Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Oz selectors
93 views
Skip to first unread message
calvin
Jan 18, 2013, 4:17:17 PM1/18/13
to
Any chance they will rotate themselves out?
It's a serious achievement to be more incompetent that the last lot.
--
cheers,
calvin
jzfredricks
Jan 18, 2013, 5:47:04 PM1/18/13
to
It's a tough job.
They have to find a balance between picking the best team for the next game (as every game counts + respect to oppo and audience), and managing some really high injury counts, whilst having an eye on the future (in particular 10 Ashes Tests in the next 12 months).
I think the biggest mistake they've made recently was dropping Hussey from the ODO team. It was both tactically poor, heartless, and perhaps a bit disrespectful to SL.
I found it funny that in the space of 12 hours Clarke went from a defender of the rotation system, to blaming it for his team's pathetic 74 runs. Batting-wise Aus was close to full strength. Clarke blamed "lack of momentum". I don't buy that. Ponting would never have hid behind words like that. He'd have simply said "we played like shit vs a better opponent".
They have to find a balance between picking the best team for the next game (as every game counts + respect to oppo and audience), and managing some really high injury counts, whilst having an eye on the future (in particular 10 Ashes Tests in the next 12 months).
I think the biggest mistake they've made recently was dropping Hussey from the ODO team. It was both tactically poor, heartless, and perhaps a bit disrespectful to SL.
I found it funny that in the space of 12 hours Clarke went from a defender of the rotation system, to blaming it for his team's pathetic 74 runs. Batting-wise Aus was close to full strength. Clarke blamed "lack of momentum". I don't buy that. Ponting would never have hid behind words like that. He'd have simply said "we played like shit vs a better opponent".
calvin
Jan 18, 2013, 8:24:42 PM1/18/13
to
On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 08:47:04 +1000, jzfredricks <jzfre...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> It's a tough job.
So what? They get paid well, and there are plenty of applicants.
> They have to find a balance between picking the best team for the next
> game (as every game counts + respect to oppo and audience), and managing
> some really high injury counts, whilst having an eye on the future (in
> particular 10 Ashes Tests in the next 12 months).
>
> I think the biggest mistake they've made recently was dropping Hussey
> from the ODO team. It was both tactically poor, heartless, and perhaps a
> bit disrespectful to SL.
Resting both Warner and Clarke *at the same time* was a major error. I'm
not sure why warner needed a break, but if he really did then Clarke
should have been rested for ODOs 1 and 2, then come backin to replace
Warner.
Picking an XI with 4 allrounders as they did in Adelaide was ludicrous,
and then they found another one (Henriques) for Brisbane.
The next WC is >2 years away so to use that a justification fro dropping
Hussey was ludicrous, and then they go and recall Haddin who's almost as
old.
> I found it funny that in the space of 12 hours Clarke went from a
> defender of the rotation system, to blaming it for his team's pathetic
> 74 runs.
I didn't find it funny. The spin could no longer be maintained.
And it would help if we were told *at the time* if a player wasn't
considered due to injury as we now learn apparently happened with Starc in
the Melbourne test.
> Batting-wise Aus was close to full strength.
Garbage. Hughes and Bailey should not be in the first choice team and Wade
was batting at #6.
--
cheers,
calvin
wrote:
> It's a tough job.
> They have to find a balance between picking the best team for the next
> game (as every game counts + respect to oppo and audience), and managing
> some really high injury counts, whilst having an eye on the future (in
> particular 10 Ashes Tests in the next 12 months).
>
> I think the biggest mistake they've made recently was dropping Hussey
> from the ODO team. It was both tactically poor, heartless, and perhaps a
> bit disrespectful to SL.
not sure why warner needed a break, but if he really did then Clarke
should have been rested for ODOs 1 and 2, then come backin to replace
Warner.
Picking an XI with 4 allrounders as they did in Adelaide was ludicrous,
and then they found another one (Henriques) for Brisbane.
The next WC is >2 years away so to use that a justification fro dropping
Hussey was ludicrous, and then they go and recall Haddin who's almost as
old.
> I found it funny that in the space of 12 hours Clarke went from a
> defender of the rotation system, to blaming it for his team's pathetic
> 74 runs.
And it would help if we were told *at the time* if a player wasn't
considered due to injury as we now learn apparently happened with Starc in
the Melbourne test.
> Batting-wise Aus was close to full strength.
was batting at #6.
--
cheers,
calvin
jzfredricks
Jan 18, 2013, 10:17:17 PM1/18/13
to
On Saturday, January 19, 2013 11:24:42 AM UTC+10, Calvin wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 08:47:04 +1000, jzfredricks <jzfre...@gmail.com>
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 08:47:04 +1000, jzfredricks <jzfre...@gmail.com>
> > It's a tough job.
> So what? They get paid well, and there are plenty of applicants.
So what? It's still a tough job, which means they won't get it right all the time. Those other applicants could be worse.
> So what? They get paid well, and there are plenty of applicants.
> Resting both Warner and Clarke *at the same time* was a major error.
> Picking an XI with 4 allrounders as they did in Adelaide was ludicrous,
> and then they found another one (Henriques) for Brisbane.
> The next WC is >2 years away so to use that a justification fro dropping
> Hussey was ludicrous, and then they go and recall Haddin who's almost as
> old.
> I didn't find it funny. The spin could no longer be maintained.
> > Batting-wise Aus was close to full strength.
> Garbage. Hughes and Bailey should not be in the first choice team and Wade
> was batting at #6.
But yeah, there is always debate over who the best XI are. As we both agree, M Hussey should be in it. S Marsh is looking good again, I expect him to be recalled sooner rather than later.
calvin
Jan 19, 2013, 3:38:53 PM1/19/13
to
On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 13:17:17 +1000, jzfredricks <jzfre...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Saturday, January 19, 2013 11:24:42 AM UTC+10, Calvin wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 08:47:04 +1000, jzfredricks <jzfre...@gmail.com>
>> > It's a tough job.
>> So what? They get paid well, and there are plenty of applicants.
>
> So what? It's still a tough job, which means they won't get it right all
> the time.
No-one expects them to, but they are incoherent and inconsistent as well.
Precisely what does the RoPo entail, for instance?
--
cheers,
calvin
wrote:
> On Saturday, January 19, 2013 11:24:42 AM UTC+10, Calvin wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 08:47:04 +1000, jzfredricks <jzfre...@gmail.com>
>> > It's a tough job.
>> So what? They get paid well, and there are plenty of applicants.
>
> So what? It's still a tough job, which means they won't get it right all
> the time.
Precisely what does the RoPo entail, for instance?
--
cheers,
calvin
alvey
Jan 19, 2013, 5:12:09 PM1/19/13
to
Lance Liestrong, by now admitting to not telling the truth previously about
why certain players were 'rested', they've now put themselves into the
position of; "Well how do we know that you're being honest now?" Case in
point, Mitchell Starc: We were told he was being rested for the Melb Test,
something Starc himself didn't deny, and now CA is saying that he had
troublesome bone spurs which will require an operation at some stage. So
the key question from this latter day adjustment is; "Well why the fuck did
that need to be a State secret?" And because the selectors now lack
credibility one could easily think; "Sure he has. You're just saying that
to try and cover your arses." Like their actual selections, this mob have
over-complicating the process.
alvey
Sir Leslie Bottocks
Jan 19, 2013, 5:51:51 PM1/19/13
to
"jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:faf1cf30-b4e5-41c0...@googlegroups.com...
disrespectful to SL.
After Marsh's brilliant innings in the BB final, I expect he will be rushed
back into the ODI squad. Most likely he will replace the underperforming
Hughes, who has failed to score a match winning century in his 2 digs.
Mike Holmans
Jan 19, 2013, 5:57:19 PM1/19/13
to
On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 08:12:09 +1000, alvey <Argus...@yahoos.com>
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
Seems to me it's you over-complicating things. As far as I can see,
"rotation policy" means that they envisage that the bowling attack
will line up differently almost every game because they're managing
workloads, and therefore that one shouldn't read much into the fact
that a particular bowler isn't selected for the next game. "Resting"
means "he isn't playing, but it isn't because he's been dropped for
uselessness, and you can expect to see him in another match in the
not-too-distant."
Cheers,
Mike
--
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
"rotation policy" means that they envisage that the bowling attack
will line up differently almost every game because they're managing
workloads, and therefore that one shouldn't read much into the fact
that a particular bowler isn't selected for the next game. "Resting"
means "he isn't playing, but it isn't because he's been dropped for
uselessness, and you can expect to see him in another match in the
not-too-distant."
