Discussion:
WTFs Going On With Johnson?
(too old to reply)
alvey
2013-01-03 00:16:25 UTC
Permalink
In T2 MJ opens the bowling in both innings and is MoM.
In T3 he's not only relegated to 2nd change but also comes on from the
wrong end.

Odd way to treat a player that your brains trust alleges is a confidence
player.




alvey
in Bne, refreshing my opinion of Starc.
alvey
2013-01-03 00:34:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by alvey
alvey
in Bne, refreshing my opinion of Starc.
And a startling piece of support for that opinion.

Starc has opened the Test bowling on 7 occassions now. If he opens *and*
takes a wicket in that spell in I2 it'll be his first.

27/6/94/0



alvey
willsutton
2013-01-03 00:44:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by alvey
In T2 MJ opens the bowling in both innings and is MoM.
In T3 he's not only relegated to 2nd change but also comes on from the
wrong end.
Odd way to treat a player that your brains trust alleges is a confidence
player.
alvey
in Bne, refreshing my opinion of Starc.
well most are of the opinion that he doesnt like the new ball

and that has being the case for many a year


as for the ends..... well Siddle is rated the number ONE bowler and gets
his selection of ends


Can't believe the stupidity of 4 quicks in Sydney
**matto**
2013-01-03 00:52:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by willsutton
well most are of the opinion that he doesnt like the new ball
and that has being the case for many a year
Spot on the money. Johnson doesn't like opening the bowling.
Post by willsutton
as for the ends..... well Siddle is rated the number ONE bowler and gets
his selection of ends
Tbh Siddle should be opening the bowling when Pattinson isn't playing.
Post by willsutton
Can't believe the stupidity of 4 quicks in Sydney
Agree. They backed themselves into a corner though with Bird and Johnson performing so well in Melbourne. Rotation has hit it's first hurdle.
eusebius
2013-01-05 01:35:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by **matto**
Post by willsutton
well most are of the opinion that he doesnt like the new ball
and that has being the case for many a year
Spot on the money. Johnson doesn't like opening the bowling.
Post by willsutton
as for the ends..... well Siddle is rated the number ONE bowler and gets
his selection of ends
Tbh Siddle should be opening the bowling when Pattinson isn't playing.
Post by willsutton
Can't believe the stupidity of 4 quicks in Sydney
Agree. They backed themselves into a corner though with Bird and Johnson performing so well in Melbourne. Rotation has hit it's first hurdle.
The selection is truly bizarre. Rather than worrying about who will
get the new ball, the presence in the team of Bird is the most 'NSV'
type decision IMV.
**matto**
2013-01-05 07:46:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by eusebius
The selection is truly bizarre. Rather than worrying about who will
get the new ball, the presence in the team of Bird is the most 'NSV'
type decision IMV.
1. Bird plays for Tasmania

2. Bird will do outstandingly well in England

So this so-called NSW-Victoria thing has now extended its wings to Tasmania?

Brad Hodge deserbed a lot more than 6 Tests and 25 ODIs and David Hussey has one of the most outstanding first class records and has never played at Test match or even been on a Test tour. Conspiracy *against* Victoria?
alvey
2013-01-03 01:07:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by willsutton
Post by alvey
In T2 MJ opens the bowling in both innings and is MoM.
In T3 he's not only relegated to 2nd change but also comes on from the
wrong end.
Odd way to treat a player that your brains trust alleges is a confidence
player.
alvey
in Bne, refreshing my opinion of Starc.
well most are of the opinion that he doesnt like the new ball
This may come as news to you William but it is a tremendous advantage for a
quick to use the new ball. Now consider some of the bowlers who took
advantage of the new ball in Johnson's place; Lee, Clark, Copeland, Starc &
Bird. Reckon there's any self-interest in there from a certain quarter?
Post by willsutton
and that has being the case for many a year
Yep. There's been bullshit opinions around ever since opinions were
invented.
Post by willsutton
as for the ends..... well Siddle is rated the number ONE bowler and gets
his selection of ends
No he doesn't. Herr Clarke decides who gets what end.
Post by willsutton
Can't believe the stupidity of 4 quicks in Sydney
Maxwell was the better pick, but it's always more far important than
anything else to get as many NSW boys as possible into the SCG Test.



