Ashes debrief: The future of test cricket and Australia?

[Making_Splinters]

In the modern game, at all levels, you can't really get by being a traditional player any more. In the limited squads at domestic level, sides can't have a player on their books who is unselectable in limited overs cricket. The most striking feature of this Ashes series is how poorly both sides have looked to leave the ball outside off stump. It's a basic skill we coach at age group in club level cricket, but seems to have been lost as players move up the ranks.

I suppose it is similar to death of the gloveman in cricket. You don't see wicketkeepers who can't bat anymore.

[yorker_129-7]

In the modern game, at all levels, you can't really get by being a traditional player any more.

Ian Bell being a classic example. A man with so much classical and technical ability plays in such an orthodox way and as such looks massively out of place in the modern limited overs arena. Joe Root, by contrast, can play the "traditional" way but also is happy to get out the slog, the reverse-sweep and the like when required. He's probably the template (alongside Smith who is similar, and Kane Williamson for that matter) for batsmen going forward. I doubt we will see another Alastair Cook type player.

[sussexpob]

In the modern game, at all levels, you can't really get by being a traditional player any more. In the limited squads at domestic level, sides can't have a player on their books who is unselectable in limited overs cricket. The most striking feature of this Ashes series is how poorly both sides have looked to leave the ball outside off stump. It's a basic skill we coach at age group in club level cricket, but seems to have been lost as players move up the ranks.

I suppose it is similar to death of the gloveman in cricket. You don't see wicketkeepers who can't bat anymore.

Surely though, moving forward into the future, selectors and teams will look at the current crop of test players as being devoid of certain skills, and the sheer inefficiency of asking players to average 30 but blast them off 15 balls, will make way once again for players who can put match winning and long innings together?

Its unsustainable for this to continue, the drop in test match style application can be seen generally in dropping scores at the moment. If teams care about winning, the problem will sort itself out.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I'm always reading on CMS about how many runs are scored these days, and how we have to take runs off the bowlers' averages to fairly rate them. Now I'm reading that the modern player can't bat.

The wicket at TB was green, and the ball was swinging. Any batting team in history would have struggled, and only the best players likely to succeed.

Take a look on video at the techniques of players batting against Lillee and Thomson in the seventies. Some were set up well (Greig, Edrich) but some had appalling techniques (Luckhurst, Lloyd). If anything 1-11, they have better techniques now. And I'm not sure most of the Aussie bats play much T20, compared with first class. Certainly at international level.

[Arthur Crabtree]

By the way, Warner, who transferred to Test from T20, has a lot more runs (against the attack rated to have made the most of the conditions) than Bell or Cook, who are being seen as the last of the classical bats. Pretty sure he has a better Test average overall.

Not saying anyone's wrong. Just feel the mood is too much decided by what has just happened?

[Making_Splinters]

In the modern game, at all levels, you can't really get by being a traditional player any more. In the limited squads at domestic level, sides can't have a player on their books who is unselectable in limited overs cricket. The most striking feature of this Ashes series is how poorly both sides have looked to leave the ball outside off stump. It's a basic skill we coach at age group in club level cricket, but seems to have been lost as players move up the ranks.

I suppose it is similar to death of the gloveman in cricket. You don't see wicketkeepers who can't bat anymore.

Surely though, moving forward into the future, selectors and teams will look at the current crop of test players as being devoid of certain skills, and the sheer inefficiency of asking players to average 30 but blast them off 15 balls, will make way once again for players who can put match winning and long innings together?

Its unsustainable for this to continue, the drop in test match style application can be seen generally in dropping scores at the moment. If teams care about winning, the problem will sort itself out.

How is that in the interest of domestic teams though? Domestic squads need to be made of players who can play all three formats.

[Dr Cricket]

Funny thing is most player in the Test team don't even play much T20 or didn't even play much IPL.
Clarke, Rogers, Voges, Nevill.
Warner a tough one since he does score runs but doesn't really bat long and gives his wicket away too easily when set scoring 30-40 run a ball isn't that great in test matches compared to scoring 30-40 off 120 balls.
Could blame that on T20 or on Australian mindset.

