***Official*** Australia in India 2012/13

[benchmark00]

I don't need a mirror to confirm that I'm good looking.

 

[Jono]

The weird thing for me is that I agree with quite a bit of what both benchmark00 and howardj are saying.

The players are absolutely at fault; they should blame themselves and accept responsibility for being rubbed out. Whether it was a worthwhile task or not is irrelevant; they were set something to do by the management and they didn't do it. If they didn't think it was worthwhile then they should have raised objections and voiced their opinions rather than just doing absolutely nothing about it.

That said, I'm also disappointed in how the management have handled this. Should the players have been punished? Absolutely. Should the punishment have been droppings? No way IMO. It smacks of cutting off your nose to spite your face; weakening the team to punish the players personally should really be an absolute last resort. They should've been fined heavily, had other privileges revoked and so on, and Watson should've had his vice captaincy stripped, but to drop them over this with no prior warning really is over the top IMO. This doesn't mean the players should feel wronged, because they deserve it, but the repercussions of this sort of punishment go beyond the players themselves and that's why I think it was over the top.

Whyis this weird? I am of th exact same view. What is weird is people attacking the other side IMO. Both views are reasonable.

 

[benchmark00]

When have I attacked anyone for saying they deserved a fine? What's **** is people throwing their arms up and going 'pfffffft oh grow up, asking them to do that stupid task what a disgrace!'

 

[Jono]

Look mate I find you scary nowadays. One day you are going to snap and kill me and who willl burgu hang out with then?

 

[LongHopCassidy]

When your boss tells you to do something do you think it's reasonable for him to outline the punishment if you don't do it? Or do you concede that you throw yourself at his mercy if you willingly not comply with his instructions?

****ing oath it should be made clear, and there's nothing to possibly lose by doing so. What's the justification you hear every time a drug cheat gets banned from a sport?

'They knew the consequences.'

These are not corresponding consequences to corresponding offences.

In isolation, even you can see that this is a stupidly disproportionate punishment. The only reason anyone's on board is because 1) we're losing and 2) Clarke has been terribly anxious to let us all know this is 'not the whole story' without telling us the whole story.

To dovetail with EWS here, it's stupid that the team's fortunes are expendable for the sake of one of the most ostentatious power plays in recent cricketing history.

 

[Jono]

Burgey to be called burgu from now on

 

[benchmark00]

****ing oath it should be made clear, and there's nothing to possibly lose by doing so. What's the justification you hear every time a drug cheat gets banned from a sport?

'They knew the consequences.'

These are not corresponding consequences to corresponding offences.

In isolation, even you can see that this is a stupidly disproportionate punishment. The only reason anyone's on board is because 1) we're losing and 2) Clarke has been terribly anxious to let us all know this is 'not the whole story' without telling us the whole story.

To dovetail with EWS here, it's stupid that the team's fortunes are expendable for the sake of one of the most ostentatious power plays in recent cricketing history.

If a manager outlines a punishment to accompany every request, it is counter productive. It's management 101.

I have done about 80 essays on this exact thing you're trying to refute.

 

[Prince EWS]

Burgey to be called burgu from now on

 

[LongHopCassidy]

If a manager outlines a punishment to counter every request, it is counter productive. It's management 101.

If a manager cannot discern a logical and appropriate punishment within the employee's reckoning, then it is the manager's responsibility to let them know.

Otherwise, the manager can scratch their head and ask why they're being called draconian ****bags by half the world.

I've read 80 essays' worth of text from you to know you can't defend it beyond an employer-employee legal basis, which ignores all the dynamics of a spectator sport that come into play (and is the only reason we care).

 

[benchmark00]

Here's a thought, just do what you're told?

 

[benchmark00]

Just saw your edit... So now you're saying its an over reaction because you like watching these players? Ahhh, so really you have no problem with the situation, but their dead ****ness has effected your entertainment so it becomes the managements fault, I see I see.

In an industrial sense, you punish a worker because they've done the wrong thing and by doing that punishable action it is to the detriment of the organisation. You hope they learn from the punishment and by doing so they become a valuable member of the organisation and add value. You also set a standard which says if you drop below this standard, you throw yourself at the mercy of the management.

 

[Hurricane]

At the risk of Spikey calling me a show off I'll respond to Long Hop.

Its considered draconian to say "do this" or I'll punish you. Some people will get their backs up and not do it just to spite the manager/coach.

It is implied there will be a punishment if you don't comply so there is no need to mention one and the threat of a "mystery" punishment that could include not being selected again is supposed to be more effective than naming a punishment.

If he mentions a harsh punishment for that task he's got to mention one for many other tasks he delegates in the future and people will start to hate him and bitch about him.