alvey
willsutton
2013-01-03 02:25:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by alvey
Post by willsutton
Post by alvey
In T2 MJ opens the bowling in both innings and is MoM.
In T3 he's not only relegated to 2nd change but also comes on from the
wrong end.
Odd way to treat a player that your brains trust alleges is a confidence
player.
alvey
in Bne, refreshing my opinion of Starc.
well most are of the opinion that he doesnt like the new ball
This may come as news to you William but it is a tremendous advantage for a
quick to use the new ball. Now consider some of the bowlers who took
advantage of the new ball in Johnson's place; Lee, Clark, Copeland, Starc &
Bird. Reckon there's any self-interest in there from a certain quarter?
farkin bullshit


MJ has said he doesnt like the brand new ball... now he may be lying
Post by alvey
Post by willsutton
and that has being the case for many a year
Yep. There's been bullshit opinions around ever since opinions were
invented.
and you have taking them to a new level
Post by alvey
Post by willsutton
as for the ends..... well Siddle is rated the number ONE bowler and gets
his selection of ends
No he doesn't. Herr Clarke decides who gets what end.
arsewipe
Post by alvey
Post by willsutton
Can't believe the stupidity of 4 quicks in Sydney
Maxwell was the better pick, but it's always more far important than
anything else to get as many NSW boys as possible into the SCG Test.
alvey
you have lost the plot

totally lost the plot.... you should book into a hospital
alvey
2013-01-03 02:48:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by willsutton
you have lost the plot
When I find it I'll fill you in...
willsutton
2013-01-03 02:56:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by alvey
Post by willsutton
you have lost the plot
When I find it I'll fill you in...
and I will start calling you Matua


anyway I will show you the plot :


Australia picked the wrong team for Sydney ... 4 quicks is farking
stupidity

Clarke is then forced to bat first ...

SL has the leading wicket taker who bowled without luck in Melbourne and
to give the chance to bowl in the 4th inning is bloody stupid


You either have Starc or Johnson ..... one leftie is enough for me
unless they are better then anything else we have
alvey
2013-01-03 03:58:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by willsutton
Post by alvey
Post by willsutton
you have lost the plot
When I find it I'll fill you in...
and I will start calling you Matua
Australia picked the wrong team for Sydney ... 4 quicks is farking
stupidity
Clarke is then forced to bat first ...
SL has the leading wicket taker who bowled without luck in Melbourne and
to give the chance to bowl in the 4th inning is bloody stupid
You either have Starc or Johnson ..... one leftie is enough for me
unless they are better then anything else we have
Nope. The obvious election was to drop Bird and play Maxwell.

Aside: And what we're seeing today is a by-product of CNSW scheduling fuck
all early season games at the SCG (1) so that no-one gets to see how the
block is playing.




alvey
In Bne, with (1): There's been one fc match at the SCG this season. A rain
affected SS draw v the Dics in early Nov. (Incidentally another game where
Starc opened and failed to strike in his first go)
willsutton
2013-01-03 04:24:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by alvey
Post by willsutton
Post by alvey
Post by willsutton
you have lost the plot
When I find it I'll fill you in...
and I will start calling you Matua
Australia picked the wrong team for Sydney ... 4 quicks is farking
stupidity
Clarke is then forced to bat first ...
SL has the leading wicket taker who bowled without luck in Melbourne and
to give the chance to bowl in the 4th inning is bloody stupid
You either have Starc or Johnson ..... one leftie is enough for me
unless they are better then anything else we have
Nope. The obvious election was to drop Bird and play Maxwell.
I like the way Bird bowls ... not as quick but for 2 years he has been
the best in the Shield. I think he will go well in India. Maxwell I know
pretty much SFA about but just hope he is not another Smith
Post by alvey
Aside: And what we're seeing today is a by-product of CNSW scheduling fuck
all early season games at the SCG (1) so that no-one gets to see how the
block is playing.
not sure why except for the Big Bash
Post by alvey
alvey
In Bne, with (1): There's been one fc match at the SCG this season. A rain
affected SS draw v the Dics in early Nov. (Incidentally another game where
Starc opened and failed to strike in his first go)
alvey
2013-01-03 05:40:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by willsutton
Post by alvey
Post by willsutton
Post by alvey
Post by willsutton
you have lost the plot
When I find it I'll fill you in...
and I will start calling you Matua
Australia picked the wrong team for Sydney ... 4 quicks is farking
stupidity
Clarke is then forced to bat first ...
SL has the leading wicket taker who bowled without luck in Melbourne and
to give the chance to bowl in the 4th inning is bloody stupid
You either have Starc or Johnson ..... one leftie is enough for me
unless they are better then anything else we have
Nope. The obvious election was to drop Bird and play Maxwell.
I like the way Bird bowls ... not as quick but for 2 years he has been
the best in the Shield.
More than deserved his go. I stick by what I said after his first Test
though, in that he'll not be a pack leader but could be a very good first
change behind genuine, half-decent quicks. A paler version of Vernon if you
like.
Post by willsutton
I think he will go well in India.
Disagree. With the proviso that he doesn't blossom a la Anderson as a
reverse swing king. If he's just doing a bit here then when that bit goes
missing, as it tends to in India, then he'll be GBS.
Post by willsutton
Maxwell I know pretty much SFA about but just hope he is not another Smith.
That's a lot to live down to...
Post by willsutton
Post by alvey
Aside: And what we're seeing today is a by-product of CNSW scheduling fuck
all early season games at the SCG (1) so that no-one gets to see how the
block is playing.
not sure why except for the Big Bash
Can't be that. CA sez Test cricket has primacy.



