Early Moves

[ZIMDOGGY]

i thought taylor was good straight out.

He looked promising at the beginning.

[eugene]

If he was selected in 2005 he may have stayed around. He probably figured when he wasn't selected then that it wasn't worth sticking around. I think there was still quotas in place at the time meaning that certain cricketers probably felt there was no shot of them making the team.

Yeah, but plenty who were picked at the time (Higgins, Ireland, Meth among others) left anyway...

That is a good point.

[sloandog]

I vaguely remember Piet Rinke playing, but not too much, but apparently he started playing first class cricket in 2003....why wasn't he chosen earlier

[jamthala]

@sloan
i think it is a good move india also giving there U19 player jaydev unadkant chances in INDIA A matches.

[sloandog]

@sloan
i think it is a good move india also giving there U19 player jaydev unadkant chances in INDIA A matches.

Agreed. A very promising player. Maybe it was a good move to put young Waller in early, I just thought perhaps a bit of first class cricket would be more beneficial

[aydee]

At the end of the day, virtually no country ever selects an A side as literally the second best XI available. The A side is a platform in which potential national team players can be given experience, practice, form, fitness, and the coaches can get a more thorough look at their technical and mental abilities, often against more talented opposition than they would face in domestic cricket (although probably not in the case of the Dutch). Under these circumstances, it is only right if there is a young player considered to be a significant prospect, that he should be fast tracked into the A side, even if he would not yet be among the 22 best cricketers in the country.

When it comes to selecting the full national side itself, age should not really be a criteria, in my opinion. The best XI cricketers should be selected, regardless of whether they are 12, 52, or anywhere in between. International cricket, where naturally the results are the most important aspect, is not the place to be grooming a young player, whose ability does not yet necessarily demand inclusion, simply because of his age.

[sloandog]

What about 11 and 53 year old's
It's all well and good having the younger players in, but without any first class experience ?? The A' sides around the world play youngsters with 10-15 first class matches under their belt, something young Nathan Waller hasn't got.

[bayhaus]

I tend to think that if someone is destined to succeed in international cricket they will regardless of when they are out in the team. .

yeah also look at Ameer debuted at 17 and he is 18 right now, also if you intend to score runs and take wickest a la Tendulkar or Murali you havent to come in fairly young and play for fairl long as well