You avoiding direct questions as to the creditability of your argument does.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Have selectors have lost us another series...
- Thread starter gbatman
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
You avoiding direct questions as to the creditability of your argument does.
courtjester
Cancelled
Meh only 2 players different from the last tour. Given how amazingly bad our selectors are I would expect massive changes to this team.
So if you make even 1 change to this team in the middle of a tour (even if the team is getting thrashed) do I get to yell about what a terrible selector you are?
What about Phil Jaques aren’t you destroying his career? Same with Watto, he averaged 50, totally unfair; he will never recover from this. What do these guys have to do???
Reckon I am in for an easy job here.
I dont want to get into this whole bitch fight!
I think selecting the team is pretty simple really. And I think that the selectors do a reasonable job of it. I do have some criticisms though.
I think the selectors need to select the following:
* The six best batsman in the country
* The best wicketkeeper in the country (providing he can average 20+ with the bat)
* The best spinner in the country
* The four best quicks/meds in the country
Six best bats- One criticism is that in the last 1-2 years, they have NOT been selecting the six best batsmen in the country purely on merit. And as such they are playing a batsman-keeper rather than a keeper-batsman (which i'll come to). Hussey has been carried in the test team for far too long. Katich, while he has done ok as an opener, is what we need in the middle order in place of Hussey. Watson is not an opener, and that will show next time we play S-Africa. The point is we are opening with two guys who aren't real openers. Two of Rogers, Jaques and Hughes should be opening. No two ways about it. The blindness of the selectors in England was ridiculous regarding Hughes. He slayed S-Africa in SA, including Steyn, and is then dropped after 3 bad innings in Eng. WTF? The obvious solution was to drop Hussey from the team, bat Katich at 4 or 5 and give Hughes more time. Watson has done most things right in the last 6 months but i'm still convinced he's not an opener.
Keeper- It may seem like a small issue, but I think Haddin's attitude is shocking. He seems to take no pride in his glovework. He smirks when he lets byes through. Healy and Gilchrist were both guys with a tremendous work ethic and pride. I might be wrong about Haddin, but his facial and body language seem to say IDGAF. We need a tidy keeper, as the keeper sets the tone. Paine should be in the test team as of now.
Spinner- Can't argue with Hauritz selection. I'm actually a fan. He's the best spinner in Australia at present, and we need to play a spinner always.
Quicks- Clark may have made a difference in the first two tests. Given the inexperience of Johnson, Siddle and Hilfenhaus, i'd have played him (probably for Siddle, maybe MJ). However, I like it that the selectors seem to have decided this is a pace trio to take us into the next few years.
One thing. I know Johnson has just won cricketer of the year, but his place in the team should not be guaranteed. In England especially. Hilf, Clark and Siddle may have been a better option there. This is not a criticism of selectors, cos they could hardly drop him considering SA, but it's something to consider for the future.
I dont want to get into this whole bitch fight!
I think selecting the team is pretty simple really. And I think that the selectors do a reasonable job of it. I do have some criticisms though.
I think the selectors need to select the following:
* The six best batsman in the country
* The best wicketkeeper in the country (providing he can average 20+ with the bat)
* The best spinner in the country
* The four best quicks/meds in the country
Six best bats- One criticism is that in the last 1-2 years, they have NOT been selecting the six best batsmen in the country purely on merit. And as such they are playing a batsman-keeper rather than a keeper-batsman (which i'll come to). Hussey has been carried in the test team for far too long. Katich, while he has done ok as an opener, is what we need in the middle order in place of Hussey. Watson is not an opener, and that will show next time we play S-Africa. The point is we are opening with two guys who aren't real openers. Two of Rogers, Jaques and Hughes should be opening. No two ways about it. The blindness of the selectors in England was ridiculous regarding Hughes. He slayed S-Africa in SA, including Steyn, and is then dropped after 3 bad innings in Eng. WTF? The obvious solution was to drop Hussey from the team, bat Katich at 4 or 5 and give Hughes more time. Watson has done most things right in the last 6 months but i'm still convinced he's not an opener.