as
alvey
2013-01-03 05:49:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by alvey
A paler version of Vernon if you
like.
Doh! That'd read much better as; "A whiter shade of Philander..."



alvey
eusebius
2013-01-05 01:36:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by alvey
Post by willsutton
Post by alvey
Post by willsutton
you have lost the plot
When I find it I'll fill you in...
and I will start calling you Matua
Australia picked the wrong team for Sydney  ... 4 quicks is farking
stupidity
Clarke is then forced to bat first  ...
SL has the leading wicket taker who bowled without luck in Melbourne and
to give the chance to bowl in the 4th inning is bloody stupid
You either have Starc or Johnson  ..... one leftie is enough for me
unless they are better then anything else we have
Nope. The obvious election was to drop Bird and play Maxwell.
No, they needed an extra batsman.
willsutton
2013-01-05 01:38:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by eusebius
Post by alvey
Post by willsutton
Post by alvey
Post by willsutton
you have lost the plot
When I find it I'll fill you in...
and I will start calling you Matua
Australia picked the wrong team for Sydney ... 4 quicks is farking
stupidity
Clarke is then forced to bat first ...
SL has the leading wicket taker who bowled without luck in Melbourne and
to give the chance to bowl in the 4th inning is bloody stupid
You either have Starc or Johnson ..... one leftie is enough for me
unless they are better then anything else we have
Nope. The obvious election was to drop Bird and play Maxwell.
No, they needed an extra batsman.
is Maxwell a batsmen that can bowl spin?


or a spinner who can bat ?
alvey
2013-01-05 02:55:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by willsutton
Post by eusebius
Post by alvey
Post by willsutton
Post by alvey
Post by willsutton
you have lost the plot
When I find it I'll fill you in...
and I will start calling you Matua
Australia picked the wrong team for Sydney ... 4 quicks is farking
stupidity
Clarke is then forced to bat first ...
SL has the leading wicket taker who bowled without luck in Melbourne and
to give the chance to bowl in the 4th inning is bloody stupid
You either have Starc or Johnson ..... one leftie is enough for me
unless they are better then anything else we have
Nope. The obvious election was to drop Bird and play Maxwell.
No, they needed an extra batsman.
is Maxwell a batsmen that can bowl spin?
or a spinner who can bat ?
Can't answer that as I've only seen him flog, cleanly it should be said, a
few runs in LOs. His 2011/12 SS stats (8) games are encouraging though;

467 @ 35.9
16 @ 28.9

I would really have liked to have seen him bowl in Sinney as if Lyon
doesn't do respectably in I4 then I'd have no problems with him being
punted from #1 spinner.(a)

And back to media bias...I said a couple of days ago that I'd try and
support my opinion that Lawson was as biased as the rest of 'em. Well I
have the technology'n'stuff now, but after some trial listening of
Grandstand I can't go through with it. This is because extended listening
to the all NSW Grandstand cheerentary(b) will result in damage to either;
things within throwing range, or far more importantly, me. Fair dinkum! I
was listening yesterday when MJ came out to bat & Maxwell and Lawson
absolutely death rode him to fail. And today, when MJ took the innings
first wicket(c) with a good piece of bowling, here's what Maxwell said
about the bowler. And remember here that there were a couple of minutes of
review time thrown in.... Not one single word.




alvey
In a footnote frenzy;