Cheers,
Mike
--
jzfredricks
Jan 19, 2013, 6:26:53 PM1/19/13
to
On Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:51:51 AM UTC+10, Sir Leslie Bottocks wrote:
> Dropping Hussey was disrespectful to Hussey, don't see how it is
> disrespectful to SL.
If you fully respect your opposition, and want to beat them, then you play your best team.
> Dropping Hussey was disrespectful to Hussey, don't see how it is
> disrespectful to SL.
If you think they're weaker than you, you can experiment a bit and be confident of winning.
Sir Leslie Bottocks
Jan 19, 2013, 7:00:22 PM1/19/13
to
news:eeb951d9-63d0-4def...@googlegroups.com...
dropping Hussey wasn't an experiment. His Oz career is over. If they brought
him back for one of the next games then perhaps you could argue that
initially dropping him was disrespectful. But given that is very unlikely to
happen, it seems to be a fair enough assumption that Hussey was going to be
dropped irrespective of who the opposition was.
him back for one of the next games then perhaps you could argue that
initially dropping him was disrespectful. But given that is very unlikely to
happen, it seems to be a fair enough assumption that Hussey was going to be
dropped irrespective of who the opposition was.
jzfredricks
Jan 19, 2013, 8:12:08 PM1/19/13
to
On Sunday, January 20, 2013 10:00:22 AM UTC+10, Sir Leslie Bottocks wrote:
> it seems to be a fair enough assumption that Hussey was going to be
> dropped irrespective of who the opposition was.
That's my point. I don't think they'd have dropped Hussey if the oppo was someone "better" (yes, the irony is clear to me).
> it seems to be a fair enough assumption that Hussey was going to be
> dropped irrespective of who the opposition was.
They certainly wouldn't have dropped him if the WC was being played right now.
They are certainly experimenting with the team, both through rotation and bring in debutantes and newish players.
Sir Leslie Bottocks
Jan 19, 2013, 8:51:30 PM1/19/13
to
news:ff959f31-00ed-45f7...@googlegroups.com...
> On Sunday, January 20, 2013 10:00:22 AM UTC+10, Sir Leslie Bottocks wrote:
>> it seems to be a fair enough assumption that Hussey was going to be
>> dropped irrespective of who the opposition was.
>
> That's my point. I don't think they'd have dropped Hussey if the oppo was
> someone "better" (yes, the irony is clear to me).
well, you'd be wrong then. Not for the first, or last time.
>> it seems to be a fair enough assumption that Hussey was going to be
>> dropped irrespective of who the opposition was.
>
> That's my point. I don't think they'd have dropped Hussey if the oppo was
> someone "better" (yes, the irony is clear to me).
alvey
Jan 20, 2013, 12:44:06 AM1/20/13
to
as
calvin
Jan 20, 2013, 2:17:55 AM1/20/13
to
(ODO2), Henriques was suddenly drafted in for ODOs 3 and 4? Have Smith,
Maxwell and Cutting rested or RoPo-ed?
--
cheers,
calvin
eusebius
Jan 20, 2013, 6:12:13 AM1/20/13
to
On Jan 20, 8:57 am, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 08:12:09 +1000, alvey <Argus.S...@yahoos.com>
If that is simplification, my mind isn't up to anything overly complex
in this heat. But that is Queensland for you.
No but seriously, if the selectors aren't over-complicating things,
I'll eat my socks.
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 08:12:09 +1000, alvey <Argus.S...@yahoos.com>
Like their actual selections, this mob have
> >over-complicating the process.
>
> Seems to me it's you over-complicating things. As far as I can see,
> "rotation policy" means that they envisage that the bowling attack
> will line up differently almost every game because they're managing
> workloads, and therefore that one shouldn't read much into the fact
> that a particular bowler isn't selected for the next game. "Resting"
> means "he isn't playing, but it isn't because he's been dropped for
> uselessness, and you can expect to see him in another match in the
> not-too-distant."
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
>
> --
Run that by me again?
> >over-complicating the process.
>
> Seems to me it's you over-complicating things. As far as I can see,
> "rotation policy" means that they envisage that the bowling attack
> will line up differently almost every game because they're managing
> workloads, and therefore that one shouldn't read much into the fact
> that a particular bowler isn't selected for the next game. "Resting"
> means "he isn't playing, but it isn't because he's been dropped for
> uselessness, and you can expect to see him in another match in the
> not-too-distant."
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
>
> --
If that is simplification, my mind isn't up to anything overly complex
in this heat. But that is Queensland for you.
No but seriously, if the selectors aren't over-complicating things,
I'll eat my socks.
jzfredricks
Jan 20, 2013, 6:51:31 AM1/20/13
to
On Sunday, January 20, 2013 9:12:13 PM UTC+10, eusebius wrote:
> Run that by me again?
I think Mike was trying to explain that a Rotation Policy is a policy where the selectors rotate players in and out of the team. Quite remarkable, when you think about it.
> Run that by me again?
eusebius
Jan 20, 2013, 9:21:08 PM1/20/13
to
Mike Holmans
Jan 21, 2013, 5:15:09 AM1/21/13
to
On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 03:12:13 -0800 (PST), eusebius
<euseb...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>Run that by me again?
>If that is simplification, my mind isn't up to anything overly complex
>in this heat. But that is Queensland for you.
>No but seriously, if the selectors aren't over-complicating things,
>I'll eat my socks.
It's pretty simple really. If someone plays a Test but isn't picked
for the next one, you get a bunch of people saying "Why has he been
dropped?" Nowadays with pace bowlers, it's quite likely that he hasn't
been "dropped", which implies that he's not good enough and probably
won't play again, but "rested", which implies that he's still very
much part of the team but just happens to be sitting this game out to
recover his strength, get over a niggle, go to the gym and lift
weights or whatever else they think it would be a good idea for him to
do.
If that's really too complex a concept for a Queenslander, it's no
wonder the Aus selectors prefer to pick people from NSW because at
least there's a chance that they can understand simple English rather
than the grunts and pointy-fingers which apparently constitute
intellectual conversation north of the Tweed.
Cheers,
Mike
--
<euseb...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>Run that by me again?
>If that is simplification, my mind isn't up to anything overly complex
>in this heat. But that is Queensland for you.
>No but seriously, if the selectors aren't over-complicating things,
>I'll eat my socks.
for the next one, you get a bunch of people saying "Why has he been
dropped?" Nowadays with pace bowlers, it's quite likely that he hasn't
been "dropped", which implies that he's not good enough and probably
won't play again, but "rested", which implies that he's still very
much part of the team but just happens to be sitting this game out to
recover his strength, get over a niggle, go to the gym and lift
weights or whatever else they think it would be a good idea for him to
do.
If that's really too complex a concept for a Queenslander, it's no
wonder the Aus selectors prefer to pick people from NSW because at
least there's a chance that they can understand simple English rather
than the grunts and pointy-fingers which apparently constitute
intellectual conversation north of the Tweed.
Cheers,
Mike
--
eusebius
Jan 21, 2013, 10:27:31 AM1/21/13
to
On Jan 21, 8:15 pm, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 03:12:13 -0800 (PST), eusebius
> <eusebiu...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 03:12:13 -0800 (PST), eusebius
fare. I haven't worked out how to convey them adequately with ascii. I
think the above scenario you paint is hardly simplifying the
situation, especially for the cricketers and the cricketing public.
Whether or not their rationale for the current approach is simple on
paper, it seems overly complex as a cricketing strategy. At least
there is no evidence whatever anywhere for a rotation policy actually
improving chances of success. There is no evidence that the rate of
injury has decreased in the present case, and performances seem to
have dived. Quite possibly the policy cost Australia any chance of
beating the no.1 team in a test series.
I didn't think that your reply was any simpler than Alvey's more
cynical original, and I do think there is good reason to be suspicious
if not of the motives of the selectors then certainly their
competence. This whole aggressive, courageous rotation policy is
nothing but a debacle. Sorry if I've used too many polysyllabic words.
alvey
Jan 21, 2013, 3:19:10 PM1/21/13
to
of the world are often so dazzled by their own brilliance that they're
incapable of actually reading what what written. Credibility was my point
Micheal.
alvey
Mike Holmans
Jan 21, 2013, 4:19:54 PM1/21/13
to
On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 07:27:31 -0800 (PST), eusebius
<euseb...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
with barely a whimper. It isn't at all complicated. It just means you
don't have to spend hours and hours dissecting every variation in
selection. Everyone understands it's just sensible that Jimmy Anderson
isn't playing the odos in India, and that they've chopped and changed
the team a bit during the series. I'm surprised that you think so
little of the Australian population that they would find this at all
hard to understand.
