When the Australian Cricketers Association (ACA) researched its submission to the Longstaff Review it asked this question of Australias past and present male and female professional cricketers: What are three things Australian cricket could do to improve the Australian cricket high performance system?
The players answers were clear and strong. They spoke of the need to support Premier or grade cricket. Said one: "Once you destroy the foundations like grade cricket — replace players mid-game, or rest players from playing all together – its ridiculous. Shield Cricket has just been tossed aside. And we see the results in the national team."
Marginalised: The Sheffield Shield was the envy of world cricket.Credit:AAP
Another said: "I only played Shield games that were at full strength. All the Test players were playing against one another – and they werent holding back. Every Shield game was like another Test for the season. There was real pride in playing for your state. And I never once knocked back an opportunity to play grade cricket. But now even if the players want to play cricket they are not allowed."
Another spoke of the need to reintroduce the state 2nd XI competition: "There is a bit of anger from the players who are 22 to 25, who do well in grade cricket but who have nowhere to go. It has to get back to a 2nd XI comp. You knew that if you did well in this, then you're not far from your state team. The older guys are getting lost in the system – theyre almost giving up. A lot of players are losing interest".
Another player referenced the pressure being placed on very young players: "They are really pushing the kids – they have to make a choice. There is too much training. They dangle the carrot of being a professional cricketer. But if you havent got someone supporting them the kids drop out. Guys at 17, 18 are really struggling with the commitment of the game. Everything is too formalised – too rigorous. Weve gone too far."
Advertisement
As a huge benefactor of the previous high performance system, I whole heartedly agree with these comments which characterise the mood of Australias past and present professional cricketers.
And its a call Cricket Australia need to take on board now, before it really is too late.
The submission the ACA gave to the Longstaff Review completely captures all of these themes.
Australian cricket must get back to making better use of state versus state competition and broaden the definition of high performance so that it places priority on playing to win in the right spirit and upholding the right values.
The ACAs submission explains very clearly that for generations the domestic cricket system in Australia was the envy of world cricket. Sheffield Shield and 50-over cricket would produce player after player capable of representing their country based on repeated standout performances over multiple seasons, against very strong competition on the best grounds in the country.
The challenge is to better integrate modern high-Performance thinking with the traditional and successful competitive environments of state and Premier Cricket.
To this end, the ACA argues for the centralised high-performance model to be decentralised into well funded state-based programs. It notes that Australian crickets strength has been traditionally based on the varying approaches by all the states across the country. The one-size-fits-all centralisation is so obviously counter-productive.
This necessary re-calibration would have a significant and positive impact. With more locally based fulltime professional coaches and support staff, more players individual needs can be catered for at state level.
The result of this approach would be an increase in the number of players who can benefit from high-performance training. And if the states are encouraged to compete strongly for domestic titles as the No.1 objective then finding the next Australian player will happen naturally.
The core point of all of this and the reason its so important is that through genuine competition and state-based success more Australian-ready players will emerge.
These adjustments would also ensure that the state coaches are being encouraged to develop a highly competitive state-based system, with the emphasis being on maintaining more proven senior players in the squad.
The two-fold effect will be having the senior players imparting their knowledge, skills, values and behaviours whilst also creating a stronger domestic competition.
Furthermore, if we keep the carrot dangling there for older players who dream of playing even just one game for their state then we will not lose the next generation of senior cricketers in Premier Cricket as we have over the last five to 10 years.
And if we can adjust the schedule so nationally contracted players can play more with their state team, and state players more with their Premier Cricket team then this rising tide of talent and skill will lift all players and clubs.
Last but not least, we have to give massive credit to Cricket Australia, which has generated so much wealth for the game. As a result there is no reason why a plan for a decentralised model of high performance to enhance and support local and state-based cricket cannot be fully funded.
The reason why this all seems so simple is because it is.
I just have my fingers crossed that things shift sooner rather than later to get our incredibly enduring and successful ship of world-class cricketers heading in the right direction.
Shane Watson is a member of the ACA Executive and current player for the Sydney Thunder.
