If you're good enough, you're old enough?

[Howsie]

1 more season, I think. It wasn't long ago that he experienced quite a dip in his FC average (to around 35 if I recall correctly) so he's going to have to prove his consistency for another season yet for mine.

That being said, with the World Cup in less than a year, it makes matters very tough for New Zealand. Maybe just ODIs for now.

It was this season actually, his first six innings of the season netted him about 50 runs. But yes you bring up a point a few of us have already discussed, the World Cup. I think New Zealand only play five ODI's next summer because of the world cup, if Williamson hasn't made his debut by then I doubt he'll make his debut next summer at all (of course he'd probably be in-line for a test debut about then anyway).

Howsie added 11 Minutes and 37 Seconds later...

generally yes, I believe that saying. but there is a few other factors to consider.

the balance of the team has to be taken into account, loading a team with young players is not a good move, it gives them a collectively naive approach, at northern districts he has a lot of experienced guys around him, perhaps the NZ selectors feel the balance of the squad is still a little on the young side, and to put another young guy in the picture would create selection problems.

Yeah, that's a pretty good point. Just look at the current New Zealand team, they're missing so many regular players at the moment perhaps they don't wont him to come into a team where so many guys are fighting for there place in the team, the camp might be to helter skelter at the moment.

 

[stefan]

If they are good enough they should be picked.

We have picked quite a few youngsters actually smith,ab,kallis,boucher,steyn,m.morkel. Only youngsters who struggled because of being early was amla who had to go back to provincial level and rudolph who hasn't been back since he got dropped. The rest have made the grade. Parnell is the new youngster that got picked, also have another 20 year old in our prelimanary t20 wc squad in dave miller and a 22 year old in colin ingram.

 

[AngryPixel]

Nope. Why should your young age serve as a barrier to your induction into the national team if you are performing consistently at the domestic level? The burning example here is Sachin Tendulkar, who made his debut when he was just 16, after setting the stage on fire in the Indian domestic competitions.

You are wrong mate, he didn;'t set the stage on fire, he ripped them via his volcano.
He scored hundreds on his each debut match in ranji trpphy, irani trophy and duleep trophy. He was dismissed only once in 1987 season of school championships and scored two triple tons which included the mammoth partnership with kambli.

Though we should select players on base of talent. It has worked for Australia(Dave Warner,Clark), India also had a fair share of success (Raina debuted at 18years,Yuvi 19 yrs,pathan 19 years,Ishant). So there is no reason why this wont work for kiwis. They should give younger players more chance. Moreover younger players tends to be more natural players as their techniques are yet to be chopped by various coaches, thus they are fun to watch.

 

[AngryPixel]

Did some research and found this :

For a prodigy, he started late. When he was nine years old. And it was only in 1984-85 that he scored his first school-level fifty. But 1985-86 was a little better. He scored his first Harris Shield hundred and played for Bombay in the Vijay Merchant (Under-15) tournament. And 1986-87 was when he blossomed. Still only 13, he led his school, Shardashram Vidyamandir, to victory in the Giles Shield (for Under-15s). He scored three centuries - 158*, 156 and 197 - and then in the Harris Shield scored 276, 123 and 150. In all, he scored nine hundreds, including two double hundreds, a total of 2336 runs.

Season 1987-88 was a purple patch that never ended. Playing in the Vijay Merchant tournament he scored 130 and 107 and then at the Inter-Zonal stage he made 117 against the champions, East Zone. Then in the Vijay Hazare tournament (for Under-17s) he scored 175 for West Zone against champions East Zone.

Then came the avalanche. A 178* in the Giles Shield and a sequence in the Harris Shield of 21*, 125, 207*, 329* and 346*! A small matter of 1028 runs in five innings! And in the course of that innings of 329* he set the much talked-about record of 664 for the third wicket with Vinod Kambli, who, it is not always realised, scored 348*. Perhaps the most fascinating of them all was the innings of 346*. Coming immediately, as it did, in the shadow of the world record, a lot of people were curious to see him bat. Sachin ended the first day on 122, batted through the second to finish with 286, and when the innings closed around lunch on the third day, he was 346*. And then came back to bowl the first ball. In April's Bombay summer.

If you do this kinda demolition then selectors gotta be idiots if they don't select you.

AngryPixel added 1 Minutes and 54 Seconds later...

Tendulkar on his first tour against pakistan at the age of 16

I think afridi also debuted at about 16 or 17 year old a she is 30 now but seems to be playing forever.

 

[Owzat]

Its more of a long term thing for them. as a selector they have to think differently here.

Just look at Bdesh... you really dont want teenagers. It could ruin their whole career.