Admittedly, why they talk of "rotation policy" is beyond me - though I
think it was coined by a journalist anyway - since all they're doing
is operating a squad system.
Cheers,
Mike
--
<euseb...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>Grunts and pointy fingers, to be pedantic, are rather rare usenet
>fare. I haven't worked out how to convey them adequately with ascii. I
>think the above scenario you paint is hardly simplifying the
>situation, especially for the cricketers and the cricketing public.
England have been operating a "rotation policy" for 18 months at least
>Grunts and pointy fingers, to be pedantic, are rather rare usenet
>fare. I haven't worked out how to convey them adequately with ascii. I
>think the above scenario you paint is hardly simplifying the
>situation, especially for the cricketers and the cricketing public.
with barely a whimper. It isn't at all complicated. It just means you
don't have to spend hours and hours dissecting every variation in
selection. Everyone understands it's just sensible that Jimmy Anderson
isn't playing the odos in India, and that they've chopped and changed
the team a bit during the series. I'm surprised that you think so
little of the Australian population that they would find this at all
hard to understand.
Admittedly, why they talk of "rotation policy" is beyond me - though I
think it was coined by a journalist anyway - since all they're doing
is operating a squad system.
Cheers,
Mike
--
jzfredricks
Jan 21, 2013, 4:30:44 PM1/21/13
to
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 7:19:54 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> Admittedly, why they talk of "rotation policy" is beyond me - though I
> think it was coined by a journalist anyway - since all they're doing
> is operating a squad system.
How did our rotation policy/squad system work in the 2005 Ashes?
> Admittedly, why they talk of "rotation policy" is beyond me - though I
> think it was coined by a journalist anyway - since all they're doing
> is operating a squad system.
If people aren't getting injured, I'd much prefer a stable team. Exceptions made for picking an extra spinner when required.
It seems to me that "we're overworked" screams from the players are getting louder and louder, and more than anything this is the reason for more rests/rotations.
Mo...@unimail.com.au
Jan 21, 2013, 6:43:26 PM1/21/13
to
@Mike.
I think I see the issue (well aside from you channelling Will Sutton there for a bit).
You appear to be saying that rotation policies in general are a good idea... and that they aren't too complicated.
But I think (and I believe the Creevster does too) that the issue is the way the Australian selectors have gone about it. See, when the English selectors say they are resting Anderson, it means that they are resting Anderson. If it were the Australian selectors though, you wouldn't know if they were resting him, if he was injured, if he'd been in a fight with a transvestite, if he'd called the caprain a rude name, if he'd been dropped, if he'd been left out pending the response from the public...etc And, when the English selectors rest someone, its someone who actually needs the rest, not one of the fringe players who's going to get a rest anyway. And even if they did, you'd know if it was an actual rest... You wouldn't be left wondering if it was one of the fake rests.
My issues are with the method...
1) It's dishonest
If someone is injured, they should say so. They should not wait until after the fact and the public complaint to leak an injury. How do we know they aren't using a later injury to justify a previous decision.
2) It's self serving
There are serious questions being asked about the competence of staff that have presided over this injury-prone line-up. By hiding injuries as resting, the selectors shield their fellows.
3) It concentrates power in existing media cliques.
Why should only a special few get the truth? Allowing special access for favoured media has been a favoured approach of autocratic regimes. Both Qld and NSW have experienced this from their State governments over the years.
The English ropo appears to be transparent. Communication is open, it is entirely truthful. Decisions make sense as a whole. None of these things is true at the moment for the Australian setup... The Australian setup remains consistent with that of regimes where mates rates, winks and nods, and the protection of "sound" people or "good blokes" is rampant.
Are all of the rests a bad idea? Probably not... but with the Aus approach, wtf knows?
I think I see the issue (well aside from you channelling Will Sutton there for a bit).
You appear to be saying that rotation policies in general are a good idea... and that they aren't too complicated.
But I think (and I believe the Creevster does too) that the issue is the way the Australian selectors have gone about it. See, when the English selectors say they are resting Anderson, it means that they are resting Anderson. If it were the Australian selectors though, you wouldn't know if they were resting him, if he was injured, if he'd been in a fight with a transvestite, if he'd called the caprain a rude name, if he'd been dropped, if he'd been left out pending the response from the public...etc And, when the English selectors rest someone, its someone who actually needs the rest, not one of the fringe players who's going to get a rest anyway. And even if they did, you'd know if it was an actual rest... You wouldn't be left wondering if it was one of the fake rests.
My issues are with the method...
1) It's dishonest
If someone is injured, they should say so. They should not wait until after the fact and the public complaint to leak an injury. How do we know they aren't using a later injury to justify a previous decision.
2) It's self serving
There are serious questions being asked about the competence of staff that have presided over this injury-prone line-up. By hiding injuries as resting, the selectors shield their fellows.
3) It concentrates power in existing media cliques.
Why should only a special few get the truth? Allowing special access for favoured media has been a favoured approach of autocratic regimes. Both Qld and NSW have experienced this from their State governments over the years.
The English ropo appears to be transparent. Communication is open, it is entirely truthful. Decisions make sense as a whole. None of these things is true at the moment for the Australian setup... The Australian setup remains consistent with that of regimes where mates rates, winks and nods, and the protection of "sound" people or "good blokes" is rampant.
Are all of the rests a bad idea? Probably not... but with the Aus approach, wtf knows?
calvin
Jan 21, 2013, 6:52:03 PM1/21/13
to
On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:15:09 +1000, Mike Holmans
<mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 03:12:13 -0800 (PST), eusebius
> <euseb...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>
>> Run that by me again?
>> If that is simplification, my mind isn't up to anything overly complex
>> in this heat. But that is Queensland for you.
>> No but seriously, if the selectors aren't over-complicating things,
>> I'll eat my socks.
>
> It's pretty simple really. If someone plays a Test but isn't picked
> for the next one, you get a bunch of people saying "Why has he been
> dropped?" Nowadays with pace bowlers, it's quite likely that he hasn't
> been "dropped", which implies that he's not good enough and probably
> won't play again, but "rested", which implies that he's still very
> much part of the team but just happens to be sitting this game out to
> recover his strength, get over a niggle, go to the gym and lift
> weights or whatever else they think it would be a good idea for him to
> do.
So how does that explain 18 players in the first 3 ODOs Mike?
<mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 03:12:13 -0800 (PST), eusebius
> <euseb...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>
>> Run that by me again?
>> If that is simplification, my mind isn't up to anything overly complex
>> in this heat. But that is Queensland for you.
>> No but seriously, if the selectors aren't over-complicating things,
>> I'll eat my socks.
>
> It's pretty simple really. If someone plays a Test but isn't picked
> for the next one, you get a bunch of people saying "Why has he been
> dropped?" Nowadays with pace bowlers, it's quite likely that he hasn't
> been "dropped", which implies that he's not good enough and probably
> won't play again, but "rested", which implies that he's still very
> much part of the team but just happens to be sitting this game out to
> recover his strength, get over a niggle, go to the gym and lift
> weights or whatever else they think it would be a good idea for him to
> do.
--
cheers,
calvin
Mike Holmans
Jan 21, 2013, 8:35:06 PM1/21/13
to
On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 15:43:26 -0800 (PST), Mo...@unimail.com.au tapped
explaining over and over again that they have to manage the players'
workloads so that they can perform at their best when it really
matters. Flower has gained a deserved reputation for being honest, and
I've never ever heard him talk bollocks. And the players, if they
comment on it, are positive about it in general though disappointed
that they're not playing.
What the Strauss/Flower/Cook regime has achieved is a seamless
transition in terms of the way they try to operate from an XI which
wins matches to a XVI which wins series. It's a common way of doing
things in other sports: no supporter of Arsenal or Man U expects to
see the same XI two games running.
>But I think (and I believe the Creevster does too) that the issue is the way the Australian selectors have gone about it. See, when the English selectors say they are resting Anderson, it means that they are resting Anderson. If it were the Australian selectors though, you wouldn't know if they were resting him, if he was injured, if he'd been in a fight with a transvestite, if he'd called the caprain a rude name, if he'd been dropped, if he'd been left out pending the response from the public...etc And, when the English selectors rest someone, its someone who actually needs the rest, not one of the fringe players who's going to get a rest anyway. And even if they did, you'd know if it was an actual rest... You wouldn't be left wondering if it was one of the fake rests.
>
>My issues are with the method...
>1) It's dishonest
>If someone is injured, they should say so. They should not wait until after the fact and the public complaint to leak an injury. How do we know they aren't using a later injury to justify a previous decision.
