Why can’t I quote all of a sudden.
Acemans nailed it.
If you can’t get in on those numbers you better show some photos of the selectors, in a big tub of custard, selecting a player to rub up the right way.
And that’s fine, because not everyone gets along in teams and that’s OK, people sometimes just don’t get along with other personality types, and that’s a fact. Ever have a friend that you just gel with and then there’s another bloke that seems OK but you never quite click? I can certainly reel off lots of cricketers that didn’t necessarily get along especially when jealousy and competing for the same spots in a side come up as another issue. But that doesn’t mean he’s a sh*t bloke. One person not liking another person doesn’t make that person a bad person.
1 Like
Never, ever but my wife has played State League and has played and coached a stack of netball and they have bitchiness but nowhere near the dramas of junior cricket sides
Reminds me of a barely relevant story.
About 20 years ago a major paper told Netty Australia they wanted to get right behind them.
Give them proper coverage, a dedicated journo willing to put the time in, increase the players profile, help everyday Australians know who played wing attack for Australia.
Selections were released for the National team, can’t remember if it was for the Commonwealth Games or the World Championships, something like that.
The journo rang a player (already a contact) to congratulate them on their first National call-up.
They hadn’t told her.
She got pissy with Netball Austalia.
Netball Australia bawled out the journo, bawled out the editor.
And the paper said ■■■■. That. Noise.
Confused
1 Like
The really good teams and more specifically captain’s and coaches will have the best XI playing regardless of if they like each other and get them all to contribute to the cause equally.
If Maxwell has rubbed up players the wrong way then that’s on Paine, Smith, Lehmann, Langer and so on
1 Like
Ace is spot on. Certainly at local level politics, friendships, etc can play a big part in terms of selection. You would think that at national level it’s more of a meritocracy but unfortunately that isn’t always the case. I’ve heard from people I played with in Perth that are mates with some WA players who were in an around the national setup (Langer included) as to why Brad Hodge wasn’t selected, so to think something similar has occurred with Maxwell and Wade isn’t a massive stretch. Back when Hodgey was playing they could afford to make that call more than they could now because there were still quality players in the Shield to bring into the team. However at the moment the cupboard is fairly barren and you risk picking a sub-par player ahead of someone worthy of selection because they are a nice bloke. That’s not right. Warner will get back in because end of the day he averages 48 as an opener. You’re not going to pick someone averaging 30 ahead of him are you?
Warner, I think, will come straight back in.
Basically it comes back to the old ‘no jerks unless they’re our kind of jerk’ rule.
I don’t think results come into it, although it’s very much worth mentioning that Kholi has 6613 runs from 131 innings with 25 tons and 20 50s, while Warner has 6363 runs from 137 innings, 21 tons and 29 50s.
That’s the sort of level player you’re talking about.
A really good discussion on ESPN about high maintenance players in American sports. One of the sayings from a former coach was “I will tolerate you until I can replace you”. And that’s the crux of the matter. They’ll tolerate Warner because he is clearly superior than everyone else in his position. But the minute he falls out of form or someone is waiting in the wings that can replace him to a similar standard, he’s gone. If we had a plethora of opening bats averaging mid-high 40s then you could make that arbitrary call of not picking him.
Similar being the operative word.
Statistically there’s only one better Australian opener in the history of the game, so…you know, don’t hold your breath on that.
But Jones shows us that none of that matters. If they want him gone, he’s gone.
Probably goes without sayng that I’m really unimpressed with that line of thinking. I think I’ve made that point.
But to labour it further, it just says to me ‘I’m no good at people management and will move on players that are too hard and outside my skillset if I can justify it.’
1 Like
Cannot agree with that, although it’s partly required by cluttered international schedules.
Imo, if Test cricket is the focus then the best layout is the old one, where Adelaide held the last Test on Australia Day. Cramming 5 tests by New Year puts pressure on pitches in October, which with the dropins is already a problem. It makes any sort of meaningful tour games impossible, which impacts on our Shield players opportunities. If we want Shield cricket before a Test series then it’s starting crazy early, again on underprepared wickets.
What I find fascinating is that there’s already talk of the BBL losing its lustre and ideas on how to make it better. FK that. If it dies, it dies. CA love the money, the players love the money, but if the net result is a poor Test side, a cramped Test Schedule, little chance of meaningful 1st class pathways and subsequent dwindling crowds at the Test matches then exactly how profitable is BBL to the actual game - the sport- of cricket.
It’s just my opinion, but I do not believe that anything other than Test cricket can save the sport itself. 20/20 offers nothing unique in the sporting world. There’s already ludicrous discussions about even shorter forms mooted. These forms won’t save the game long term, because it becomes utterly humdrum and, frankly, boring. There’s no real inherent life , no twists and turns, no extended time period, to build genuine drama and therefore no resultant heroic epics. The shorter the form, the more we cheapen a game that is like no other. It’s a poison chalice.
7 Likes
I think ODI’s can be saved, but it needs to be a tournament.
Three or five ODI’s against one team just…don’t have any excitement.
And I’ve shrunk my idea of making a tournament across SA, Aus and NZ, South Africa is probably too hard.
But I see no reason why we cant have, at least, a five team tournament hosted by Australia and New Zealand every summer.
They both have teams touring there anyway, and how hard would it be to get a different upcoming ODI team here every year? Whether it be Ireland or Afghanistan or whoever. You can’t tell me it wouldn’t be good for them to be playing four Test accredited teams in a tournament.
You’d get a genuine rivalry, not just of team but of individual players again.
Who has the best batting/bowling strike rate?
Who scored the most runs, took the most wickets?
And you’d actually have something to promote.
1 Like
The only issue with that - and it probably led to the end of the ODI tri-series - is fall in interest in the games not featuring Australia / New Zealand. But if we accept that there needs to be a less than ideal compromise somewhere, then this may be it.
And let’s face it, as a kid I didn’t mind the relief of watching the West Indies belt the living suitcases out of Pakistan/India/England etc for a day rather than us.
2 Likes
Obviously, that is an issue.
I think it’s more an actual attendance issue more than a television one.
I’d watch a neutral match if it affected Australia’s standing.
If Pakistan need a runrate of blankity blank against Ireland to catch up to Australia on the table, hell yeah I’m watching that.
But…we’re in an age where twenty people actual attend a Test between Australia and Pakistan in the UAE.
Does it matter so much that you have to play a few games in Ballarat or Canberra if you can fill the 'G again?
Edit: And just as an aside, it actually takes a bit of the…angst…off how Australia behave if other countries are playing at the same time.
I used to like the tri-series, what happened to that?
1 Like
It got ditched because no one attended the non Aus games. And a risk that Aus didn’t make the final would have been diabolical.
There was probably also a factor of getting a third team in an increasingly busy international schedule.
A risk that could be mitigated by sharing the hosting with New Zealand.
Edit: My math is terrible, how many neutral games would you have in a two round tournament?
Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, India, Ireland.
Six?
So, three each?
Seven Australian home games, so that’s Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth, Hobart…maybe Adelaide get two, like the old days.
There was also an agreement that any games teams played in Australia had to be reciprocated with a game offshore. So having a neutral game in A/a meant CA had to schedule two reciprocal games offshore. It was why we were playing so many overseas one day games.
Offshore, you say?
Overseas/Offshore/away. Whatever. So if Pak v India played in A/a, CA had to schedule a return one day game in Pak And India