Channel 9 Commentators - Very Poor Form

[gwo]

You do realise that cricket is played outside Australia?

Wouldn't be surprised if not mind.

English?

 

[Flem274*]

"I w0tch mor testz den u"

"Noez, i d0!"

"itz m3 actualy"

"**** u mutha ****er!"

 

[Flem274*]

National selectors as a rule are poor so I probably do have a better idea than most of them, yes.

Here we go...

 

[Richard]

English?

And South African, and Indian, and Kiwi, and Pakistani, and other places besides.

 

[JimmyGS]

National selectors as a rule are poor so I probably do have a better idea than most of them, yes.

Oh my God. That's probably the dumbest post I've seen on this forum since I've joined.

Actually, there's no probably about it.

 

[Flem274*]

Manbags ready....set....

 

[Richard]

Oh my God. That's probably the dumbest post I've seen on this forum since I've joined.

Actually, there's no probably about it.

It's far more dumb to call it dumb, actually. People on these boards - rightly - criticise the selectors of their home team on a daily basis. Clearly, they wouldn't do this if they didn't believe regular mistakes were being made, and clearly they wouldn't regard something as a mistake if they didn't think the decisions they'd make instead were more appropriate.

There are plenty of people on these boards who would do a far better job than many of the jokers who are employed as national selectors. I'm one of them. That's not arrogant, that's the way it is. False modesty is lies.

So therefore unless every other post on CW is the dumbest you've ever seen, nor is that.

 

[Flem274*]

It's far more dumb to call it dumb, actually. People on these boards - rightly - criticise the selectors of their home team on a daily basis. Clearly, they wouldn't do this if they didn't believe regular mistakes were being made, and clearly they wouldn't regard something as a mistake if they didn't think the decisions they'd make instead were more appropriate.

There are plenty of people on these boards who would do a far better job than many of the jokers who are employed as national selectors. I'm one of them. That's not arrogant, that's the way it is. False modesty is lies.

Hourly in my corner of the mediocre internet hack world.

 

[JimmyGS]

It's far more dumb to call it dumb, actually. People on these boards - rightly - criticise the selectors of their home team on a daily basis. Clearly, they wouldn't do this if they didn't believe regular mistakes were being made, and clearly they wouldn't regard something as a mistake if they didn't think the decisions they'd make instead were more appropriate.

I disagree with selectors, I'll admit. However lately I disagree with your posts a lot more often.

Logic says that (in my eyes at least) you would do a worse job than they do.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, but you're wrong to disagree with me. In my opinion.

In my opinion, every opinion I hold is the right one. Otherwise, pretty obviously, I wouldn't hold it.

 

[Flem274*]

 

[JimmyGS]

Yeah, but you're wrong to disagree with me. In my opinion.

In my opinion, every opinion I hold is the right one. Otherwise, pretty obviously, I wouldn't hold it.

I don't know how to reply to a post which says absolutely nothing, sorry.

 

[Richard]

How about not neccessitating posts that say absolutely nothing with other posts that say absolutely nothing?

 

[Flem274*]

Nothing.

 

[Somerset]

Yeah, but you're wrong to disagree with me. In my opinion.

In my opinion, every opinion I hold is the right one. Otherwise, pretty obviously, I wouldn't hold it.

An opinion's something you think is right, it doesn't mean it IS right. That post sounded really arrogant TBH.

As for the post a while back about you doing a better job than a national selector, they're employed full time, have generally a wealth of cricketing knowledge and experience and can relate to the players on a much more personal level than any of us ever will - so that also can across very arrogant to me.

 

[howardj]

Well yesterdays stint before stumps by one T.Greig was singularly the worst performance in living memory.

1. He suggested that the fine leg (Ntini), instead of stumbling over the boundary after taking a catch, throw the ball back to the sllips cordon so they could complete the catch.

2. He insisted a batsman was bowled, when they were LBW (the bails remained undisturbed mind you).

Honestly, Greig just serves up rubbish; has no respect for the audience. Rather, like Lawry, he just goes through the motions.

 

[Storer]

Yeah, I don't like 'em that much either, but aw well. Mute the television.

 

[Richard]

An opinion's something you think is right, it doesn't mean it IS right. That post sounded really arrogant TBH.

Obviously I think it's right. Otherwise, as I say, fairly obviously, I wouldn't think it. That's precisely what I said in that post. In my opinion, the opinions I have are right. Therefore, in my opinion, someone who holds an opinion counter to mine is wrong.

I can't really see the arrogance in that TBH.

As for the post a while back about you doing a better job than a national selector, they're employed full time, have generally a wealth of cricketing knowledge and experience and can relate to the players on a much more personal level than any of us ever will - so that also can across very arrogant to me.

Perhaps the point is I could do a better job (IMO, obviously) than selectors on picking the players. However, that isn't all there is to being a good selector - you do need to be "good with people", be able to manage the excitement and disappointment that inevitably comes with what you have to tell players. I do feel I could do that as a matter of fact, I credit myself as someone who's good with people, but I've never been required to.

However, that someone is employed full-time to do something doesn't mean they're good at it. There's countless hundreds of full-time professionals who are incompetant at their jobs, surely you know that? Cricket selectors are no different.

What's more, not all selectors are full-time. Oh no, not even close.

 

[Uppercut]

There's also things selectors have to take into account that aren't in public knowledge. If a player refuses to bowl when asked to, or turns up to training drunk, they might have to drop him while keeping the incident "under the carpet" as such. Wasn't there a thread recently where someone (vic i think) gave a particular reason for Noffke's exclusion that you'd been unaware of? Such things could well be more common than you think, and what seems like a rank poor decision becomes a fair call.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, Noffke was apparently a bit of an idiot TSTL and burnt his bridges, and fair enough too. However, I said at that point (actually asked Jack a question he didn't answer) that there's quite a few times when I think things like that should be in the public domain more often than they are. If you keep things hushed-up, you inevitably leave yourself open to criticism that you'd not be liable to if you were more open and accountable about your dealings.

However, I don't really think such things are all that common. It honestly appears to me far more common that some selectors can't tell the difference between good and bad, or refuse to see what's good and bad because they prefer their own interpretation of who's "got talent". Witness "Sajid Mahmood has had a good season for Lancs" when he took 30-odd wickets at 35-ish (figures which flattered him hugely). There's many other examples.