What is a better predictor of future performance? U-19 or A-Team?

[RazabQ]

Originally posted by PoorFan
What is the different between Shahadat and Mushfique? one is a bowler and other is a batsman, one was 19+ at that time and other is 17+ now, one had couple of A match experience against UAE and ZIM ( don't know more than that ) and other has plenty of international match experience tough in U 19. So I don't see much difference between this two except 2 years of AGE.

First off, big big difference between U-19 play level and A-team level. Do you really think they are similar? In terms of intensity? In terms of the physical abilities of the participants? In terms of the skill and nuances in play? If so, post why, and I shall happily provide my counterpoints.

Secondly, conventional wisdom (and yes there can exceptions) suggest that fast bowlers probably have the easiest adjustment to cricket, followed by batsmen, followed by slow/spin bowlers. I don't have the stats data to back this up in cricket, but if you look into Baseball's Sabermatics, you'll see this wisdom holding up fairly well. For this reason, I don't recall screaming bloody murder when Shahadat was given a game at Lords. Again, if you feel this not to be the case, do post, and we'll discuss.

If this AGE was the case, I wonder why our ex U 19 coach allowed him to go to England in the first place.

U-19 coach is not the ultimate authority. Faruque and prolly Whatmore are. Also Mushfique was supposed to just understudy Pilot and as Sham has pointed out elsewhere, learn about the conditions and gain experience. Through circumstance he ended up playing and his natural patience, propensity to play straight and mature shot selection enabled him to do allright.

He did NOT score huge runs in England, he has not at any level scored 300+ ala Tendulkar, heck he doesn't even have that many 100s, either in list A or FC. So unless one considers U-19 performances to be the ultimate barometer of success, there is NO need to press him into service immediately.

You say our batsmen play too many shots? Well how did Mushfique get out in the 2nd innings (even if it was a bad umpiring decision)? I don't think I, or some of the other conscientious objectors are making a call about Mushfique or any one player based on just one innings. Nor are any of us claiming to be Gurus. Rather some of us are saying, based on a non-trivial exosure to the game, that experience, and technique, do count for something.

BTW, if you do consider U-19 performances to be that predictive, pull up the roster of the U-19 players for all the tournaments and find out how many of the star performers played Test cricket and if so, how many actually lasted. Then pull up, from a similar period the A-Team stats for the same. I did it for the U-19 but then just did spot checks for A-team. A team appears to be more predictive. Again not a surprise. If jr age games meant so much, Nigeria or Saudi Arabai should have won a Fifa world cup by now.

[PoorFan]

Originally posted by RazabQ

First off, big big difference between U-19 play level and A-team level. Do you really think they are similar? In terms of intensity? In terms of the physical abilities of the participants? In terms of the skill and nuances in play? If so, post why, and I shall happily provide my counterpoints.

Looks like we are discussing a dead issue, as Tehsin mentioned in other thread, we should drop this subject.

Anyway, allow me to explain myself for the last time. It seems you missed my point, the pool of players and their performance in U 19 and A team of BANGLADESH doesn't make that much different. I was comparing between Mushfique and Shahadat, Mushfique don't have A team experience, but Shahadat have only few against weak team. Besides didn't we put Aftab, Nafis and Nafees in the team directly from U 19 team? So why we making this issue a BIG one in case of Mushfique, if not his age? Didn't our management, journalists and commentators praise him saying "cool head on a very young shoulder"? Did Mushfique said like he lost his sleep and dream because of that last test performance? So how we come to a conclusion like "destroying his future"? Who knows, playing a test every now and then may also be the part of nurture him. Since Mushfique is one of the SURE player who is going to play for BD in a long run, will not disappear that easy losing confidence by playing couple of bad test ( in his early age ). His consistence performance in U 19, and his short career of cricket till now suggest a lot I think. If it was the case other than Mushfique of U 19 team, then you certainly have valid point.

Secondly, conventional wisdom (and yes there can exceptions) suggest that fast bowlers probably have the easiest adjustment to cricket, followed by batsmen, followed by slow/spin bowlers. I don't have the stats data to back this up in cricket, but if you look into Baseball's Sabermatics, you'll see this wisdom holding up fairly well. For this reason, I don't recall screaming bloody murder when Shahadat was given a game at Lords. Again, if you feel this not to be the case, do post, and we'll discuss.

I also thought about the difference between bowler and batsman as you mentioned, but again, both of them are SPECIALIST for their own position, which make them even or close in term of mental aspect. Besides we have example of Aftab, Nafis and Nafees in hand, which suggest that the ONLY significant difference is "2 years of AGE". Now feel real lazy to dig it up who was screaming bloody murder when Shahadat got thrashed by English players.

U-19 coach is not the ultimate authority. Faruque and prolly Whatmore are. Also Mushfique was supposed to just understudy Pilot and as Sham has pointed out elsewhere, learn about the conditions and gain experience. Through circumstance he ended up playing and his natural patience, propensity to play straight and mature shot selection enabled him to do allright.

He did NOT score huge runs in England, he has not at any level scored 300+ ala Tendulkar, heck he doesn't even have that many 100s, either in list A or FC. So unless one considers U-19 performances to be the ultimate barometer of success, there is NO need to press him into service immediately.