Keeper- It may seem like a small issue, but I think Haddin's attitude is shocking. He seems to take no pride in his glovework. He smirks when he lets byes through. Healy and Gilchrist were both guys with a tremendous work ethic and pride. I might be wrong about Haddin, but his facial and body language seem to say IDGAF. We need a tidy keeper, as the keeper sets the tone. Paine should be in the test team as of now.
Spinner- Can't argue with Hauritz selection. I'm actually a fan. He's the best spinner in Australia at present, and we need to play a spinner always.
Quicks- Clark may have made a difference in the first two tests. Given the inexperience of Johnson, Siddle and Hilfenhaus, i'd have played him (probably for Siddle, maybe MJ). However, I like it that the selectors seem to have decided this is a pace trio to take us into the next few years.
One thing. I know Johnson has just won cricketer of the year, but his place in the team should not be guaranteed. In England especially. Hilf, Clark and Siddle may have been a better option there. This is not a criticism of selectors, cos they could hardly drop him considering SA, but it's something to consider for the future.
That is reasonably close to where I come from.
I think that if a really top quality young player comes along they should look to getting them into the team ASAP. Otherwise the team gets too stale and there is no succession planning.
But there is a big difference between a genuine up and coming talent and a good, solid, young mid range player. A lot of players could do reasonably well at international level but probably will never have the extra level to their game.
I think it is important for them to give young players a shot, but if the young players are more of category B than A then I think they should move them on and give someone else a go. If the kid really looks to have something then they should hold onto them longer and give them an extended run.
Ultimately if a player completely falls to pieces the first time they get dropped then the reality is they are probably not cut out for test cricket.
I think it is important that they keep the core of the team very strong and match hardened. As has been discussed previously, to do this they really like to hold onto those core players through thick and thin.
I fully agree that sometimes they hold on too struggling established players too long.
The selectors, coach and captain always talk about how we are transitioning the team. Obviously we are attempting to do that without bottoming out. Blending those new gun players (particularly the pace bowlers at the moment) into the core of established players.
As long as the core of the team stays strong I think it is entirely reasonable for them to a couple of changes around edges as conditions and form of fringe players apply.
As stated numerous times before I too disagreed with the dropping of Hughes. I think he very much fits into the star young player category, and this should have given him more time. Obviously they thought his ‘technical issue’ temporarily overrode this and put him in the ‘form of fringe players’ category
Hughes is tough and obviously will be back.
There are loads of different factors at play and often it is very difficult to say there is a definitively right or wrong answer to a particular selection. Watto did great when given the opportunity.
I don’t really subscribe to the theory of hard coded formulas for players. I prefer to use them as rough guidelines. Gilly was never the best gloveman in the county but was the best WK/batsman we have ever had.
A little bit different from where you are coming from, but very much the same ballpark.
Ill Chicken
Premiership Player
That's a bit rich.
He’ll either make nothing posts like this, or he’ll sook because I call his arguments immature. That's about it.
courtjester
Cancelled
weevil said:
I agree. My criticism of Haddin is more to do with his attitude than his ability. Although I rate Gilly's keeping far more than Haddin's.
Just wondering what you'd have done different Ill Chicken and Elvis? If you were selector what would you have done?
Haddin is very frustrating. He is one of those players who looks like he should be better than he is. He can be sloppy behind the stumps sometimes but on the other hand his batting has the potential to be match turning from time to time.
Paine has grabbed his opportunity with both hands and looks very classy. But on the other hand people were saying much the same thing about Greg Blewett after his first few games.
You’d certainly like the keeper to set the tone for the rest of the field and obviously Paine has this area totally covered.
Players play till they are much older these days so Haddin is not exactly over the hill. But there may be the feeling that he was only ever a short term option anyway. With Hussey looking so shaky they might opt to keep Haddin around a bit longer for stabilities’ sake.
