***2021 Australian Domestic off season thread***

[TheJediBrah]

I don't know if I agree with this. Serious psychological studies suggest that people tend to work better with certainty. If you are constantly fighting for your position, you aren't in the right headspace to make runs because you can be afraid to let your instincts take over.

This goes against centuries of human achievement and development, made possible by competition.
If there was no competition we'd all still be living in mud huts and dying of dysentery at age 22.

All you guys have good points though. Not sure which side I'm on. No point wasting a shield spot on a Larkin who is old and not particularly good, but not great either to hand contracts to kids that haven't earned it.

 

[Nintendo]

Pollard 6 six's http://fumacrom.com/UBfj

I clicked that link and gave them my card details and they charged me $200 do you have any contacts at the company?they said they wouldn't charge me!

 

[Flem274*]

This goes against centuries of human achievement and development, made possible by competition.
If there was no competition we'd all still be living in mud huts and dying of dysentery at age 22.

i know you're making a gross simplification to wind GAS up, but i can't help myself - humans are primarily in competition with other species and our environment, not each other.

that's not to say we aren't in competition with each other, but competing too hard among ourselves is not a successful long term evolutionary strategy (not that evolution has a strategy, but whatevs)

 

[Flem274*]

i know you're making a gross simplification to wind GAS up, but i can't help myself - humans are primarily in competition with other species and our environment, not each other.

that's not to say we aren't in competition with each other, but competing too hard among ourselves is not a successful long term evolutionary strategy (not that evolution has a strategy, but whatevs)

****in' nerd

 

[GoodAreasShane]

How exactly was that supposed to wind me up, if anything I am glad to see TJB actually being creative for once, as opposed to the usual peurile "they suck, and their face sucks" garbage

 

[Smudge80]

by replacing them with guys who aren't going to help you win titles or push for australia selection?

Not everyone can play for Australia or has the ability to do so. That doesn't mean they aren't good enough to play state cricket. After all we are talking about players who at best are reserves next season as Warner, Hughes, Smith, Patterson, Henriques and Nevill will be the top six next season. Sussex won three county championships in England between 2003 and 2006 because of having very good county players that were not quite good enough to be selected for England. This is why I think Larkin and Solway were good options for NSW. Releasing Larkin and Solway has undeniably left the NSW batting weakened. I think when Warner and Smith are with Australia the batting will continue to struggle.

They won't win titles, not Sheffield Shield at least, with unproven youngsters as you win nothing with kids which is essentially what Davies, Edwards, Gilkes, Hearne and Sangha are. They have not score the weight of runs in the Futures League to warrant Sheffield Shield selection. I don't think any of them will even average 25 in the Sheffield Shield next year if they play six or more innings. A massive improvement is needed from them and I am not sure they have what it takes to make this kind of improvement. I don't see any of them playing for Australia.

I know which of the seven the opposition bowlers would rather bowl to and it is the five unproven youngsters as they are walking wickets. Whereas Larkin and Solway have scored first class hundreds. I want proven quality rather than unproven potential.

 

[Shady Slim]

Not everyone can play for Australia or has the ability to do so. That doesn't mean they aren't good enough to play state cricket. After all we are talking about players who at best are reserves next season as Warner, Hughes, Smith, Patterson, Henriques and Nevill will be the top six next season. Sussex won three county championships in England between 2003 and 2006 because of having very good county players that were not quite good enough to be selected for England. This is why I think Larkin and Solway were good options for NSW. Releasing Larkin and Solway has undeniably left the NSW batting weakened. I think when Warner and Smith are with Australia the batting will continue to struggle.

They won't win titles, not Sheffield Shield at least, with unproven youngsters as you win nothing with kids which is essentially what Davies, Edwards, Gilkes, Hearne and Sangha are. They have not score the weight of runs in the Futures League to warrant Sheffield Shield selection. I don't think any of them will even average 25 in the Sheffield Shield next year if they play six or more innings. A massive improvement is needed from them and I am not sure they have what it takes to make this kind of improvement. I don't see any of them playing for Australia.