I have some difficulty with that. If I'm running a squad system, I
don't necessarily want to tell the oppsition that one of my guys is
injured and that they needn't prepare to face him. If it's less an
injury than a niggle, and he can be seen training out with the guys,
why tell anyone he's injured?
>2) It's self serving
>There are serious questions being asked about the competence of staff that have presided over this injury-prone line-up. By hiding injuries as resting, the selectors shield their fellows.
>
>3) It concentrates power in existing media cliques.
>Why should only a special few get the truth? Allowing special access for favoured media has been a favoured approach of autocratic regimes. Both Qld and NSW have experienced this from their State governments over the years.
>
>The English ropo appears to be transparent. Communication is open, it is entirely truthful. Decisions make sense as a whole. None of these things is true at the moment for the Australian setup... The Australian setup remains consistent with that of regimes where mates rates, winks and nods, and the protection of "sound" people or "good blokes" is rampant.
>
>Are all of the rests a bad idea? Probably not... but with the Aus approach, wtf knows?
Those who seek evidence for conspiracy theories will always find it.
There are few innocent acts which are not capable of being analysed as
malign if someone has a mind to.
And where there's been a history of it, it's entirely understandable
that people will see it given anything which smacks of confirmation.
We're clearly fortunate in England that a fairly profound change in
team management philosophy has taken place but only a few horses have
even neighed, let alone got frightened. Time will of course tell how
successful it is, but the case has been made persuasively enough for
people to be content to go along with it.
In fact, it's so acceptable that a lot of comment was made during the
India Test series that Broad needed a rest. Nobody was suggesting that
he had lost it and should be dropped forever: it was that he could do
with a decent interval before he next played. And the expectation is
that he will slot back into the XI as and when it is deemed
appropriate.
They don't comment on minor injuries. If it actually emerges from the
England training camp that a player is having trouble, you can
immediately rule him out of the next game, because they don't tell
unless it's serious.
From this distance, where I don't feel the need to scrutinise every
decision made by the Aus team management minutely, their behaviour
seems entirely consistent with operating a squad system the same way
we do, allowing always for their bizarre belief that Steve Smith has
something worthwhile to offer. Whether their decisions need to be
subjected to minute scrutiny is clearly in the eye of the beholder,
and those who have been previously bitten are likely to have pretty
squinty eyes.
No-one is going to dispel years of prejudice by decree. No-one can say
"As of 16th June 2011 (or 23rd March 2012 or 15th August 2013),
Australian cricket became/becomes magically free from all silly
politicking and all subsequent decisions are/were made solely for the
objective benefit of Australian cricket, according to the best
professional judgement of those hired to exercise that judgment
impartially."
The mildly interesting question, though, is how you could be convinced
that their actions are entirely sensible or at least well-intentioned
(unless they have to do with not dropping Steve Smith, because we
should not needlessly trample on people's religious faith, however
weird).
How do you tell the difference between a bunch of people doing things
for the right reasons but doing them a bit craply and a bunch of
people organising a massive conspiracy?
I'm naive enough to think that CA are cocking things up a bit rather
than anything else.
Cheers,
Mike
--
the keyboard and brought forth:
>@Mike.
>I think I see the issue (well aside from you channelling Will Sutton there for a bit).
>
>You appear to be saying that rotation policies in general are a good idea... and that they aren't too complicated.
Whether they're a good idea I don't know. But Andy Flower has been
>I think I see the issue (well aside from you channelling Will Sutton there for a bit).
>
>You appear to be saying that rotation policies in general are a good idea... and that they aren't too complicated.
explaining over and over again that they have to manage the players'
workloads so that they can perform at their best when it really
matters. Flower has gained a deserved reputation for being honest, and
I've never ever heard him talk bollocks. And the players, if they
comment on it, are positive about it in general though disappointed
that they're not playing.
What the Strauss/Flower/Cook regime has achieved is a seamless
transition in terms of the way they try to operate from an XI which
wins matches to a XVI which wins series. It's a common way of doing
things in other sports: no supporter of Arsenal or Man U expects to
see the same XI two games running.
>But I think (and I believe the Creevster does too) that the issue is the way the Australian selectors have gone about it. See, when the English selectors say they are resting Anderson, it means that they are resting Anderson. If it were the Australian selectors though, you wouldn't know if they were resting him, if he was injured, if he'd been in a fight with a transvestite, if he'd called the caprain a rude name, if he'd been dropped, if he'd been left out pending the response from the public...etc And, when the English selectors rest someone, its someone who actually needs the rest, not one of the fringe players who's going to get a rest anyway. And even if they did, you'd know if it was an actual rest... You wouldn't be left wondering if it was one of the fake rests.
>
>My issues are with the method...
>1) It's dishonest
>If someone is injured, they should say so. They should not wait until after the fact and the public complaint to leak an injury. How do we know they aren't using a later injury to justify a previous decision.
don't necessarily want to tell the oppsition that one of my guys is
injured and that they needn't prepare to face him. If it's less an
injury than a niggle, and he can be seen training out with the guys,
why tell anyone he's injured?
>2) It's self serving
>There are serious questions being asked about the competence of staff that have presided over this injury-prone line-up. By hiding injuries as resting, the selectors shield their fellows.
>
>3) It concentrates power in existing media cliques.
>Why should only a special few get the truth? Allowing special access for favoured media has been a favoured approach of autocratic regimes. Both Qld and NSW have experienced this from their State governments over the years.
>
>The English ropo appears to be transparent. Communication is open, it is entirely truthful. Decisions make sense as a whole. None of these things is true at the moment for the Australian setup... The Australian setup remains consistent with that of regimes where mates rates, winks and nods, and the protection of "sound" people or "good blokes" is rampant.
>
>Are all of the rests a bad idea? Probably not... but with the Aus approach, wtf knows?
There are few innocent acts which are not capable of being analysed as
malign if someone has a mind to.
And where there's been a history of it, it's entirely understandable
that people will see it given anything which smacks of confirmation.
We're clearly fortunate in England that a fairly profound change in
team management philosophy has taken place but only a few horses have
even neighed, let alone got frightened. Time will of course tell how
successful it is, but the case has been made persuasively enough for
people to be content to go along with it.
In fact, it's so acceptable that a lot of comment was made during the
India Test series that Broad needed a rest. Nobody was suggesting that
he had lost it and should be dropped forever: it was that he could do
with a decent interval before he next played. And the expectation is
that he will slot back into the XI as and when it is deemed
appropriate.
They don't comment on minor injuries. If it actually emerges from the
England training camp that a player is having trouble, you can
immediately rule him out of the next game, because they don't tell
unless it's serious.
From this distance, where I don't feel the need to scrutinise every
decision made by the Aus team management minutely, their behaviour
seems entirely consistent with operating a squad system the same way
we do, allowing always for their bizarre belief that Steve Smith has
something worthwhile to offer. Whether their decisions need to be
subjected to minute scrutiny is clearly in the eye of the beholder,
and those who have been previously bitten are likely to have pretty
squinty eyes.
No-one is going to dispel years of prejudice by decree. No-one can say
"As of 16th June 2011 (or 23rd March 2012 or 15th August 2013),
Australian cricket became/becomes magically free from all silly
politicking and all subsequent decisions are/were made solely for the
objective benefit of Australian cricket, according to the best
professional judgement of those hired to exercise that judgment
impartially."
The mildly interesting question, though, is how you could be convinced
that their actions are entirely sensible or at least well-intentioned
(unless they have to do with not dropping Steve Smith, because we
should not needlessly trample on people's religious faith, however
weird).
How do you tell the difference between a bunch of people doing things
for the right reasons but doing them a bit craply and a bunch of
people organising a massive conspiracy?
I'm naive enough to think that CA are cocking things up a bit rather
than anything else.
Cheers,
Mike
--
jzfredricks
Jan 21, 2013, 8:42:43 PM1/21/13
to
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 11:35:06 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> In fact, it's so acceptable that a lot of comment was made during the
> India Test series that Broad needed a rest. Nobody was suggesting that
> he had lost it and should be dropped forever:
I thought he lost it, bowled shit, and should have been dropped due to lack of form. Not forever, no, just until he re-earned a spot in the team.
> In fact, it's so acceptable that a lot of comment was made during the
> India Test series that Broad needed a rest. Nobody was suggesting that
> he had lost it and should be dropped forever:
Mo...@unimail.com.au
Jan 21, 2013, 8:47:20 PM1/21/13
to
@Mike.
I too see cockup rather than conspiracy, although I would add a healthy dose of self interest.
