Not the vibe I've gotten from it. Tall poppy syndrome? Probably, kicking a genuinely unsavoury character while he's down? Definitely, but I don't think anyone's pretending that Roy is a trailblazer in the art of being difficult.
"The monkey" exposed "The Weed" as much as "The Weed" exposed "The Monkey"
so if others dont do the right thing, it somehow inexplicably makes the CA not doing the right thing acceptable???????????
That's just it, in social's universe Roy's sh*t don't stink. Sad that he genuinely believes what he's saying too.
Your posts on this issue are trollish. When has Yuvraj skipped a team meeting or showed up drunk ? Besides when have you seen people defend Yuvraj's actions if he has done so ? Akhtar has got more punishments for his behaviour than any other player I can remember and rightly so. Besides, we dont see Pakistani fans lining up for his defense like you have been standing up for Symonds.
social
meant as a reply to Social's original post.. but hit QR from ur post I guess. apologies.What?? Could you please elaborate.
I think Symonds is a god, do I?"The monkey" exposed "The Weed" as much as "The Weed" exposed "The Monkey"
U trying to paint Symonds as some saint when he is really no better than Harbhajan has ceased being funny a very long time back....
Well he was.
At worst, it should've been to make him 12th man for every match of the current series and fine him his entire series fee - he's a professional and would hate paying the fee and every cricketer that I've ever met absolutely detests being 12th man
Symonds hardly needs his match fees now he's on a million dollar contract from the IPL. Actually, he hardly needs his CA contract either.
Fulfilling basic comittments has got absolutely nothing to do with people not being 'all the same'.
TC, a wise post and I agree with everything you said, but you seem to have missed the fact that Symonds isn't good enough to deserve preferential treatment in the context of this team. Firstly, he's after Hayden, Ponting, Hussey, Lee, Clark and possibly even Clarke in the pecking order. Secondly, Shane Watson is a more than adequate replacement. All that Symonds has over his number two is fitness.Yeah but with talented members of any team, I don't know if you can apply such strict discipline. Symonds is an elite member of an elite team and, as in the corporate world, people who are a bit out of the box do (and should) get treated differently. We're not talking about a ubiquitous personality here; he's an immensely talented individual, with all the associated positive and negative connotations, in a team of of immensely talented individuals. The problem with having a group of immensely-talented individuals together is that you have to find a way to make them all work together and sometimes that means concessions on the whole 'everyone gets treated the same, all must be disciplined' thing. Otherwise you won't get the best out of them or the team. The person in question, however, has to make the extra effort and concessions worth it so, correspondingly, standards about their performance have to be higher. That's the downside of being the gun in any team; you have to be REALLY good to make the crap you give the team manager worth their time.
This is why I have a hard time believing this is all about discipline. Symonds is a difficult personality but concessions have been made because he's been performing. In Tests, luck aside, he's been getting better by the Test. Why bring him to heel now for the sake of a nothing ODI series against a team little better than ICC associate teams who, predictably, got annihilated in their opening game?
Insisting on everyone being exactly the same in a team rarely works long-term in my experience because, unconsciously, everyone knows it's a lie anyway. There's always heirarchies, cliques and egos. Insisting on rigid discipline and not allowing even a little for out-of-the ordinary personalities has a catch; usually the results of the team suffer. You have a team full of cookie-cutter yes-men with interchangeable personalities who know how to work within the confines of established doctrine but presented with a novel situation or series of events, struggle to adapt.
In other words, you have South Africa.
Running a team isn't as simple as creating a bunch of rules, telling everyone to stick with them and then kicking back as the results flow in. It's also about ensuring that blokes who require more care, if their pay-off is worth the trouble (key point), also contribute to the goals of the team. Symonds was in the wrong here and should have been sanctioned but belting him from the team completely sends a message to others; stick to the rules or be ostracised. Many, many organisational psychology studies will tell you that's a sure-fire way to ensure the team under-performs when things don't go as planned.
Those sentiments are all very nice but the brutal truth is that allowances are made in virtually every entity for star performers
Star performers get compensated thru monetary benefits, i guess same thing's happening in Cricket Australia also, and not getting a blind eye turned towards their indiscretions! Lord! Which management philosophy are you referring to?
