Cricket | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Cricket

Mappa said:
Good posting boys

Unfortunately the entire development program needs to be completely reviewed.

For a hundred years, grade and shield performances actually meant something. Those two testing grounds once upon a time produced seasoned professional players. Players ready to take on the challenge of test match cricket.

Today both competitions are completely disregarded, runs and wickets in these competitions mean nothing.

The only players being considered for tests are those in the national talent program, which immediately eliminates 75% of those players playing shield cricket.

There lies the problem, the ACB thinks it knows better and is trying to identify players early and manufacture test players through its development program, hence bypassing the need for grade and shield performances. This means guys move through the system far too quickly, they have no grounding in the hard school of cricket and no experience at spending time working their way up the ranks, having to graft and perform at all levels before being selected.


This process itself destroys the fabric of the game and the credibility of selection. Selection is now not about runs and wickets or performance, its about which young guy is seen as having the most potential as judged by the cricket development programs.

If you go back a few years this all started with the introduction of the talent identification program and the arrival of Greg Chappel into the development system. I know of occassions where state sides are forced to pick players that are in these programs over and above players they really want to play because someone in the talent programs wants them to play.

This whole process weakens the depth of our production system. Young players are smart these days they know full well if they are not picked in one of these development squads there chances of playing higher levels disappears. So the days when you came up through the grade ranks and performance saw you promoted to shield level are gone.

interestingly these kids then drop out, along with more senior players they go and play sub district where they play on decent grounds with their mates with no pressure and less travelling. This weakens the whole production line. Look at any grade side now around the country you will find at least four players in every side that would never have played first grade fifteen years ago. You can also add in the the fact that those in the state squads also do not play the number of grade games they would have done in the past as they do not need to perform to get picked.

Add in the following

1) second eleven cricket replaced by an under 23 comp to suit the talent program, where does a player in the state squad play?
2) Rookie contracts restricted to under 22 year olds, the ACB should look at the AFL system as this could provide an avenue for those late developers who dominate grade cricket and aren’t in the talent program

Sorry for the whine but our system of development is totally wrong at present, we use guess work and potential as the measure for selection when performance should be the dominating factor.

Let’s take a step back and allow the grade and shield sytem the opportunity to do what it did for us for a 100 years







You can add the following to the list of issues we also need to address.

Good post Mappa

It wasn't too long ago that shield games were played while a test series was being played in Australia, oh how i miss the good old days.
If a bowler got injured, or a batsmen was out form, there were shield players who were in form and playing 4 day cricket to choose from.

Who's to blame, the players are now getting well paid and good luck to them. Has Cricket Australia sacrificed shield cricket and in effect Test cricket for the Big Bash as a way and means to pay contracted Australian men and women, Shield players etc?
 
Jadeja keeps running his hand through his wax product laden hair. Hmmm....
 
Like a lot of skippys who don’t follow the cricket as much now, is this Indian team that good ? Yes I know there the world number 1, however is it just because we are ordinary now or is world test cricket not as strong in talent as it once was ? I stand corrected however I used to feel there was 5 or 6 strong countries and them some very ordinary ones, now it appears a couple of good teams then a pretty bland bunch ?
 
bigwow said:
Indians starting to get the ball to reverse.
Australians haven't swung the ball in 4 tests.
It’s amazing how long it is since we have produced a good consistent swing bowler, appears to be like the first ndless search for a good all rounder. As good as Starc can be when he has the new ball, a lot of the time he just bowls rubbish. I hear on the wireless we have a few shield bowlers who bowl good swing
 
Not one batsman out to a good ball so far.

Poor technique on show once again.

Australian cricket development program is as good as the tigers program back in the dark old days.

Wonder if the cricket academy has possums shitting in the change rooms?
 
The Big Richo said:
I think a lot of the issues with Australian Cricket today can be traced back to a horrible employment decision almost a decade ago.

Employing someone in a critical position and then leaving them there for an extended period of time, despite an avalanche of negative feedback was pure insanity.

It was cricket's Craig Cameron/Dan Richardson years.
Sutherland? Closer to 20 years.
 
Sutherland
Howard
Chappell

The list goes on.

The only thing I can say is they have overseen a steady and systematic decline in all things that were working in our game.

Possible the only thing that went up was revenue and with the changes in big bash this year that should follow every other measurable KPI down the toilet.
 
The Big Richo said:
I see Sutherland as a decent CEO for the most part, he just can't handle the big moments.

Howard was the issue.

I've said it before I'll say it again Sutherland presided over the issues that led to the Argus review, for some unfathomable reason he was not held accountable and allowed to continue in the job. Since then he has presided over an organisation that was just as unaccountable as before (eg. Howard not being held accountable until it was too late) but which got worse due to essentially a takeover by corporate interests
 
How is it Cummins can look so good as a batter but our actual batters can't? Handscomb looks good as well, he's made some changes to his technique and is the better for it.