And I think you've yet to address the Starc rest/injury. If he was injured, tell us. Don't tell us he's being rested and then leak an injury later because either the public outcry was making you look bad or because you were about to be found out... It's incidents like this that make it hard to believe a word they say... particularly when it's a tame reporter aiding the spin.
Speaking of spin.. I'd suggest it was like Jeremy Clarkson "amazingly" getting a scoop on a Tory statement that just happened to put a previously unpopular statement in a more favourable light... and no, that's not a NSW thing, it's a "big public organisation with media advisors" thing.
I too see cockup rather than conspiracy, although I would add a healthy dose of self interest.
And I think you've yet to address the Starc rest/injury. If he was injured, tell us. Don't tell us he's being rested and then leak an injury later because either the public outcry was making you look bad or because you were about to be found out... It's incidents like this that make it hard to believe a word they say... particularly when it's a tame reporter aiding the spin.
Speaking of spin.. I'd suggest it was like Jeremy Clarkson "amazingly" getting a scoop on a Tory statement that just happened to put a previously unpopular statement in a more favourable light... and no, that's not a NSW thing, it's a "big public organisation with media advisors" thing.
Mo...@unimail.com.au
Jan 21, 2013, 8:51:50 PM1/21/13
to
That should have read: "if he was injured, tell us or do not tell us".
Mike Holmans
Jan 21, 2013, 9:13:46 PM1/21/13
to
On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:51:50 -0800 (PST), Mo...@unimail.com.au tapped
If the latter, then he's not technically injured, but he easily could
be if he plays until the ankle/heel has settled down, and whether it's
settled down enough to play can be a hairline decision. England erred
too often on the side of risking Flintoff, which is why he's now a
boxer.
Leaking it out later is one way of putting it. Another way might be
that they got tired of trying to deadbat questions from tedious
journalists who just wouldn't shut up about it until they said
something which would shut them up.
From the whole presentation point of view, it might have been more
successful if they'd made Mickey Arthur the front man. Flower in
England is widely seen as having no axe to grind, which is one of the
advantages of having a foreign coach. (I suspect that most teams would
benefit from alternating between foreign and home-grown coaches: the
foreigner brings an objectivity while he's there, whereas the
home-grown one cares a bit more about what happens ten years down the
line.) Perhaps if Arthur had wasted no opportunity to bang on about
workload management and the need for proper rest the way Flower did,
there wouldn't be any fuss Over There either.
Cheers,
Mike
--
the keyboard and brought forth:
>That should have read: "if he was injured, tell us or do not tell us".
Did they say "he was injured" or "he has troublesome bone spurs"?
If the latter, then he's not technically injured, but he easily could
be if he plays until the ankle/heel has settled down, and whether it's
settled down enough to play can be a hairline decision. England erred
too often on the side of risking Flintoff, which is why he's now a
boxer.
Leaking it out later is one way of putting it. Another way might be
that they got tired of trying to deadbat questions from tedious
journalists who just wouldn't shut up about it until they said
something which would shut them up.
From the whole presentation point of view, it might have been more
successful if they'd made Mickey Arthur the front man. Flower in
England is widely seen as having no axe to grind, which is one of the
advantages of having a foreign coach. (I suspect that most teams would
benefit from alternating between foreign and home-grown coaches: the
foreigner brings an objectivity while he's there, whereas the
home-grown one cares a bit more about what happens ten years down the
line.) Perhaps if Arthur had wasted no opportunity to bang on about
workload management and the need for proper rest the way Flower did,
there wouldn't be any fuss Over There either.
Cheers,
Mike
--
eusebius
Jan 22, 2013, 2:58:51 AM1/22/13
to
On Jan 22, 7:19 am, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 07:27:31 -0800 (PST), eusebius
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 07:27:31 -0800 (PST), eusebius
> England have been operating a "rotation policy" for 18 months at least
> with barely a whimper. It isn't at all complicated. It just means you
> don't have to spend hours and hours dissecting every variation in
> selection. Everyone understands it's just sensible that Jimmy Anderson
> isn't playing the odos in India, and that they've chopped and changed
> the team a bit during the series. I'm surprised that you think so
> little of the Australian population that they would find this at all
> hard to understand.
>
> Admittedly, why they talk of "rotation policy" is beyond me - though I
> think it was coined by a journalist anyway - since all they're doing
> is operating a squad system.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
> --
I think they are trying to get away from 'talking' about it, whilst
> with barely a whimper. It isn't at all complicated. It just means you
> don't have to spend hours and hours dissecting every variation in
> selection. Everyone understands it's just sensible that Jimmy Anderson
> isn't playing the odos in India, and that they've chopped and changed
> the team a bit during the series. I'm surprised that you think so
> little of the Australian population that they would find this at all
> hard to understand.
>
> Admittedly, why they talk of "rotation policy" is beyond me - though I
> think it was coined by a journalist anyway - since all they're doing
> is operating a squad system.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
> --
applying it. Certainly Arthur was open about saying that he was sick
of hearing about rotation. The evidence supporting rotating players
(especially for crucial matches) is not really there as far as i can
see. It seems all a bit too mysterious and ham fisted atm.
eusebius
Jan 22, 2013, 3:10:28 AM1/22/13
to
On Jan 22, 9:43 am, M...@unimail.com.au wrote:
> @Mike.
> I think I see the issue (well aside from you channelling Will Sutton there for a bit).
>
> You appear to be saying that rotation policies in general are a good idea... and that they aren't too complicated.
> But I think (and I believe the Creevster does too) that the issue is the way the Australian selectors have gone about it. See, when the English selectors say they are resting Anderson, it means that they are resting Anderson. If it were the Australian selectors though, you wouldn't know if they were resting him, if he was injured, if he'd been in a fight with a transvestite, if he'd called the caprain a rude name, if he'd been dropped, if he'd been left out pending the response from the public...etc And, when the English selectors rest someone, its someone who actually needs the rest, not one of the fringe players who's going to get a rest anyway. And even if they did, you'd know if it was an actual rest... You wouldn't be left wondering if it was one of the fake rests.
>
> My issues are with the method...
> 1) It's dishonest
> If someone is injured, they should say so. They should not wait until after the fact and the public complaint to leak an injury. How do we know they aren't using a later injury to justify a previous decision.
Good points. If a player has been genuinely overworked to the point of
> @Mike.
> I think I see the issue (well aside from you channelling Will Sutton there for a bit).
>
> You appear to be saying that rotation policies in general are a good idea... and that they aren't too complicated.
> But I think (and I believe the Creevster does too) that the issue is the way the Australian selectors have gone about it. See, when the English selectors say they are resting Anderson, it means that they are resting Anderson. If it were the Australian selectors though, you wouldn't know if they were resting him, if he was injured, if he'd been in a fight with a transvestite, if he'd called the caprain a rude name, if he'd been dropped, if he'd been left out pending the response from the public...etc And, when the English selectors rest someone, its someone who actually needs the rest, not one of the fringe players who's going to get a rest anyway. And even if they did, you'd know if it was an actual rest... You wouldn't be left wondering if it was one of the fake rests.
>
> My issues are with the method...
> 1) It's dishonest
> If someone is injured, they should say so. They should not wait until after the fact and the public complaint to leak an injury. How do we know they aren't using a later injury to justify a previous decision.
exhaustion, or is carrying niggles, he might be rested for a game or
2. I think this has been done for years now. That's no problem. When a
fully fit bowler is rested to avoid him playing 3 tests in a row, then
the situation is utterly ludicrous.
The dishonesty was evident in the case of Haddin, rather starkly in
fact. I am no great fan of Haddin's keeping abilities, but the fact
was that Haddin was dropped under the premise of this RoPo, this is
merely an attempt by the selectors to lie to the players/public. He
had been dropped, pute and simple. When a buzzword is a figleaf for
mendacity, then ees beeg problem.
>
> 2) It's self serving
> There are serious questions being asked about the competence of staff that have presided over this injury-prone line-up. By hiding injuries as resting, the selectors shield their fellows.
increased. No need to pre-emptively strike against injury if players
are healthy and well looked after.
>
> 3) It concentrates power in existing media cliques.
> Why should only a special few get the truth? Allowing special access for favoured media has been a favoured approach of autocratic regimes. Both Qld and NSW have experienced this from their State governments over the years.
>
> The English ropo appears to be transparent. Communication is open, it is entirely truthful. Decisions make sense as a whole. None of these things is true at the moment for the Australian setup... The Australian setup remains consistent with that of regimes where mates rates, winks and nods, and the protection of "sound" people or "good blokes" is rampant.
