Channel 9 Commentators - Very Poor Form

[vic_orthdox]

Why, is this account seriously not a duplicate?

Not from any investigations I took. No IP match.

 

[JimmyGS]

This is my first post and I have already discovered that Richard is a biased and arrogant user. I will try my best to ignore him.

Join the club.

 

[Richard]

2 selections based on instinct that went well.

They didn't though. Both McGrath and Warne failed very badly indeed in their first few Tests, proving the selections on instinct to be mistaken.

McGrath, though, TBF was an injury replacement for someone who'd not been expected to be lost anywhere near so quickly as he was.

 

[Richard]

Not from any investigations I took. No IP match.

I see.

The similarities are baffling though. Maybe we could make the smiley only available after someone has made 200 posts? Soo annoying to see hundreds of the damn things in posters who've been here for the blink of an eye.

 

[Uppercut]

I see.

The similarities are baffling though. Maybe we could make the smiley only available after someone has made 200 posts? Soo annoying to see hundreds of the damn things in posters who've been here for the blink of an eye.

Bahaha. "Good work son, 200 posts, you've now earned your right to laugh "

 

[Richard]

More like "now you've proved you won't abuse the smiley and piss-off half the forum you can use it".

Actually, an easier method would just be to remove the Laugh from the 9 "default" smilies.

 

[susudear]

I see.

The similarities are baffling though. Maybe we could make the smiley only available after someone has made 200 posts? Soo annoying to see hundreds of the damn things in posters who've been here for the blink of an eye.

Seriously lmao. You mus be forum joker aint you?

 

[Richard]

Nope.

 

[JimmyGS]

They didn't though. Both McGrath and Warne failed very badly indeed in their first few Tests, proving the selections on instinct to be mistaken.

You're impossible. Two of the greatest cricketers in history were bad selections. Right.

 

[Richard]

How does the fact that they ended-up two of the greatest cricketers change the fact that their initial performances (and not just a couple of games - for both the span lasted over a year) were very poor, their selections had little going for them and thus their selections were errors?

It doesn't.

 

[JimmyGS]

How does the fact that they ended-up two of the greatest cricketers change the fact that their initial performances (and not just a couple of games - for both the span lasted over a year) were very poor, their selections had little going for them and thus their selections were errors?

It doesn't.

Would you say that their subsequent great performances were worth that initial period of poor performance? I definitely would. Therefore I think it was great selecting to give them that period to acclimatise to Test cricket and become the great cricketers that they did.

 

[99*]

How does the fact that they ended-up two of the greatest cricketers change the fact that their initial performances (and not just a couple of games - for both the span lasted over a year) were very poor, their selections had little going for them and thus their selections were errors?

It doesn't.

One could argue that their inclusion into the side before their time allowed them to adapt to the hardship of international cricket better than the had to if they stayed in domestic cricket and then put into the international scene. Therefore those selections were the work of geniuses and two of the best in recent history since they helped in the 'creation' of two of the best cricketers ever.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Len Hutton made 0 and 1 in his First Test. Each selector should have had at least three vital organs removed for such rampant stupidity.

 

[Top_Cat]

How does the fact that they ended-up two of the greatest cricketers change the fact that their initial performances (and not just a couple of games - for both the span lasted over a year) were very poor, their selections had little going for them and thus their selections were errors?

It doesn't.

How does the fact they didn't take bundles of wickets in their first couple of Tests make the selection an error?

Conversely, how many bowlers have we seen over the years take a bundle of wickets early on then fall over form-wise and are never heard from again? Does this then make their selection a 'good' one? Alex Tudor took 4 wickets on debut, the Waugh twins two of them. Does this mean his was a genius selection?

Rick Ponting scored 96 in his first Test so it looked like his selection was justified but then he spent the next 5 years in and out of the team as he sometimes looked woefully out of his depth. Was his selection a good or bad one?

Fact is, even with bundles of form behind them, all selections are partially a gamble. You never really do know about the quality of a player until you select them, form at the lower levels is only really a guide.

 

[Uppercut]

One could argue that their inclusion into the side before their time allowed them to adapt to the hardship of international cricket better than the had to if they stayed in domestic cricket and then put into the international scene. Therefore those selections were the work of geniuses and two of the best in recent history since they helped in the 'creation' of two of the best cricketers ever.

Len Hutton made 0 and 1 in his First Test. Each selector should have had at least three vital organs removed for such rampant stupidity.

How does the fact they didn't take bundles of wickets in their first couple of Tests make the selection an error?

Conversely, how many bowlers have we seen over the years take a bundle of wickets early on then fall over form-wise and are never heard from again? Does this then make their selection a 'good' one? Alex Tudor took 4 wickets on debut, the Waugh twins two of them. Does this mean his was a genius selection?

Rick Ponting scored 96 in his first Test so it looked like his selection was justified but then he spent the next 5 years in and out of the team as he sometimes looked woefully out of his depth. Was his selection a good or bad one?

Fact is, even with bundles of form behind them, all selections are partially a gamble. You never really do know about the quality of a player until you select them, form at the lower levels is only really a guide.

You've all been Dicko'd i'm afraid . The idea that everyone should have 2-3 years performing brilliant in FC cricket before being selected is one of his religiously-held beliefs.

 

[Top_Cat]

You've all been Dicko'd i'm afraid . The idea that everyone should have 2-3 years performing brilliant in FC cricket before being selected is one of his religiously-held beliefs.

 

[Furball]

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.

Tony Greig in talking ****e shock horror.

 

[Richard]

Would you say that their subsequent great performances were worth that initial period of poor performance? I definitely would. Therefore I think it was great selecting to give them that period to acclimatise to Test cricket and become the great cricketers that they did.

Not really. If they'd been selected later, after getting a bit better, it's perfectly conceivable that they'd have taken to Test cricket like ducks to water.

 

[Richard]

One could argue that their inclusion into the side before their time allowed them to adapt to the hardship of international cricket better than the had to if they stayed in domestic cricket and then put into the international scene.

One could argue that of course, but I'd say it was an argument totally devoid of logic.

 

[Richard]

Len Hutton made 0 and 1 in his First Test. Each selector should have had at least three vital organs removed for such rampant stupidity.

Why? How does how the player performed matter in the slightest to whether it was a good selection? If Hutton was picked at a time he'd done well in domestic cricket beforehand and when there were no other openers looking the part as much as he was, there was nothing wrong with the selection.

In any case, people have bad Tests all the time, debut, 12th game, 19th game, 44th game, etc. etc.