthy place.
Concerning is the fact that the players saw this coming. That they felt they had to take ownership, with their own money, to fix the issues created by a management team so focused on believing that the answer sat with the identification of a superstar kid to save the day that they lost sight of what was actually working.
Two years after implementing this drastic change to that national second XI competition, CA eased up on its stance of the restriction of players over the age of 24 and states can now select six ‘over-age’ players. And it is still not enough.
The damage is done and it will only continue while the domestic competition – both first XI and second – are diluted with underachieving kids who aren’t entering the highest levels of the game equipped with the experiences of complete domination through the once-challenging stepping stone to the earnt representation of state and country.
How many times have we heard about the generational talent of Ponting, McGrath, Warne, Hayden, Langer, Lee, Hussey and Gillespie?
The international dominance of the group that took us on their journey of two 16-Test winning streaks - 1999 to 2001 and 2005 to 2008 - was no fluke. All of the players that are put into that once-in-a-generation category were developed in the hardest of schools.
Club games were not gifted to them as teenagers because of their technically correct stroke play. They banged hundreds and took wickets.
They were not gifted state second XI games purely because of their age and dominance against their junior peers. They banged more hundreds and took more wickets.
Their emergence as state players and development into international greats? Hundreds. Wickets. Lots of them. All of which came in a domestic competition seen as the strongest in the world.
Adding to the disrespect of the domestic competition is the current scheduling of the Matador Cup and the introduction of the Cricket Australia XI; a collection of technically nice-looking kids who have shown promising junior careers, but have not earned the right to represent their state; like Phillip Hughes did as a 19 year old. And Cameron White did as skipper of Victoria at 20. And George Bailey at 19. And Ricky Ponting at 18. The best kids will get their chance, and the great ones will make it work.
So not only has Chappell’s individual pursuit to whittle down the contestants to find The Next Top Order Batter impacted on the depth of grade cricket and the development opportunities of those in the system, contestants now get a free shot at the big time of first-class cricket. And this isn’t even made up.
For as long as the domestic cricket scene is being treated as a play thing for Pat Howard, the schedule of one-day cricket and Shield cricket is condensed and compromised to ensure that the Big Bash gets maximum exposure and the search for Greg’s Next Top Order Batter continues with age restrictions on the second XI and the ongoing free ride to first-class cricket for kids with nice techniques, Australian cricket will continue to spiral into the ugly murkiness of the 1980s.
----------
At least we have pink balls tho