>
> Are all of the rests a bad idea? Probably not... but with the Aus approach, wtf knows?
them a game off here or there after a particularly heavy workload. I
believe that heavy physical and mental workloads can increase the
propensity for injury, but I also believe that good players respond to
work, and that modern players are often under-worked (over-trained,
especially wrt muscle training, that is of limited value and high
injury propensity). so that they don't develop the requisite
skillsets. Young talent need to learn to work within their limits. A
RoPo is of very limited value (especially a ludicrously aggressive
RoPo). What players need IMO, is a supportive home life in which they
can unwind, not to overtrain, to push themselves but not beyond their
limits, and to have a good masseur/physio who can help their bodies
recover.
eusebius
Jan 22, 2013, 3:33:06 AM1/22/13
to
On Jan 22, 11:35 am, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 15:43:26 -0800 (PST), M...@unimail.com.au
> >My issues are with the method...
> >1) It's dishonest
> >If someone is injured, they should say so. They should not wait until after the fact and the public complaint to leak an injury. How do we know they aren't using a later injury to justify a previous decision.
>
> I have some difficulty with that. If I'm running a squad system, I
> don't necessarily want to tell the oppsition that one of my guys is
> injured and that they needn't prepare to face him. If it's less an
> injury than a niggle, and he can be seen training out with the guys,
> why tell anyone he's injured?
They have used deliberate dishonesty not to confuse the opposition,
but most likely the players themselves. I could be reading too much
into things, but I strongly feel that they are trying moreover to
hoodwink the public. And sometimes in crunch games, a niggle shouldn't
keep out your best players. Watson's career will be over in a couple
of years, but at least he knows that he's never allowed (or been
allowed) to play with some pathetic niggle. Clarke just puts his foot
down and he says he's playing.
Admittedly Watson has been one of these overtrainers, musclebound for
no good reason.
>
> >2) It's self serving
> >There are serious questions being asked about the competence of staff that have presided over this injury-prone line-up. By hiding injuries as resting, the selectors shield their fellows.
>
> >3) It concentrates power in existing media cliques.
> >Why should only a special few get the truth? Allowing special access for favoured media has been a favoured approach of autocratic regimes. Both Qld and NSW have experienced this from their State governments over the years.
>
> >The English ropo appears to be transparent. Communication is open, it is entirely truthful. Decisions make sense as a whole. None of these things is true at the moment for the Australian setup... The Australian setup remains consistent with that of regimes where mates rates, winks and nods, and the protection of "sound" people or "good blokes" is rampant.
>
> >Are all of the rests a bad idea? Probably not... but with the Aus approach, wtf knows?
>
> Those who seek evidence for conspiracy theories will always find it.
> There are few innocent acts which are not capable of being analysed as
> malign if someone has a mind to.
I don't believe that the intentions are bad necessarily, but 'hell is
paved with good intentions'. Realpolitik is pursued by those who
believe that that is the best means of achieving their aims. It may
not be a conspiracy, just incompetence (for which lies and obfuscation
and deception are often the first means of defence). I don't believe
that John Inverarity is a moron. But when things are going wrong one
has to call it as one sees it. Whatever the intentions, the results
are skewed, inadequate, increasingly disastrous.
>
> And where there's been a history of it, it's entirely understandable
> that people will see it given anything which smacks of confirmation.
This is a different selectorial regime, but the record so far is
1. Less players selected outside NSW (even in comparison with what
happened before) and
2. A weird RoPo system scribbled on the back of a coaster with no real
overarching sense of vision for future or present success.
This does not need to say, 'conspiracy', but it's still roobish.
>
> They don't comment on minor injuries. If it actually emerges from the
> England training camp that a player is having trouble, you can
> immediately rule him out of the next game, because they don't tell
> unless it's serious.
If they were dropping players and calling it 'rotation', I'm sure at
the very least some of the players would be concerned.
>
> From this distance, where I don't feel the need to scrutinise every
> decision made by the Aus team management minutely, their behaviour
> seems entirely consistent with operating a squad system the same way
> we do, allowing always for their bizarre belief that Steve Smith has
> something worthwhile to offer. Whether their decisions need to be
> subjected to minute scrutiny is clearly in the eye of the beholder,
> and those who have been previously bitten are likely to have pretty
> squinty eyes.
>
> No-one is going to dispel years of prejudice by decree. No-one can say
> "As of 16th June 2011 (or 23rd March 2012 or 15th August 2013),
> Australian cricket became/becomes magically free from all silly
> politicking and all subsequent decisions are/were made solely for the
> objective benefit of Australian cricket, according to the best
> professional judgement of those hired to exercise that judgment
> impartially."
In a group like this, now seemingly bereft of most of it's Indian
content (no longer it seems can we discuss whether or not Sane Warne
is 9 or whether bondabosadnath is performing mujra in the nude or
hatching bondas overseas) any quirks in selectorial policy in Aust.
are fodder for discussion. I for one am a little bit over it, only
adding to the discussions which have built up without launching them.
I for one have not a lot to add that is new or original to the pool of
argument that has built up. It is fair to say though that the
performance or otherwise of the selectors has been fodder for
jernalists, print and TV, throughout the country lately (including
even in NSW). So it is hardly just a Qld or RSC obsession.
>
> The mildly interesting question, though, is how you could be convinced
> that their actions are entirely sensible or at least well-intentioned
> (unless they have to do with not dropping Steve Smith, because we
> should not needlessly trample on people's religious faith, however
> weird).
They could be satanists and their joy in persecuting Queenslanders
could be related to their need for human blood.
>
> How do you tell the difference between a bunch of people doing things
> for the right reasons but doing them a bit craply and a bunch of
> people organising a massive conspiracy?
>
> I'm naive enough to think that CA are cocking things up a bit rather
> than anything else.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
I could still have plenty of reserve brickbats for them if they
believed that what they were doing was hunky-dory. I am in no doubt
that there is a large layer of inexperience and incompetence in what
the selectors are currently doing. England certainly are managing
their rotation policy in a less schizoid and ratty manner. The pro-NSW
phenomenon will always be close to a Queenslander's heart, it comes
with the XXXX (which is incidentally, never imbibed).
For example, without being a bitter Queenslander, we can see how RoPo
and anti-Qld dovetail rather nicely in the case of Cutting, who did
well as one of the rotated players, which really annoyed the selectors
so they cut him from the squad.
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 15:43:26 -0800 (PST), M...@unimail.com.au
> >My issues are with the method...
> >1) It's dishonest
> >If someone is injured, they should say so. They should not wait until after the fact and the public complaint to leak an injury. How do we know they aren't using a later injury to justify a previous decision.
>
> I have some difficulty with that. If I'm running a squad system, I
> don't necessarily want to tell the oppsition that one of my guys is
> injured and that they needn't prepare to face him. If it's less an
> injury than a niggle, and he can be seen training out with the guys,
> why tell anyone he's injured?
but most likely the players themselves. I could be reading too much
into things, but I strongly feel that they are trying moreover to
hoodwink the public. And sometimes in crunch games, a niggle shouldn't
keep out your best players. Watson's career will be over in a couple
of years, but at least he knows that he's never allowed (or been
allowed) to play with some pathetic niggle. Clarke just puts his foot
down and he says he's playing.
Admittedly Watson has been one of these overtrainers, musclebound for
no good reason.
>
> >2) It's self serving
> >There are serious questions being asked about the competence of staff that have presided over this injury-prone line-up. By hiding injuries as resting, the selectors shield their fellows.
>
> >3) It concentrates power in existing media cliques.
> >Why should only a special few get the truth? Allowing special access for favoured media has been a favoured approach of autocratic regimes. Both Qld and NSW have experienced this from their State governments over the years.
>
> >The English ropo appears to be transparent. Communication is open, it is entirely truthful. Decisions make sense as a whole. None of these things is true at the moment for the Australian setup... The Australian setup remains consistent with that of regimes where mates rates, winks and nods, and the protection of "sound" people or "good blokes" is rampant.
>
> >Are all of the rests a bad idea? Probably not... but with the Aus approach, wtf knows?
>
> Those who seek evidence for conspiracy theories will always find it.
> There are few innocent acts which are not capable of being analysed as
> malign if someone has a mind to.
paved with good intentions'. Realpolitik is pursued by those who
believe that that is the best means of achieving their aims. It may
not be a conspiracy, just incompetence (for which lies and obfuscation
and deception are often the first means of defence). I don't believe
that John Inverarity is a moron. But when things are going wrong one
has to call it as one sees it. Whatever the intentions, the results
are skewed, inadequate, increasingly disastrous.
>
> And where there's been a history of it, it's entirely understandable
> that people will see it given anything which smacks of confirmation.
