The state of test cricket post Australia's 1995-2006/07 decline

[War]

Including Rogers who's 35 is stupid although I never knew his average now is quite good and consistent with his career average.
Possibly the worst suggested I've seen.

No promising young players in it. Apart from Khawaja. I still don't know why Haddin is chosen. He was dropped for a reason. Why not bring in Hartley?

Well AUS picked Clarie Grimmett & Colin Miller for test debuts @ ages 33 & 34. ENG picked Bail D'Oliveira @ age 35. All these players ended up having solid test careers.

So its a bit unfair to say if Rogers is recalled @ age 35 that it would be stupid.

On Haddin, the selectors to be fair to them always said he was back-up to Wade & before the S Africa home series many people thought Haddin would regain the keeper spot.

However if we are all for younger players, I would think Tim Paine is ahead of Chris Hartley.

 

[sifter132]

I don't think age should be a massive issue, only a tiebreaker if 2 players are similar in ability or performance. My problem with Rogers isn't his age, it's that he hasn't been overly impressive of late - just decent. This year he's averaged 49, last winter in England he averaged 38, previous summer in Australia was 41 - hardly numbers that would make me abandon the current plan of the selectors. The counter argument is that 'oh he's better than Cowan at least'. Only this season. Last winter (2012 season) Cowan was in England captaining Aus A and averaged 47 against better attacks than Rogers was facing, and in 11/12 when Rogers was averaging 41, Cowan averaged 56.

In a period where the best team is not obvious, the real skill or lack of skill of selectors gets exposed. A selector role in cricket is always under-rated - they suppose to be better than me, you & any average fan @ having a unique understanding of the game & spotting talent.

AUS are not Bangladesh or Zimbabwe. So the selectors can't hide behind the perceived lack of talent for the poor results of the current team across all formats.

A point will come (a point which i think is already here) where the logic they use behind picking teams will have to be questioned & when they happens they Inverarity/Arthur will have to be axed like Andrew Hilditich & his cohorts was.

Yep quite right. The selectors have a bit of inside knowledge, based on the extra analysis that happens behind the scenes, and knowing the players personally and how they fit into a team/dressing room. They also know exactly what Clarke/Arthur are wanting in an XI. From that they can create their selection 'philosophy' and hopefully they stick to it as much as possible. After that it's the results and general direction of the team that will speak as to how successful the selectors philosophy has been.

 

[angryangy]

In this day and age, being picked at 35 is a chance to play upwards of 30 Tests. The main problem is that there are no sure things. If an older player can't pull it off, then it's seen as a dead end through which a younger player could have gained experience. Of course, never do we see things the other way; that an impetuous youngster with no polish is wasting a chance that a more experienced player would have relished.

 

[War]

In this day and age, being picked at 35 is a chance to play upwards of 30 Tests. The main problem is that there are no sure things. If an older player can't pull it off, then it's seen as a dead end through which a younger player could have gained experience. Of course, never do we see things the other way; that an impetuous youngster with no polish is wasting a chance that a more experienced player would have relished.

Yep the bold sums it is pretty accurately. Cricket has a weird way of judging and under-appreciating players who are 30+. A sport like football you got people like Paul Scholes, Ryan Giigs, Francesco Totti, Paulo Maldini, Phillip Cocu etc etc who proved very valuable to their clubs even at advanced ages due to enhanced modern fitness regimes and stuff.

 

[angryangy]

Experience is also the broader malaise of Australian cricket. The real problem is if the states can't produce a good base of seasoned cricketers. Then it's just noobs playing noobs and teams like Tassie dominating because they bother to do things properly.

Tasmania are at strength now, not so much because of luck in the talent pipeline or brilliant recruiting. Cosgrove was ditched by SA; Cowan by NSW. They were just gimmes. All that was required of Tasmania was to make them play well.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

If they have any aspirations to win in India they'll need a class spinner, simple as. I know, there's always IND v AUS 2004 in terms of hope, but we've learned from that, we no longer wait the last match to bring out the raging turner.

hmm, you might be right actually, but a big part of that I think will be because, given south africa won't tour there for another 2 years or so, they'll probably be without kallis. without a proper all-rounder they'll get a lot of goes at targetting a poor spinner.