I agree, even with England picking players around their early 20s they come in and disappear because they're not ready.

Which is why I suggested a level of achievement, either three full seasons of domestic cricket - and county cricket is not a great measure of Test readiness or ability - or maybe landmarks such as 2500 runs or 125 wickets. If they are really good and making people think they are ready for Tests at say 19 then they should be in a domestic first class side younger than most and be near one or both of those landmarks.

The problem for me is it can ruin a player with the massive step up, even 'greats' like Ponting and Kallis struggled early career, and to be quite frank it can do disfavours to the young player and the Test/ODI side if he isn't ready. How many kids have come into Tests and made their mark straight away - in any Test side?!? Tendulkar is maybe the obvious one, Lara was all but 24 when he made his breakthrough score in Tests (277 vs aussies 02/01/93) and by breakthrough I mean a score that would significantly impact on the team more than the odd 50. And those two are legends now, I think the problem is a lot of talent is seen in some young players that may never become legend material.

I could cite Foster as an example for England, but MR Ramprakash is perhaps the best example. Made his debut three months shy of his 22nd birthday, made SEVEN scores of 20-29 in his first eight innings, but from then on in was struggling to establish himself in the side. He made his first Test hundred in 1998 at the age of 29, but still never really made his name in Tests even then. Obvious talent but just because you can tonk county bowlers all over the place for lots of runs, or can take wickets easily doesn't mean you will succeed in Tests. Chris Read makes runs look easy at county level, would be in the Test side now if that counted for much in Tests. Harmison takes wickets for fun for Durham, not trusted in the England side. Hick is another case in point, although his debut was delayed as he had to qualify for England and even then he showed making hay in the counties doesn't make you succeed in Tests.

Sure there will be exceptions that disprove the rule, but by and large I think a rule of thumb that gives service in first class cricket should stop players being thrown in after they take a 5wi or score a hundred at 18. Also don't forget the body doesn't stop developing until around 19 (I believe it is 19, might be a little out) and Tests are way more demanding than first class cricket. There's no hiding place in Tests, in first class cricket the captain can bowl you sparingly or put you down at seven in the order, but in Tests you have to bowl your quota or bat in the order where you are needed and may well be called upon.

So while some might not like it, there is no doubt players can be thrown in at the deep end too early. Sure some might be ready at 18, but is there a great deal to be gained throwing them in early than waiting even three years?!?! There is no prize for getting them in at the earliest opportunity, as with any team game the chances of one player making the team massively improved/more effective are slim unless that player is world class and to expect that of a teenager is a bit much - even if on the odd occaision they prove to be so. Was Sachin or Lara world class at 18?!? Sure he made his first Test ton at 17 but that was his NINTH Test and India had a side full of players who could average in the 40s so until he pushed up past 50 to the mid-50s he was doing himself proud in terms of personal records, but the team wasn't being carried by him. Maybe a weaker team needs a prodigy, not so sure the stronger sides need them so much though.

Although I would say my preference is to test players for the Test arena in ODI cricket, as seemed more the case back when I started following England. It can be a gentler way to ease a player into international cricket, no flurry of bouncers, no slip corden chirping away at you or indeed no more than 10 overs to be bowled in the case of bowlers and only ONE day's cricket for the body to endure rather than five.

 

[drainpipe32]

How many players have debuted in their teens, and ten years later been failures?

I bet you the majority will favour successes.

 

[angryangy]

Some players just aren't the real deal. If a player is mentally suspect, then it doesn't matter when you pick them. They'll still be fragile years later. It's a hard thing to train out of a player. However, technique can be fixed. If a young player has flaws that are only revealed in a Test match, then it hardly helps to not pick him.

 

[irottev]

Our batsmen lack maturity at the moment away and they're supposed to be experienced. May as well thrust some youth in.

 

[Robelinda]

Well the whole world waited while Graeme Hick pounded county attacks then qualified for Eng, and what a failure, and he wasnt young. So the years spent smashing runs amounted to nothing, would he have been picked when he was really young? I think for sure, the selectors were just waiting....

 

[War]

Well the whole world waited while Graeme Hick pounded county attacks then qualified for Eng, and what a failure, and he wasnt young. So the years spent smashing runs amounted to nothing, would he have been picked when he was really young? I think for sure, the selectors were just waiting....

Ha ye.

But i think Big Hick played in the wrong era. The 90s was the best era of fast bowling after all.

When i see people like Collingwood succeed today & Ian Bell blow hot & cold in tests in the last 10 years of flat tracks & joke attacks. Who are not as talented as Hick. I feel pretty confident that Hick could have averaged 40-45, if he played in the 2000s era instead of the 90s.