1. Less players selected outside NSW (even in comparison with what
happened before) and
2. A weird RoPo system scribbled on the back of a coaster with no real
overarching sense of vision for future or present success.
This does not need to say, 'conspiracy', but it's still roobish.
>
> They don't comment on minor injuries. If it actually emerges from the
> England training camp that a player is having trouble, you can
> immediately rule him out of the next game, because they don't tell
> unless it's serious.
the very least some of the players would be concerned.
>
> From this distance, where I don't feel the need to scrutinise every
> decision made by the Aus team management minutely, their behaviour
> seems entirely consistent with operating a squad system the same way
> we do, allowing always for their bizarre belief that Steve Smith has
> something worthwhile to offer. Whether their decisions need to be
> subjected to minute scrutiny is clearly in the eye of the beholder,
> and those who have been previously bitten are likely to have pretty
> squinty eyes.
>
> No-one is going to dispel years of prejudice by decree. No-one can say
> "As of 16th June 2011 (or 23rd March 2012 or 15th August 2013),
> Australian cricket became/becomes magically free from all silly
> politicking and all subsequent decisions are/were made solely for the
> objective benefit of Australian cricket, according to the best
> professional judgement of those hired to exercise that judgment
> impartially."
content (no longer it seems can we discuss whether or not Sane Warne
is 9 or whether bondabosadnath is performing mujra in the nude or
hatching bondas overseas) any quirks in selectorial policy in Aust.
are fodder for discussion. I for one am a little bit over it, only
adding to the discussions which have built up without launching them.
I for one have not a lot to add that is new or original to the pool of
argument that has built up. It is fair to say though that the
performance or otherwise of the selectors has been fodder for
jernalists, print and TV, throughout the country lately (including
even in NSW). So it is hardly just a Qld or RSC obsession.
>
> The mildly interesting question, though, is how you could be convinced
> that their actions are entirely sensible or at least well-intentioned
> (unless they have to do with not dropping Steve Smith, because we
> should not needlessly trample on people's religious faith, however
> weird).
could be related to their need for human blood.
>
> How do you tell the difference between a bunch of people doing things
> for the right reasons but doing them a bit craply and a bunch of
> people organising a massive conspiracy?
>
> I'm naive enough to think that CA are cocking things up a bit rather
> than anything else.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
believed that what they were doing was hunky-dory. I am in no doubt
that there is a large layer of inexperience and incompetence in what
the selectors are currently doing. England certainly are managing
their rotation policy in a less schizoid and ratty manner. The pro-NSW
phenomenon will always be close to a Queenslander's heart, it comes
with the XXXX (which is incidentally, never imbibed).
For example, without being a bitter Queenslander, we can see how RoPo
and anti-Qld dovetail rather nicely in the case of Cutting, who did
well as one of the rotated players, which really annoyed the selectors
so they cut him from the squad.
eusebius
Jan 22, 2013, 3:34:08 AM1/22/13
to
commonsense could have dealt with him without recourse to some fancy
newspeak.
eusebius
Jan 22, 2013, 3:37:13 AM1/22/13
to
On Jan 22, 11:47 am, M...@unimail.com.au wrote:
> @Mike.
>
> I too see cockup rather than conspiracy, although I would add a healthy dose of self interest.
>
> And I think you've yet to address the Starc rest/injury. If he was injured, tell us. Don't tell us he's being rested and then leak an injury later because either the public outcry was making you look bad or because you were about to be found out...
Another example of the selectors being downright dishonest.
> @Mike.
>
> I too see cockup rather than conspiracy, although I would add a healthy dose of self interest.
>
> And I think you've yet to address the Starc rest/injury. If he was injured, tell us. Don't tell us he's being rested and then leak an injury later because either the public outcry was making you look bad or because you were about to be found out...
> It's incidents like this that make it hard to believe a word they say... particularly when it's a tame reporter aiding the spin.
they are relatively content to show that they are conspiring to
deceive? I have no problem with the notion that
1. Elements within NSW cricket have conspired to entrench their power
and influence and team numbers and
2. That the selectors have conspired (even in relatively anodyne ways,
but still why conspire? why lie?) to deceive the public.
eusebius
Jan 22, 2013, 3:42:37 AM1/22/13
to
On Jan 22, 12:13 pm, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:51:50 -0800 (PST), M...@unimail.com.au tapped
See how absurd the spin is? Inforeverity says, "I don't think it's in
the interests of the player to reveal every little niggle,"
But a little niggle should not keep a player out for a test. If he is
only up for 2 tests in a row, why keep him in your squad? Did he rest
every 3rd game in English domestics? This is just self-serving arse-
covering, and they aren't even any good at it. Maybe they should hire
Alastair Campbell (not the Zimbabwean cricketer) and he can front the
pressers.
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:51:50 -0800 (PST), M...@unimail.com.au tapped
> the keyboard and brought forth:
>
> >That should have read: "if he was injured, tell us or do not tell us".
>
> Did they say "he was injured" or "he has troublesome bone spurs"?
>
> If the latter, then he's not technically injured, but he easily could
> be if he plays until the ankle/heel has settled down, and whether it's
> settled down enough to play can be a hairline decision. England erred
> too often on the side of risking Flintoff, which is why he's now a
> boxer.
> --
>
> >That should have read: "if he was injured, tell us or do not tell us".
>
> Did they say "he was injured" or "he has troublesome bone spurs"?
>
> If the latter, then he's not technically injured, but he easily could
> be if he plays until the ankle/heel has settled down, and whether it's
> settled down enough to play can be a hairline decision. England erred
> too often on the side of risking Flintoff, which is why he's now a
> boxer.
See how absurd the spin is? Inforeverity says, "I don't think it's in
the interests of the player to reveal every little niggle,"
But a little niggle should not keep a player out for a test. If he is
only up for 2 tests in a row, why keep him in your squad? Did he rest
every 3rd game in English domestics? This is just self-serving arse-
covering, and they aren't even any good at it. Maybe they should hire
Alastair Campbell (not the Zimbabwean cricketer) and he can front the
pressers.
**matto**
Jan 22, 2013, 6:35:48 AM1/22/13
to
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 7:37:13 PM UTC+11, eusebius wrote:
>
> In fact, that is conspiracy. Why is it nutty to infer conspiracy, when
>
> they are relatively content to show that they are conspiring to
>
> deceive? I have no problem with the notion that
>
>
>
> 1. Elements within NSW cricket have conspired to entrench their power
>
> and influence and team numbers and
>
> 2. That the selectors have conspired (even in relatively anodyne ways,
>
> but still why conspire? why lie?) to deceive the public.
One of the issues relating to Dave Gilbert's demise was the fact NSW haven't had an Australian selector excluding the captain being an automatic part of the panel since Steve Bernard in 1998.
>
> In fact, that is conspiracy. Why is it nutty to infer conspiracy, when
>
> they are relatively content to show that they are conspiring to
>
> deceive? I have no problem with the notion that
>
>
>
> 1. Elements within NSW cricket have conspired to entrench their power
>
> and influence and team numbers and
>
> 2. That the selectors have conspired (even in relatively anodyne ways,
>
> but still why conspire? why lie?) to deceive the public.
Queensland have had Hohns, Border and Bichel in that time.
eusebius
Jan 22, 2013, 7:24:58 AM1/22/13
to
84- and Border definitely had a soft spot for NSW players during his
tenure as selector, One selector who never bought into the NSW
bulldust was definitely Greg Chappell).
Mike Holmans
Jan 22, 2013, 7:49:56 AM1/22/13
to
On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 00:34:08 -0800 (PST), eusebius
<euseb...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
Bingo!
It finally dawns on you that "rotation policy" is nothing more than
common sense.
Cheers,
Mike
--
<euseb...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
It finally dawns on you that "rotation policy" is nothing more than
common sense.
Cheers,
Mike
--
calvin
Jan 22, 2013, 5:03:44 PM1/22/13
to
On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 12:13:46 +1000, Mike Holmans
<mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> From the whole presentation point of view, it might have been more
> successful if they'd made Mickey Arthur the front man.
Certainly one of the problems is that we have the chairman of selectors,
<mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> From the whole presentation point of view, it might have been more
> successful if they'd made Mickey Arthur the front man.
coach, captain and Pat Howard (insert wank title here) all commenting on
team selections, and not all reading from the same sheet music.
Not to mention former players' two bob.
--
cheers,
calvin
Mike Holmans
Jan 22, 2013, 5:51:22 PM1/22/13
to
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 08:03:44 +1000, calvin <334...@gmail.com> tapped
discipline and collective responsibility shown by their England
counterparts. You sometimes notice one of them being slightly more
enthusiastic about a particular player than you might have expected,
which implies that he probably has been backing them in selection
meetings while the others express a little scepticism, but that's
about as much hint you get of any disagreements about who's been
selected and why.