(a) Lyon will go to India, but from what I can discover about the itinerary
Oz are only playing the 4 Tests. If this is true then it'll make it pbd for
anyone to displace Lyon.
(b) I hadn't realised till yesterday that Morphett was a Sinney boy. For
some reason I thought he was from Bleaktown. So this means that all 4
Australians on Grandstand are NSW types. KOK, Maxwell, Lawson & Morphett.
(c) MS is now 0 for 8 when opening the bowling.
willsutton
2013-01-05 05:47:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by alvey
Post by willsutton
is Maxwell a batsmen that can bowl spin?
or a spinner who can bat ?
Can't answer that as I've only seen him flog, cleanly it should be said, a
few runs in LOs. His 2011/12 SS stats (8) games are encouraging though;
I would really have liked to have seen him bowl in Sinney as if Lyon
doesn't do respectably in I4 then I'd have no problems with him being
punted from #1 spinner.(a)
I like Lyons plan when bowling to Matthews


tire him out from swinging so hard for boundaries that he fucks up.......


SL will win this Test unless something happens now
alvey
2013-01-05 06:08:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by willsutton
Post by alvey
Post by willsutton
is Maxwell a batsmen that can bowl spin?
or a spinner who can bat ?
Can't answer that as I've only seen him flog, cleanly it should be said, a
few runs in LOs. His 2011/12 SS stats (8) games are encouraging though;
I would really have liked to have seen him bowl in Sinney as if Lyon
doesn't do respectably in I4 then I'd have no problems with him being
punted from #1 spinner.(a)
I like Lyons plan when bowling to Matthews
tire him out from swinging so hard for boundaries that he fucks up.......
SL will win this Test unless something happens now
No they won't. The only question is whether Herr Clarke will let Mr C have
a bat.

Speaking of M Clarke, I have it on good authority that Hussey's unexpected
retirement is because of the relentless abuse & pressure put on him by
Clarke to "Piss off and let a younger bloke in." The reason behind Clarke's
campaign is obvious. He has height envy and wants to be the tallest batsman
in the side... Fair Dinkum! Have a look at the Oz top order. If they had a
photo taken with with Gillard today it'd look like a poster for Snow White
and the Seven Dwarves.



alvey
M***@unimail.com.au
2013-01-03 03:09:14 UTC
Permalink
This whole "Johnson doesn't like the new ball" garbage seems to still have legs.

The truth of the matter is he's never been quoted saying anything of the sort.

Yet another NSV construct that's used when it helps one of theirs but not when it doesn't.

Moby
willsutton
2013-01-03 03:12:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
This whole "Johnson doesn't like the new ball" garbage seems to still have legs.
The truth of the matter is he's never been quoted saying anything of the sort.
Yet another NSV construct that's used when it helps one of theirs but not when it doesn't.
Moby
I have heard him say that when interviewed ..... now if he is just
toeing the line or not I would not know
M***@unimail.com.au
2013-01-03 03:29:31 UTC
Permalink
Not to question you, Will (perish the thought), but do you think that what you might possibly be recalling were interviews where the interviewer made that statement rather than Johnson?

I know that I've heard a few like that where such a statement was made as a lead into a question about bowling with the old ball. MJ's answer would then deal with the question rather than the lead in.

If non-NSV players spent all their time correcting leading statements, they'd never get interviewed. I recall Hussey correcting a leading statement re:Symonds once, only for the interviewer to change the subject and then repeat exactly that leading statement in his summary.

Moby
willsutton
2013-01-03 04:20:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
Not to question you, Will (perish the thought), but do you think that what you might possibly be recalling were interviews where the interviewer made that statement rather than Johnson?
I know that I've heard a few like that where such a statement was made as a lead into a question about bowling with the old ball. MJ's answer would then deal with the question rather than the lead in.
that could well be the case
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
If non-NSV players spent all their time correcting leading statements, they'd never get interviewed. I recall Hussey correcting a leading statement re:Symonds once, only for the interviewer to change the subject and then repeat exactly that leading statement in his summary.
I still think you are touching on paranoid

I am Australian who just happened to be born in NSW
Bob Dubery
2013-01-03 05:18:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
This whole "Johnson doesn't like the new ball" garbage seems to still have legs.
The truth of the matter is he's never been quoted saying anything of the sort.
Yet another NSV construct that's used when it helps one of theirs but not when it doesn't.
Moby
Jaysus! Why don't you lot just secede and apply for ICC membership?
It's always Queensland against the world. What's the state emblem? A
shoulder with a chip on it?