I know which of the seven the opposition bowlers would rather bowl to and it is the five unproven youngsters as they are walking wickets. Whereas Larkin and Solway have scored first class hundreds. I want proven quality rather than unproven potential.

i'm agreeing with you my guy haha my comment was responding to spikey's tbh

 

[TheJediBrah]

i know you're making a gross simplification to wind GAS up, but i can't help myself - humans are primarily in competition with other species and our environment, not each other.

that's not to say we aren't in competition with each other, but competing too hard among ourselves is not a successful long term evolutionary strategy (not that evolution has a strategy, but whatevs)

Not really IMO. The vast majority of human achievement is a result of people wanting more money, or more women, or more recognition. It's all about competition.

If you want cricketers to reach their full potential they need to be given proper stimulus to reach it.

 

[Nintendo]

Not really IMO. The vast majority of human achievement is a result of people wanting more money, or more women, or more recognition. It's all about competition.

If you want cricketers to reach their full potential they need to be given proper stimulus to reach it.

Who do you think your calling chicken?

 

[Flem274*]

Not really IMO. The vast majority of human achievement is a result of people wanting more money, or more women, or more recognition. It's all about competition.

If you want cricketers to reach their full potential they need to be given proper stimulus to reach it.

yes and no

you're missing the primary motivator for human achievement as well - survival. then there's the second biggest motivator - making annoying tasks as easy as possible. walking is lame and running is worse so we tamed horses. horses take ages to learn how to not fall off, so we plonked chariots and comfy carriages on them. horses require food, training and kick you in the face, so we made cars.

it was only a few decades ago we were able to settle into competing solely for money, banging and fame. they were around before then of course, but your rona vax wasn't made for getting the chix. it's made so a significant portion of the global population don't die for the mistake of leaving their house.

 

[TheJediBrah]

yes and no

you're missing the primary motivator for human achievement as well - survival.

Not since the industrial revolution

but your rona vax wasn't made for getting the chix. it's made so a significant portion of the global population don't die for the mistake of leaving their house.

Pretty sure that was money. You think these guys were all working for free?

 

[Nintendo]

Not since the industrial revolution

Yes, and when survival has been achieved and there's no imminent threat to our survival looming our primary motivator has historically been making things easier, like pews said, which is what happend in the industrial revolution. We used machines to slowly make jobs easier and easier.

 

[Flem274*]

Pretty sure that was money. You think these guys were all working for free?

many of us in the scientific essential services were on a severe pay cut, yes

 

[TheJediBrah]

many of us in the scientific essential services were on a severe pay cut, yes

I'm not talking about the grunts. You think Covid vaccines would have come through at all if not for enornous funding? It's all about the money my friend.

Though this is the first I've heard about pay cuts. That's kind of ****ed. Healthcare have workers had pay increases during Covid almost around the board

 

[Flem274*]

I'm not talking about the grunts. You think Covid vaccines would have come through at all if not for enornous funding? It's all about the money my friend.

Though this is the first I've heard about pay cuts. That's kind of ****ed. Healthcare have workers had pay increases during Covid almost around the board

sure, the lure of huge money if you're the ones to crack it is there, but there were more pressing motivations to fund covid research, like hundreds of thousands more people hopefully not dying.

the cut was temporary and we got the money back when business bounced back faster than expected. i was happy to take the temp cut given i had a job and it kept my colleagues in work too.

edit - deleted work related stuff. it's a tangent anyway.

 

[TheJediBrah]

sure, the lure of huge money if you're the ones to crack it is there, but there were more pressing motivations to fund covid research, like hundreds of thousands more people hopefully not dying.

the cut was temporary and we got the money back when business bounced back faster than expected. i was happy to take the temp cut given i had a job and it kept my colleagues in work too. we're not in the vax business or healthcare btw.

it's pretty impressive how many scientific businesses covid has provided business opportunities to tbh.

It's always about money though. Vaccine research wasn't done for free out of the goodness of pharmaceutical companies hearts. They were given the money and had more incentive to be the one to crack it, as you say.

Sure there's charitable donations, and Covid is one very extreme example. But motivation for human endeavour has almost always been due to competition. It's not a coincidence that some of the fastest technological advancing periods have been due to war. Maybe there are a small percentage of stephen's people around who really do perform better with a guaranteed lack of competition or pressure to achieve but they will be a very small percentage.

