Channel 9 Commentators - Very Poor Form

[Nate]

"I w0tch mor testz den u"

"Noez, i d0!"

"itz m3 actualy"

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

hahahaha

 

[Uppercut]

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.

Fair point, the Sajid Mahmood comment was a real facepalmer.

Regarding the Noffke thing though, that's only an extreme example. Witness the case of Johnson- a selection everyone (myself included) was critical of. It could have been pure luck that he seems to have become test-class while in the team, but it could be that the selectors picked him as a long-term solution because they believed that with his attitude, raw talent and ability, as well as the finer points such as his action and batting technique, he had great potential for improvement in a relatively short time. A lot of those finer points, you'd have been unaware of when you criticised the selection.

Now i know you're not a fan of this selection style, thinking that players ought to be picked only when they're at the right standard. But that's a mere difference in opinion between the selectors and you, as opposed to a rank poor decision like say, Pattinson. And for now, it looks like the Aussie selectors' method could be getting some results.

 

[Steulen]

Haha...Richard vs. The sub-1000 crowd. The Ol' CW Initiation Rite. Damn...good memories.

 

[Richard]

Fair point, the Sajid Mahmood comment was a real facepalmer.

Regarding the Noffke thing though, that's only an extreme example. Witness the case of Johnson- a selection everyone (myself included) was critical of. It could have been pure luck that he seems to have become test-class while in the team, but it could be that the selectors picked him as a long-term solution because they believed that with his attitude, raw talent and ability, as well as the finer points such as his action and batting technique, he had great potential for improvement in a relatively short time. A lot of those finer points, you'd have been unaware of when you criticised the selection.

Now i know you're not a fan of this selection style, thinking that players ought to be picked only when they're at the right standard. But that's a mere difference in opinion between the selectors and you, as opposed to a rank poor decision like say, Pattinson. And for now, it looks like the Aussie selectors' method could be getting some results.

As I've always said, I don't judge a selection by the results it gets because the results happen after the selection. I judge a selection by what the selection had going for it. No selector can really have too much of a clue what will happen when someone's picked - however obvious and un-mistake-make-able a selection is (Graeme Hick in 1991, for example), sometimes the player concerned still won't produce the results. But picking Hick in 1991 wasn't a poor selection just because he didn't perform, and I doubt anyone would suggest it was. So why people can't recognise that because selectors wrongly selected someone and got lucky because he performed a few times \ didn't go completely disgracefully \ became Test-class at a later date (or even became Test-class at just the perfect time, though this is extremely rare) is beyond me.

I judge a selection solely on what reasoning was behind it, and this can only ever apply to stuff that was in place before the player got on the park.

I actually don't think Mitchell Johnson's elevation to Test status in 2007/08 was a poor piece of selection at all, there was just about enough evidence that he might be worth a place at the time. However, had he been left-out (say, for Bracken) that'd have been quite fair enough as well. But if he was picked for any reason other than that he was thought to be up to the task at the time of first selection and there were thought to be others who might've done better, that's a mistake in my book. As it weakens the team at the time in question, and nor is there any real evidence to support the popular theory that picking a player before he's ready for Test cricket makes him better down the line. He'll get better by being around the team environment, sure, and a good cricket manager\coach will always make sure young players he's looking to get into the team sometime down the line will spend plenty of time with the team\squad without actually stepping onto the park (this is beneficial in a number of ways). But the minute you're actually playing someone who is, essentially, someone you hope will one day be suitable rather than someone who is suitable, that's bad in my book, as it is beneficial neither to the player nor the team.

 

[Uppercut]

I have a problem with your writing off every decision that doesn't seem logical to you as "pure luck". The best people in the world at everything go on instinct to some extent. Even heart surgeons do it. A left-field decision is not always a bad one.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

 

[Richard]

I have a problem with your writing off every decision that doesn't seem logical to you as "pure luck". The best people in the world at everything go on instinct to some extent. Even heart surgeons do it. A left-field decision is not always a bad one.

Anything which trusts to luck is a bad decision, unless obviously you've no choice but to trust to luck. Surgeons sometimes do; cricket selectors do on precious few occasions.

Obviously I consider a decision that pays-off where I see no logic behind it as luck; if someone else sees some logic behind it, they can consider it as not being lucky that it paid-off.

Usually, though, people don't tell me "well the decision was a good one because... and so therefore I don't think it was just luck that it paid-off" they just say "well he succeeded so it was a good decision, so there!" Which, frankly, makes no sense.

 

[gwo]

Haha...Richard vs. The sub-1000 crowd. The Ol' CW Initiation Rite. Damn...good memories.

Actually, I've been dueling Richard for a fair period of time now. Just that I generally cbb with the bull**** he manages to spurt out.

@Flem274*

I know how it must look to outsiders of the debate, but someone has to put lil dicky back where he belongs.

 

[gwo]

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

Oh I was asking you to put an English sentence together.

Didn't quite understand whether you were talking to yourself or not.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

I have a problem with your writing off every decision that doesn't seem logical to you as "pure luck". The best people in the world at everything go on instinct to some extent. Even heart surgeons do it. A left-field decision is not always a bad one.

Not sure I want my surgeons picking things out of left field, to be honest.

 

[Evermind]

Haha...Richard vs. The sub-1000 crowd. The Ol' CW Initiation Rite. Damn...good memories.

Ahahah right on. I made the same mistake when I first came here.

 

[Richard]

Oh I was asking you to put an English sentence together.

Didn't quite understand whether you were talking to yourself or not.

Not really, what I said made perfect sense if you can read basic sentences.

 

[Perm]

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.

Hahaha, what the ****?

Sure, back your opinions, but show some tolerance and understanding. Geeez.

 

[JimmyGS]

Jesus, just reading your posts is frustrating enough. I give up trying to argue with them.

 

[_Ed_]

Getting a bit bored of every thread in CC descending to this sort of stuff.

 

[Richard]

Hahaha, what the ****?

Sure, back your opinions, but show some tolerance and understanding. Geeez.

There is absolutely nothing about that post that has lack of tolerance and understanding.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Oh no, games of chance! The worst thing since they started serving shellfish at the SCG.

 

[susudear]

Matheww Hayden shoul retire

The burly man from Queeensland should reitre soon to give Hughes a chance.

 

[vic_orthdox]

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.

What is there to be gained out of it? The selectors are much better off taking the heat from not selecting him, than hanging out an employee to dry and making him look like the bad bloke. Being criticised isn't the worst thing in the world, and when you know that it's not justified, it's generally water off a duck's back. If you have knowledge that those criticising you don't, then who cares what they have to say!

 

[Burgey]

Oh no, games of chance! The worst thing since they started serving shellfish at the SCG.

This.

They hardly mentioned the odds on offer during the NZ series, largely because it went to script.

One of the reasons they may have mentioned it so often this test was because of the way the match fluctuated betweent he two teams, except of course on the last day when Australia trotted out the Wenty Waratahs Under 11/3s attack to support Johnson.