If there's this conspiracy against Queensland then how come Johnson is
allowed to take wickets from time to time? How come Queensland players
even get picked if the system is so rigged against them? OK... maybe
that's just to keep up appearances: Create the illusion of a level
playing field. But then having picked one of the unwashed why don't
they just set up a no-win situation for him and then send him back
where he came from?

Not much is KNOWN about this situation that Alvey has decided can only
have one explantion. For all we know Mitch is one of those players who
if asked if he'll take the new ball will say "if that's what you want,
skipper" and if asked if he'll mind if somebody else takes it in
another match says "if that's what you want, skipper".
willsutton
2013-01-03 05:29:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
This whole "Johnson doesn't like the new ball" garbage seems to still have legs.
The truth of the matter is he's never been quoted saying anything of the sort.
Yet another NSV construct that's used when it helps one of theirs but not when it doesn't.
Moby
Jaysus! Why don't you lot just secede and apply for ICC membership?
It's always Queensland against the world. What's the state emblem? A
shoulder with a chip on it?
If there's this conspiracy against Queensland then how come Johnson is
allowed to take wickets from time to time? How come Queensland players
even get picked if the system is so rigged against them? OK... maybe
that's just to keep up appearances: Create the illusion of a level
playing field. But then having picked one of the unwashed why don't
they just set up a no-win situation for him and then send him back
where he came from?
Not much is KNOWN about this situation that Alvey has decided can only
have one explantion. For all we know Mitch is one of those players who
if asked if he'll take the new ball will say "if that's what you want,
skipper" and if asked if he'll mind if somebody else takes it in
another match says "if that's what you want, skipper".
come on Bob


you have some great arguments there in SA with the Curry ( I know )Cup :-)
Bob Dubery
2013-01-03 05:42:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by willsutton
come on Bob
you have some great arguments there in SA with the Curry ( I know )Cup  :-)
Cricket not so much. Rugby, quite a bit, but nothing like the
QCCCCCCCCC and their bizarre conspiracy theories.
jzfredricks
2013-01-03 05:36:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Dubery
How come Queensland players
even get picked if the system is so rigged against them?
I recall that in one of the previous incarnations of this discussion one of the QCCCCC boys challenged people to list statistical criteria that we could search on to work out if there is a bias.
IIRC few took up that challenge, and we didn't get very far with those who did.

It would be nice if we could agree on criteria so that we could put this one to bed either way!
jzfredricks
2013-01-03 05:38:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by jzfredricks
IIRC few took up that challenge, and we didn't get very far with those who did.
I *think* Mike did a population analysis and concluded there was no significant bias. It was ages ago, though, so I reserve the right to be very wrong.
M***@unimail.com.au
2013-01-03 05:49:17 UTC
Permalink
I didn't mention QLD once, Bob.

I.. oh fuck it... I'm sick of repeating the same thing only to have it ignored and replaced with the same strawman year in and year out.
Bob Dubery
2013-01-03 05:59:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
I didn't mention QLD once, Bob.
I.. oh fuck it... I'm sick of repeating the same thing only to have it ignored and replaced with the same strawman year in and year out.
Hey! I'm not even anything to do with the scheming, conniving,
manipulating NSV.
M***@unimail.com.au
2013-01-03 06:02:50 UTC
Permalink
There's that strawman again.

Look, if you don't want to read what I write, more power to you. But stop pretending you have and them making snarky responses to something I didn't.
Bob Dubery
2013-01-03 06:12:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
There's that strawman again.
Where? You might think you see one, that doesn't mean it was my
intent. But then you seem to see lots of ... what was the word again?
Oh yes! "Constructs".
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
Look, if you don't want to read what I write, more power to you. But stop pretending you have and them making snarky responses to something I didn't.
There we go again! You know what's in my head and what my motives are
and what I'm REALLY doing. Just like you do with the mysterious secret
force that those in the know refer to as "NSV". I suppose you can see
the matrix as well.
jzfredricks
2013-01-03 06:15:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
There's that strawman again.
Where? You might think you see one, that doesn't mean it was my
intent.
You think that QCCCC is about an anti-QLD bias. It's not.
It's about a pro-NSV bias.
Correct?
M***@unimail.com.au
2013-01-03 06:19:26 UTC
Permalink
What a remarkable reply.
M***@unimail.com.au
2013-01-03 06:19:27 UTC
Permalink
What a remarkable reply.
M***@unimail.com.au
2013-01-03 06:22:19 UTC
Permalink
Almost, JZ. Except the QCCCC is a bunch of guys drinking beer or a park cricket team.
jzfredricks
2013-01-03 06:24:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
Except the QCCCC is a bunch of guys drinking beer or a park cricket team.
That goes without saying :)
Mike Holmans
2013-01-03 12:10:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
I didn't mention QLD once, Bob.
I.. oh fuck it... I'm sick of repeating the same thing only to have it ignored and replaced with the same strawman year in and year out.
Use of the term "NSV" is as clear a signal that you are whingeing for
Queensland as you could wish for. It's as transparent as any of the
coded phrases like "traditional British values" which drip from the
lips of nasty British racists. No matter how much they feebly proteest
that they didn't mention colour or race, the agenda of their
utterances is perfectly clear. Whether you like it ot not, alvey's
constant use of the term means that the rest of us automatically
assume that's what you mean.