But now we questioning Faruque and Whatmore, even they are the person who is watching and know best about Mushfique! How about the thought that he got the chance again through circumstance that he showed in Lord test? I doubt any body had expected more than 30 runs and playing more than dozens of overs, it so obvious. If he was able to do that, we wouldn't be talking on this issue for sure. All those Alok and Rana battle would have gone ( for sometime at least ) I guess.

... Again not a surprise. If jr age games meant so much, Nigeria or Saudi Arabai should have won a Fifa world cup by now.

I don't know how the name Saudi Arabia come up for win FIFA world cup, but all of those Nigerian players played for top European football club didn't they? You should ask Aimar, Saviola, Tchevege ( not sure the spell ), Messi and many more of the world, why they play as REGULAR in worlds top club like Spain, England and many others. Isn't their Jr game meant something to those worlds top?

[RazabQ]

First off I wanted to split the thread because I agree with PoorFan that this Mushfiq issue is a dead horse. However in my discussion with him I think we are expressing some interesting opinions on predictive role played by U-19 vs. A-Teams. Let's take the discussion in that direction?

Anyway, allow me to explain myself for the last time. It seems you missed my point, the pool of players and their performance in U 19 and A team of BANGLADESH doesn't make that much different. I was comparing between Mushfique and Shahadat, Mushfique don't have A team experience, but Shahadat have only few against weak team

IMHO it doesn't matter if we are comparing perf difference between BD's U-19 vs A-Teams, or other countries. I still believe A-team would be a better predictor. Some reasons, in no particular order:

Physical development. A team will have players well into their 20s. As such they will be physically more developed. Fast bowlers would bowl faster, fielders would probably able to get the ball in quicker, and the player himself would probably be taller or have more muscle mass. A better developed group of players should mean the level of cricket is tougher and higher. This will hold true for BD's case as well.

Mental development. A U-19 player has mostly played age-group cricket and some school cricket. There maybe a smidgen of first class experience. A-team players should have more first class experience period. Just look at our new A-team announcement. Compare it with the recent U-19 team which had its best finish ever. Do you not see a more mentally advanced, experienced bunch with the A-team?

Quality of opponents. Now multiply the above by two. For other countries, the gap between A-team and U-19 players in the above aspect is likely to be even stronger. Hence the A-team player will have played against stronger opponents.

Type of game. U-19 matches are ALL limited over matches. A-team has both first class and one day matches. This would be true even for Bangladesh and is BIG. Before playing his first test, Shahadat had played a first class match against another countries shadow national team and fought hard for 4 days where he had to draw reserves of strength to bowl during the 3rd session - to give an example. Can someone who has mostly played 45 over matches against other boys claim the same level of preparation?

I also thought about the difference between bowler and batsman as you mentioned, but again, both of them are SPECIALIST for their own position, which make them even or close in term of mental aspect. Besides we have example of Aftab, Nafis and Nafees in hand, which suggest that the ONLY significant difference is "2 years of AGE".

Being a speciallist for their respective position should not make an iota of difference. Read Ian's post on Enamul jr. if you want a 2nd opinion/corraboration on my assertion that fast bowlers adapt quicker than batsmen. As for Aftab, Nafis and Nafees, first off that grouping is not correct. Nafees actually played in the A-team and even captained it before he got his chance. He was brought along much slowly. Nafis, as is suspected by many, was actually overage when he was with the U-19s. And IMHO, he too was brought in too early. Only now, after being discarded once, do we see his technique tightened up after a season or so in the NL. Refer to Samircreep's thread on SL tour rankings for more details. Aftab is the one case where you can claim that the pure talent was so out-there, that you had to take a punt. Next to Ash, I do believe Aftab is the most physically gifted batsman we have. Mushfique, on present evidence, is nowhere that talented - physically.

If jr age games meant so much, Nigeria or Saudi Arabai should have won a Fifa world cup by now.

KSA, along with Nigeria has won youth Word Cups in soccer/football.

but all of those Nigerian players played for top European football club didn't they? You should ask Aimar, Saviola, Tchevege ( not sure the spell ), Messi and many more of the world, why they play as REGULAR in worlds top club like Spain, England and many others. Isn't their Jr game meant something to those worlds top

First off, these young players were not thrown into the first team at these clubs. Their jr performances were taken as a sign of talent and they were then either played in the reserve teams or loaned out to lower divisions. Kinda similar to the A-team treatment if you think about it And btw, these guys might now be playing in top flight _club_ soccer - but their national team is yet to win anything except for an Olympic gold medal.

Edited on, March 16, 2006, 8:33 AM GMT, by RazabQ.
Reason: typos

[Miraz]

I agree with RazabQ. A team should be the better predictor. Now if we can convert the U-19 team into the Bangladesh Academy team and give them some more exposure (four day matches, matches with the touring team and some way visit) they can serve as a possible source of key players bor both the A-team and also the national team. We can also include this academy team regularly in the national league which will increase their patience and skill in the longer version of the game.

After they are grown over 19 we are simply allowing them to be free and choose their career in club cricket, I think this policy should be changed. We should keep them as a unit and when players from academy team will move into the national team we can fill the gap by players from the next U-19 team with good potential.

But when judging the progress A-team shows the nar future and U-19 the distant future.

What do you think?