Like I said before it is too easy to blame it on T20/Schedule but in reality it is down to the players.

how india goes on Test in the next 5 year will prove or disprove the T20 theory.
Kohli new team have all played IPl since the beginning and all the players coming through the set-up would have started playing domestic cricket with the IPL included in it.

Anyway T20 cricket hasn't affected domestic cricket, has anyone First class career suffered because of T20.
Surely if it affects Test cricket it should affect First class cricket.

[Making_Splinters]

Funny thing is most player in the Test team don't even play much T20 or didn't even play much IPL.
Clarke, Rogers, Voges, Nevill.
Warner a tough one since he does score runs but doesn't really bat long and gives his wicket away too easily when set scoring 30-40 run a ball isn't that great in test matches compared to scoring 30-40 off 120 balls.
Could blame that on T20 or on Australian mindset.

Like I said before it is too easy to blame it on T20/Schedule but in reality it is down to the players.

how india goes on Test in the next 5 year will prove or disprove the T20 theory.
Kohli new team have all played IPl since the beginning and all the players coming through the set-up would have started playing domestic cricket with the IPL included in it.

Anyway T20 cricket hasn't affected domestic cricket, has anyone First class career suffered because of T20.
Surely if it affects Test cricket it should affect First class cricket.

You can't really tell how T20 is affecting the domestic game since the majority of players coming through have now played T20 all of their careers. Indeed many counties give younger players their debut in 50 or 20 over cricket before they come into the 4 day side.

[sussexpob]

How is that in the interest of domestic teams though? Domestic squads need to be made of players who can play all three formats.

Its hardly like the ECB give a toss about the counties, after all, its their money that keeps most from going bankrupt. Produce test players, get dosh.... dont produce them, dont get money.

[Making_Splinters]

How is that in the interest of domestic teams though? Domestic squads need to be made of players who can play all three formats.

Its hardly like the ECB give a toss about the counties, after all, its their money that keeps most from going bankrupt. Produce test players, get dosh.... dont produce them, dont get money.

Well given how England have been struggling to find a decent gloveman for nearly 10 years, we've not seen any keepers who aren't selected for county sides based primarily on their batting. In fact the only decent young gloveman to come along in the last 10 years was released by his county last season. I'd love to be in the fantasy world of yours where the ECB mandates counties to produce a certain type of player and they magically appear.

[sussexpob]

Well given how England have been struggling to find a decent gloveman for nearly 10 years, we've not seen any keepers who aren't selected for county sides based primarily on their batting.

Completely different, that is the culture of the era that has decided that batting takes precedent over keeping, and to be fair the fact Buttler and Prior are picked for the national team is further rubberstamping of that policy. Fielding in general nowadays in the outfield is far better than any previous era, and I doubt many slippers in era's gone by would have took a few of those slip catches we seen at Trent Bridge. If keeper over keeper-batters were considered an overall positive, there would be more of them. The truth is, I very much doubt a keeper averaging 20 with the bat but magical glovework would pay the debt for that skill over someone like Prior or Gilchrist.... he would have to regularly save 40 runs with fielding every game to make that a pay off, which I doubt happens with any fairly competent keeper.

I'd love to be in the fantasy world of yours where the ECB mandates counties to produce a certain type of player and they magically appear.

Its in the interests of the game to produce the best player for any given situation, and in multi day cricket, that is the person who bats the most runs. Playing very aggressive cricket has lead to lower scores this series, its higher risk. If that aggressive filters downwards to First Class cricket then unless players are SR80 and averaging 45, you will find the more patient and adaptable players will rise to the top naturally.

If Alistair Cook was batting at Essex at 19 the way he is now, with bowlers less inclined to plug away patiently, he might bat all day. A drop in quality from T20 style innings naturally makes for a proper test capacity batsman to do well..... I am not saying the ECB will create it, its simply natural

In the same way you argue they have to be an all format batsman, well FC cricket is a format, so are mindless sloggers all format batsman?

[Making_Splinters]

Well given how England have been struggling to find a decent gloveman for nearly 10 years, we've not seen any keepers who aren't selected for county sides based primarily on their batting.