Who knows they might keep Haddin in the test team for the short term and make Paine the keeper for the OD games?
If Paine continues as he has been then ultimately you’d think it is only a matter of time.
Again, a bit ironic for you to label others as immature.
I've made a large number of lengthy, detailed posts; and yet you still harp on about me making 'nothing posts,' - which is clearly bullshit to everybody but yourself.
I'll refute your last post when I get home today - I haven't done it yet as it generally takes me a couple of days to generate enough enthusiasm to bother arguing with you. As I said earlier, smashing my head up against a brick wall isn't really my idea of fun.
I might go this one now, the longer nothing post later;
I totally ignored every other issue regarding Krezja? You brought up Tour Match form, I posted the statistics which showed that both Hauritz and Krezja struggled massively in the Tour Matches, yet apparently that's not relevant when it comes to Hauritz. So Tour form is applicable when it suits your argument, but not when it doesn't, clearly.
The one and only thing that mattered (and this doesn't refer only to Krez, which is a point I've made repeatedly) is that if they're going to select a player based on his potential, then they stick with him for at least a reasonable period of time - not drop him after one bad match where the conditions are completely unfavourable towards him.
You harp on about his terrible performance in Perth, but fail to mention his amazing performance in India where he almost single-handedly won us a Test.
With respect to Watson, you've completely lost the plot. Not once have I called for him to be omitted from the side? I'm a huge Watson fan, have been for a long time, if he can stay fit, he'll be the best All Rounder in the world. But that doesn't change the fact that the inclusion of two All Rounders in our Ashes squad was a mistake, resulted in us having an unbalanced squad without a specialist batsman as backup - a mistake we also made in South Africa. Again, why did we take A Mac when he was never even in contention to play a game, in spite of both bowlers and batsmen struggling to perform?
The only bullshit is you posting crap like this to try and discredit the points I've made, where I've made very few comments along those lines; and certainly not in isolation without any justification.
You've demonstrated pretty effectively in this thread that you don't really have a clue, you've failed to take the piss out of my argument (unless you mean the petulant behaviour stuff, which you resort to when you're clearly outpointed) and if you think I, or my argument, are worried about respect from you, you're clearly mistaken.
You started playing the man not the ball, and to post this;
About myself and Ill Chicken is absolutely pathetic, considering the length/depth/detail we've gone into with our posts.
Like Phil Hughes?
By not playing S Clark at Lords, and then not playing Hauritz at a pitch doctored to be a massive turner?
Have we been through it before? I'll have to double check whether you refuted my argument, or whether I made a 3 page long post and you just labeled it as a 'nothing post,' again.
They don't need to set the itinerary - they are aware of the touring schedule; if they can't manage the players properly to insure they're at peak fitness and form for the most important Test Series we play, then they aren't capable of performing the role they are in.
I'll respond to the rest of your inane ramblings later.
I’m not going to go in point by point or I will be here forever.
I have 3 basic points:
1. This is how I see it.
You will list some fringe players who have been given a short go and then list some under performing senior players who are given multiple chances.
Then you will insist there is no possible plan that the selectors could have that could ever describe this pattern.
I’ll then point out that part of their plan is to stick with their proven established players while to cycle through some of the younger fringe players to see if they have anything.
I’ll say “you may not understand the plan, and may not like the plan, but it is pretty clear what they are doing”
You will ignore this and repeat that it is impossible to see any plan.
I’ll say “Gee Elvis, it kinda looks like you just replied without reading my post, nearly all the players you talked about fit basically into that pattern. There are different conditions and situations the team finds itself in and that there are winners and losers with every decision”
You will again ignore this and repeat that it is impossible to see any plan. You will then list some players being dropped and say they were terrible decisions.
I’ll acknowledge that they don’t always get all the decisions right and I list some of the reasons why some of those players mentioned probably got dropped.
You will again ignore this and insist it is impossible to see any plan and that they were all terrible decisions.