I am not defending the coach's actions as I also think it was a Dilbert like task to delegate - but I just don't agree with the argument he should have named the punishment in advance.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Here's a thought, just do what you're told?

And light a fire under Australian cricket in the middle of a Test series which we haven't even lost yet?

Schedule a bootcamp, fine them, breathe down their necks, whatever. Don't rend the squad in half mid-series and say 'team culture made me do this!'

Tell people your expectations without looking like you're damaging the team's chances for authority's sake.

This has to be one of the more counterproductive team-building exercises out there.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Death of all individuality. No wonder Australian cricket is down in the ****ter.

I figure as long as I'm doing right by whatever I'm being paid for, I'm alright. And if you're really doing you gig well enough, and being productive where and when it matters, bosses tend to let **** like this slide. Maybe a quick summons to the cabin. This is not a commensurate reaction.

Sport isn't like your regular day job either. You can put in all the hard yards and still come up short unlike whatever paper pushing most ppl do.

 

[social]

Yep social I can definitely see you supporting the selection policy of not selecting someone due to attitude problems.

After all you went on a little rant yesterday about who gives a **** that Cowan is better for the team environment, it's all about who you'd rather play against!

Management set the selection criteria, failed to adhere to them when picking Usman and are now dumping all the blame on him when things didnt work out

Pretty simple really

BTW, having Cowan in the team is obviously fantastic for the team environment

Not only has he been a mediocre performer but he can write about it in poetic prose when he gets out

Must be fan-****ing-tastic for team morale

 

[benchmark00]

@LHC - The timing is ****, it would have been great if this happened when there was a meaningless t20 series was going on or something, but this is not the managements fault. These guys are in the middle of a test series where they're getting their arses handed to them. You'd thing they'd be doing every single little thing the coach says because you hardly have the team performance to back you up...

 

[Prince EWS]

Just saw your edit... So now you're saying its an over reaction because you like watching these players? Ahhh, so really you have no problem with the situation, but their dead ****ness has effected your entertainment so it becomes the managements fault, I see I see.

I think he was trying to say that, when deciding on an appropriate punishment, the fact that standing players down punishes the fans and the team, not just the players, should be taken into account. It's not a standard employer-employee relationship for that reason.

I agree if so. It should be a last resort. The players deserve this punishment and they should not feel hard done by but the fans and the on-field fortunes of the team have copped the punishment as well, and I definitely think there were more appropriate punishment options due to that. I don't think the indiscretion was bad enough to outweigh the repercussions of the punishment that was given out; there were better ways to punish the players more specifically without taking the whole side at ransom.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

As a team we have to take responsibility moving forward

Nonsense value: ****tons

 

[LongHopCassidy]

At the risk of Spikey calling me a show off I'll respond to Long Hop.

Its considered draconian to say "do this" or I'll punish you. Some people will get their backs up and not do it just to spite the manager/coach.

It is implied there will be a punishment if you don't comply so there is no need to mention one and the threat of a "mystery" punishment that could include not being selected again is supposed to be more effective than naming a punishment.

If he mentions a harsh punishment for that task he's got to mention one for many other tasks he delegates in the future and people will start to hate him and bitch about him.

I am not defending the coach's actions as I also think it was a Dilbert like task to delegate - but I just don't agree with the argument he should have named the punishment in advance.

This not-naming-a-punishment policy also has follow on consequences - it looks like Arthur cast a net that caught more fish than he hoped. See his comments on the respective players:

It's extremely tough to sit here and make that decision. I wish it wasn't the vice-captain, I wish it wasn't Shane Watson and Mitchell Johnson, they are leaders within the team and are very professional with the way they go about their business.

Usman Khawaja is different. This will be the catalyst I think for Usman Khawaja to realise we're pretty serious in the Australian cricket team.

If he wanted to draw a line in the sand, fair enough. But it's a dreadful policy to let problems linger and then explode over a minor infraction, claiming it was the problem all along.

 

[benchmark00]

I think he was trying to say that, when deciding on an appropriate punishment, the fact that standing players down punishes the fans and the team, not just the players, should be taken into account. It's not a standard employer-employee relationship for that reason.

I agree if so. It should be a last resort. The players deserve this punishment and they should not feel hard done by but the fans and the on-field fortunes of the team have copped the punishment as well, and I definitely think there were more appropriate punishment options due to that. I don't think the indiscretion was bad enough to outweigh the repercussions of the punishment that was given out; there were better ways to punish the players more specifically without taking the whole side at ransom.

By dumping them it does punish the team. But that is what a team is. If one person ****s up, the whole team suffers. There's no worse feeling in the world than letting your team mates down. Reckon they'll be rushing out and doing it again after feeling this way?