Completely different, that is the culture of the era that has decided that batting takes precedent over keeping, and to be fair the fact Buttler and Prior are picked for the national team is further rubberstamping of that policy. Fielding in general nowadays in the outfield is far better than any previous era, and I doubt many slippers in era's gone by would have took a few of those slip catches we seen at Trent Bridge. If keeper over keeper-batters were considered an overall positive, there would be more of them. The truth is, I very much doubt a keeper averaging 20 with the bat but magical glovework would pay the debt for that skill over someone like Prior or Gilchrist.... he would have to regularly save 40 runs with fielding every game to make that a pay off, which I doubt happens with any fairly competent keeper.

I'd love to be in the fantasy world of yours where the ECB mandates counties to produce a certain type of player and they magically appear.

Its in the interests of the game to produce the best player for any given situation, and in multi day cricket, that is the person who bats the most runs. Playing very aggressive cricket has lead to lower scores this series, its higher risk. If that aggressive filters downwards to First Class cricket then unless players are SR80 and averaging 45, you will find the more patient and adaptable players will rise to the top naturally.

If Alistair Cook was batting at Essex at 19 the way he is now, with bowlers less inclined to plug away patiently, he might bat all day. A drop in quality from T20 style innings naturally makes for a proper test capacity batsman to do well..... I am not saying the ECB will create it, its simply natural

In the same way you argue they have to be an all format batsman, well FC cricket is a format, so are mindless sloggers all format batsman?

Ignoring the mindless hyperbole above. Cricket at all levels is becoming more aggressive due to the impact of limited overs cricket. Aggressive batsmen are not "sloggers" but players who look to attack rather than leaving the ball. The standard of bowling at domestic level in England is such that being a more aggressively minded batsman - for example Bairstow whose averaging close to 100 - is not a major impediment.

[sussexpob]

Im confused? On one hand you are bemoaning the fact that Ashes batsman dont possess skills that you coach to kids, and that the most "striking feature of the series is how poorly both sides have leave the ball outside off stump".... on the other you also seem to suggest that the way forward in test cricket will be for teams to still pick players who bowling attacks will wipe out?

[Making_Splinters]

I don't see why this is a particularly perplexing point.

Throughout the Ashes we've seen both sides be very loose out side off stump. It is relatively understandable with an increasingly aggresive domestic game. Young players coming through the ranks will - by and large - be expected to be able to bat in T20 and 50 overs cricket if they are to secure a future in the game.

[rich1uk]

Funny thing is most player in the Test team don't even play much T20 or didn't even play much IPL.
Clarke, Rogers, Voges, Nevill.
Warner a tough one since he does score runs but doesn't really bat long and gives his wicket away too easily when set scoring 30-40 run a ball isn't that great in test matches compared to scoring 30-40 off 120 balls.
Could blame that on T20 or on Australian mindset.

Like I said before it is too easy to blame it on T20/Schedule but in reality it is down to the players.

how india goes on Test in the next 5 year will prove or disprove the T20 theory.
Kohli new team have all played IPl since the beginning and all the players coming through the set-up would have started playing domestic cricket with the IPL included in it.

Anyway T20 cricket hasn't affected domestic cricket, has anyone First class career suffered because of T20.
Surely if it affects Test cricket it should affect First class cricket.

by the time players reach the test sides the damage has been done as they haven't got the same foundations to their game as a result of t20

you say its too easy to blame t20 but are you seriously saying there hasn't been a noticeable dropoff in the quality of players coming through since t20 started ? are you seriously saying there hasn't been a noticeable change in the attitude of fans since t20 started ?

if Australia had been able to tough it out in that first session last week and made it to lunch at 50odd-0 cricinfo would have been full of people complaining about them "only" scoring at 2 runs per over even tho that's exactly what was required in the situation

you can get away with technical faults in domestic first class cricket that are exposed in test cricket so the impact is not as noticeable at that level

you keep saying its too easy to blame scheduling but given as was discussed earlier how sides seem to be capitulating towards the end of tours then surely mental fatigue and burnout has to be a factor as well ? I might be wrong here but they were saying that if mark wood at played the 3rd test it would have been the first time he had ever played 3 FC games back to back. when india were here last year iirc dhoni was the only player in the whole squad that had ever played a 5 test series before.