This will repeat until I get pissed off that I have bothered attempting to have a rational discussion with a guy who is just not interested in any other opinion than his own. And I’ll end up taking the piss because I’ve had enough.
...I haven’t seen any examples of you acknowledging any other side to the argument other than your own. I haven’t seen you agree with any of their decisions, or show that you understand that there are other relevant factors outside of the ones that back your argument.
All I see is flat out “they are idiots and every single thing they do is wrong no matter what”
2. You brought in statistics categorically showing that Hauritz had a terrible first game and then improved considerably as the tour went on. They also showed that Krezja started okay and then bowled terribly form that point on.
Again...show that you understand that there are a range of issues around selection.Show that you understand it is not simply a matter of “Player x averaged y on tour therefore he has to play no matter what”
Display some depth to your understanding of the complexities of the issues.
Otherwise just reeling off the slivers of the argument that support your side of the story without even acknowledging any other issues paints you as very extreme and you argument as very, very narrow.
3. I will say is that you have been a much better contributor than Chicken. And I probably have inadvertently directed a fair bit of my frustration at him in your direction. And for that I have no problems at all in apologising. I’ve always thought you were a good guy, and I think quite possibly misreading each other on this.
I feel that you are just arguing issues into a corner and never conceding any ground whatsoever. Naturally I am going to get very frustrated and pissed off with this. I’m sure you feel the same.
While I have been scathing of what I have seen as very simplistic arguments. I have never at any point threatened anyone with any ‘moderation’ or anything like that. Like I have said previously we are big boys and I think we can handle bumping heads in a pretty heated way.
Outside of this issue I have no problem with you whatsoever. We just strongly disagree on this.
Ill Chicken
Premiership Player
So basically you're talking shit.
You've never offered a policy, nor have you answered the picking players on statistics during the 80's. You haven't offered an answer for the rotation policy on selectors that isn't employed in the lesser forms of the game, nor have you answered anything regarding the lesser forms of the game which is how this originally started.
No selection plan has been stated or referred to.
No reference to selection policy has been referred to or proven from your point from 1980 to 1989.
No consistency in the selection policy of trialling spinners through T20'S. F50's or Test Matches has been concluded by yourself.
No appraisals of spinners that have shown the same form or consistency such as Krejza versus Cullen during the 2007/08 season that would then refer to the same selection criteria.
Bit of a nothing article - in spite of the spate of losses, they've decided to maintain the status quo.
Chicken that is pathetic you have no argument at all. Your only tactic is to scream “No it’s not” as loud as you can.
All your trash has been smashed out of the park. Put up an actual argument or run back to mum.
All your trash has been smashed out of the park. Put up an actual argument or run back to mum.
Ill Chicken
Premiership Player
weevil that is pathetic, you have no argument at all. Your only tactic is to denounce my points by incessantly repeating that I'm using my voice at a high level and continually responding with such even though you seem fully aware it is not physically possible for a forum member to actually use their physical voice or any audio device to portray as such on BigFooty.com.
Now I would like to think you would not involve mothers, but obviously that is another tactic that is obviously meant to refer you as a mature adult and myself as juvenile, which I consider to be highly impossible because a mature adult would not revert to straw man tactics and then refuse to answer questions, conclude they are right and define their posts with run back to mum.
But I guess if that is how you refute questions, while I don't agree with it and think it is quite poor form from a moderator, that is your prerogative weevil. You haven't answered the questions, so park and smashed are not relevant, nor is your post to the questions previously asked.
It's all in front of you, you can't actually refute any of it I'll take that as concession.
"1 for 200, there was no reason at all he should have been dropped"
"You can't prove the sky isn't blue, I can't see it". Pathetic.
"1 for 200, there was no reason at all he should have been dropped"
"You can't prove the sky isn't blue, I can't see it". Pathetic.
Michael Slater on the WWoS Website;
Cousin Jed
Retired President of BigFooty
- Status
Similar threads