>Not to mention former players' two bob.
The ones in our broadsheets are generally sensible. They write in
terms of mild difference of opinion rather than questioning the
selectors' sanity.
Then there's Willis, Botham and Vaughan. Vaughan can be relied on to
back Yorkshire players. England haven't picked anyone who's any good
since Willis retired, and since there's nobody in county cricket who's
any good either, the selectors are on a hiding to nothing. Botham's
opinions are absolutely spot on, as long as you remember that he has a
habit of inserting extraneous "nots" into some of his sentences and an
equally irritating habit of leaving them out of all the others.
Cheers,
Mike
--
the keyboard and brought forth:
>On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 12:13:46 +1000, Mike Holmans
><mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> From the whole presentation point of view, it might have been more
>> successful if they'd made Mickey Arthur the front man.
>
>Certainly one of the problems is that we have the chairman of selectors,
>coach, captain and Pat Howard (insert wank title here) all commenting on
>team selections, and not all reading from the same sheet music.
Ah, yes, that would be a problem. One has to acknowledge the
><mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> From the whole presentation point of view, it might have been more
>> successful if they'd made Mickey Arthur the front man.
>
>Certainly one of the problems is that we have the chairman of selectors,
>coach, captain and Pat Howard (insert wank title here) all commenting on
>team selections, and not all reading from the same sheet music.
discipline and collective responsibility shown by their England
counterparts. You sometimes notice one of them being slightly more
enthusiastic about a particular player than you might have expected,
which implies that he probably has been backing them in selection
meetings while the others express a little scepticism, but that's
about as much hint you get of any disagreements about who's been
selected and why.
>Not to mention former players' two bob.
terms of mild difference of opinion rather than questioning the
selectors' sanity.
Then there's Willis, Botham and Vaughan. Vaughan can be relied on to
back Yorkshire players. England haven't picked anyone who's any good
since Willis retired, and since there's nobody in county cricket who's
any good either, the selectors are on a hiding to nothing. Botham's
opinions are absolutely spot on, as long as you remember that he has a
habit of inserting extraneous "nots" into some of his sentences and an
equally irritating habit of leaving them out of all the others.
Cheers,
Mike
--
eusebius
Jan 22, 2013, 10:09:22 PM1/22/13
to
On Jan 22, 10:49 pm, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 00:34:08 -0800 (PST), eusebius
> <eusebiu...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 00:34:08 -0800 (PST), eusebius
closely as here. But not by the Australian selectors/management. Here
it is just a fiasco.
jzfredricks
Jan 22, 2013, 10:30:29 PM1/22/13
to
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 1:09:22 PM UTC+10, eusebius wrote:
> Here it is just a fiasco.
Is it that bad? Aus has done ok in the past 12 months. Were there many shock losses?
> Here it is just a fiasco.
eusebius
Jan 23, 2013, 1:10:11 AM1/23/13
to
case in point, a situation created at least in part by totally bizarre
selections. Take this game, again only 5 batsmen with Maxwell at 6.
What are they smoking? Chopping and changing. Few things might be said
to be un-Australian, but this kind of rubbish is not what Australian
cricket has been built on. Look at the worthless T20 team. What a
bunch of 2nd rate losers. Just like Inverarity I guess.
alvey
Jan 23, 2013, 2:19:27 AM1/23/13
to
useful because of the enormous variation in distances.
F'rinstance, the longest drive between Test venues in Pomgolia, The Oval to
'Edingley, is 3:30. The shortest drive in Oz, MCG to Adelaid is 8:00. And
the longest is a staggering 46:00 between Brisbane & Perth. In straight
line distance that's over 100km further than it is from Madrid to Moscow.
But it's even worse in Oz. Touring in the UK involves a charter bus. It
picks you up from your front door, you can wander about in it, have a comfy
seat etc etc. In Oz, you have to get to the airport at least an hour before
departure, usually battling through life & schedule threatening traffic, go
though the tedium of security, hang around at your destination waiting for
your bags and *then* get to wherever. So a 45 minute flight between
Adelaide & Melbourne will take over 4 times that out of your day. And
that's the shortest flight. On some days it's not even possible to get a
direct flight between a couple of the venues. Brisbane to Perth can take a
staggering 7:30 of flying/airport time alone on some days. Then you throw
in jetlag, DVT, baggage handlers strikes, body clock fuckery and Clang
knows what else, food poisioning is a distinct possibility, and you get a
lifestyle that's entirely different from the coach class of England. So
whatever RoPo the poms use isn't relevant to this Great Southern Land.
> But not by the Australian selectors/management. Here
> it is just a fiasco.
alvey
alvey
Jan 23, 2013, 2:23:58 AM1/23/13
to
On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 22:10:11 -0800 (PST), eusebius wrote:
> Ok at times, horrible at others. The last few worthless odos are a
> case in point, a situation created at least in part by totally bizarre
> selections. Take this game, again only 5 batsmen with Maxwell at 6.
Idle thought: With Clarke n/a, who would've been the replacement
> Ok at times, horrible at others. The last few worthless odos are a
> case in point, a situation created at least in part by totally bizarre
> selections. Take this game, again only 5 batsmen with Maxwell at 6.
alternatives?
alvey
eusebius
Jan 23, 2013, 3:24:35 AM1/23/13
to
brain damage?
Surely Pomersbach and Shaun Marsh. However we have seen nothing
mentioned of Pomersbach anywhere as far as national selection is
concerned- is this still a legacy of the presumably faked/exaggerated/
rape charge? Or do they still believe he did it.
The others, well you might be able to supply better names, but just
off the top of my head maybe Lynn, Ferguson, Khawaja, Birt, Forrest,
Paine..
eusebius
Jan 23, 2013, 3:27:23 AM1/23/13
to
more wearing on the body. But aussies are supposed to have a
reputation for physical toughness. Now there is all this namby-pamby
rubbish. We need to blood some youngsters, but not in a totally
schizoid way.
eusebius
Jan 23, 2013, 4:14:01 AM1/23/13
to
Did Slater Brainfart just say that someone couldn't get it up for the
match?
match?
calvin
Jan 23, 2013, 4:34:39 AM1/23/13
to
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 16:10:11 +1000, eusebius <euseb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 23, 1:30 pm, jzfredricks <jzfredri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 1:09:22 PM UTC+10, eusebius wrote:
>> > Here it is just a fiasco.
>>
>> Is it that bad? Aus has done ok in the past 12 months. Were there many
>> shock losses?
>
> Ok at times, horrible at others. The last few worthless odos are a
> case in point, a situation created at least in part by totally bizarre
> selections. Take this game, again only 5 batsmen with Maxwell at 6.
Only 4 actually. You can't count Wade, even when he opens.
> On Jan 23, 1:30 pm, jzfredricks <jzfredri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 1:09:22 PM UTC+10, eusebius wrote:
>> > Here it is just a fiasco.
>>
>> Is it that bad? Aus has done ok in the past 12 months. Were there many
>> shock losses?
>
> Ok at times, horrible at others. The last few worthless odos are a
> case in point, a situation created at least in part by totally bizarre
> selections. Take this game, again only 5 batsmen with Maxwell at 6.
--
cheers,
calvin
eusebius
Jan 23, 2013, 5:19:27 AM1/23/13
to
On Jan 23, 7:34 pm, calvin <334...@gmail.com> wrote:
Wade may be taken as a proper batsman for odos, perhaps. If not then
of course the situation becomes even more bizarre. This is why I
didn't mention Cutting at no.6, the team is already overladen with
bowling allrounders.
of course the situation becomes even more bizarre. This is why I
didn't mention Cutting at no.6, the team is already overladen with
bowling allrounders.
Sir Leslie Bottocks
Jan 26, 2013, 6:53:39 PM1/26/13
to
"jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ff959f31-00ed-45f7...@googlegroups.com...
> On Sunday, January 20, 2013 10:00:22 AM UTC+10, Sir Leslie Bottocks wrote:
>> it seems to be a fair enough assumption that Hussey was going to be
>> dropped irrespective of who the opposition was.
>
> That's my point. I don't think they'd have dropped Hussey if the oppo was
> someone "better" (yes, the irony is clear to me).
>
> They certainly wouldn't have dropped him if the WC was being played right
> now.
>
> They are certainly experimenting with the team, both through rotation and
> bring in debutantes and newish players.
Marsh follows up his brilliant knock in the BBL final with another knock of
equal brilliance. He's not from NSW is he?
0 new messages