 

[Flem274*]

It's always about money though. Vaccine research wasn't done for free out of the goodness of pharmaceutical companies hearts. They were given the money and had more incentive to be the one to crack it, as you say.

Sure there's charitable donations, and Covid is one very extreme example. But motivation for human endeavour has almost always been due to competition. It's not a coincidence that some of the fastest technological advancing periods have been due to war. Maybe there are a small percentage of stephen's people around who really do perform better with a guaranteed lack of competition or pressure to achieve but they will be a very small percentage.

one of the ultimate tests of survival, and the least conducive act to the evolutionary success of the species behind 90s britpop

 

[stephen]

It's always about money though. Vaccine research wasn't done for free out of the goodness of pharmaceutical companies hearts. They were given the money and had more incentive to be the one to crack it, as you say.

Sure there's charitable donations, and Covid is one very extreme example. But motivation for human endeavour has almost always been due to competition. It's not a coincidence that some of the fastest technological advancing periods have been due to war. Maybe there are a small percentage of stephen's people around who really do perform better with a guaranteed lack of competition or pressure to achieve but they will be a very small percentage.

The thing is that covid vaccine research was already highly advanced before covid became a thing. The monumental achievement of cranking out a new vaccine in a year wouldn't have happened without the decade of development done beforehand. And yes, all of that took money, most of which was done by tenured academics through grants.

Why do universities give academics tenure? It's because the fear of failure should not be the main motivation. Desire for success and competition for promotion is the main drive to push them, but they're never fighting for their jobs and that's by design. Because people work better with certainty. Particularly in creative or cutting edge work, the freedom to fail and a structure of certainty provides the best environment for creation.

In a cricketing context you see it all the time. When a batsman is fearful for their position in the team they can "bat nervous" and freeze up, not playing their natural game and end up in two minds, which reinforces their bad form. Sure, you do get the guys who can start going through the motions at domestic level, which may have been the case with someone like Larkin, but that's not caused by their job security, it's caused by a lack of drive or ability to progress. A more competitive environment isn't going to fix that.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The thing is that covid vaccine research was already highly advanced before covid became a thing. The monumental achievement of cranking out a new vaccine in a year wouldn't have happened without the decade of development done beforehand. And yes, all of that took money, most of which was done by tenured academics through grants.

Why do universities give academics tenure? It's because the fear of failure should not be the main motivation. Desire for success and competition for promotion is the main drive to push them, but they're never fighting for their jobs and that's by design. Because people work better with certainty. Particularly in creative or cutting edge work, the freedom to fail and a structure of certainty provides the best environment for creation.

In a cricketing context you see it all the time. When a batsman is fearful for their position in the team they can "bat nervous" and freeze up, not playing their natural game and end up in two minds, which reinforces their bad form. Sure, you do get the guys who can start going through the motions at domestic level, which may have been the case with someone like Larkin, but that's not caused by their job security, it's caused by a lack of drive or ability to progress. A more competitive environment isn't going to fix that.

I get what you're saying but I disagree almost completely. Competition creates a drive to improve. In my experience most people will return a higher performance if they are pushed to by this sort of stimulus than if they are in a completely secure environment. I'm sure you're right about some people, however, IMO the type of people that struggle to perform in a competitive environment and need safety and security to show their best are not the type of people who you want at elite level regardless. If we're talking about elite cricket you need someone that will perform under pressure, obviously, and if you going to "bat nervous" as you say, and fail if your position is under threat it's unlikely you'll thrive at the top level. The type of cricketer that will thrive at the higher level is the type that thrives in a competitive environment.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Why do universities give academics tenure? It's because the fear of failure should not be the main motivation. Desire for success and competition for promotion is the main drive to push them, but they're never fighting for their jobs and that's by design. Because people work better with certainty. Particularly in creative or cutting edge work, the freedom to fail and a structure of certainty provides the best environment for creation.

Lol tenure is only there because you need a carrot for the bottom-tier researchers, otherwise nobody would enter academia. The concept of tenure allowing professors to freely explore their field without fear of failure is bunk nowadays because the vast vast majority of researchers aren't tenured and the tenured guys don't actually do much hands on work.

Conversely the extreme competition at the other end of the scale means shitting out four or five garbage papers a year that barely contribute anything, it's actually made things worse.