If you don't want people to think you are whingeing on behlaf of
Queensland, find some other expression.

Cheers,

Mike
--
M***@unimail.com.au
2013-01-03 20:33:48 UTC
Permalink
@Mike. Apparently the editorial board of the Macquarie Dictionary called. They want to offer you a job. Said you'd fit right out*

Moby

*Out now means in. Also, misogyny. And hyperbowl.
willsutton
2013-01-04 00:14:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Holmans
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
I didn't mention QLD once, Bob.
I.. oh fuck it... I'm sick of repeating the same thing only to have it ignored and replaced with the same strawman year in and year out.
Use of the term "NSV" is as clear a signal that you are whingeing for
Queensland as you could wish for. It's as transparent as any of the
coded phrases like "traditional British values" which drip from the
lips of nasty British racists. No matter how much they feebly proteest
that they didn't mention colour or race, the agenda of their
utterances is perfectly clear. Whether you like it ot not, alvey's
constant use of the term means that the rest of us automatically
assume that's what you mean.
If you don't want people to think you are whingeing on behlaf of
Queensland, find some other expression.
Cheers,
Mike
"traditional British values " ????


first time I have heard it or first time I have noticed it


how is it racist ?
jzfredricks
2013-01-04 00:18:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by willsutton
"traditional British values " ????
first time I have heard it or first time I have noticed it
how is it racist ?
It's the same thing as One Nation saying "keep Australia Australian".
eusebius
2013-01-05 01:39:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by jzfredricks
"traditional British values "   ????
first time  I have heard it or first time I have noticed it
how is it racist ?
It's the same thing as One Nation saying "keep Australia Australian".
Please explain?
willsutton
2013-01-05 01:42:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by eusebius
Post by jzfredricks
Post by willsutton
"traditional British values " ????
first time I have heard it or first time I have noticed it
how is it racist ?
It's the same thing as One Nation saying "keep Australia Australian".
Please explain?
it means "NO" to becoming the 51st of America

and thank god for that ..... I hate baseball
jzfredricks
2013-01-05 05:50:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by eusebius
Post by jzfredricks
"traditional British values "   ????
first time  I have heard it or first time I have noticed it
how is it racist ?
It's the same thing as One Nation saying "keep Australia Australian".
Please explain?
It's essentially the White Australia policy. Which is, let's face it, quite racist.
People who peddle out phrases like "traditional British values" and "keep Australia Australian" think that only they have a right to define what is "true" British/Australian.
willsutton
2013-01-05 09:13:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by jzfredricks
Post by eusebius
Post by jzfredricks
Post by willsutton
"traditional British values " ????
first time I have heard it or first time I have noticed it
how is it racist ?
It's the same thing as One Nation saying "keep Australia Australian".
Please explain?
It's essentially the White Australia policy. Which is, let's face it, quite racist.
People who peddle out phrases like "traditional British values" and "keep Australia Australian" think that only they have a right to define what is "true" British/Australian.
traditional British values could have meant hot puddings at xmas

and as for keep Australia Australian.... quite a few Aboriginals still
want this
Bob Dubery
2013-01-05 13:16:47 UTC
Permalink
On Jan 5, 11:13 am, willsutton <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
<snip>
Post by willsutton
traditional British values could have meant hot puddings at xmas
Cold pies and warm beer. Full stop.
Mike Holmans
2013-01-04 00:29:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by willsutton
Post by Mike Holmans
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
I didn't mention QLD once, Bob.
I.. oh fuck it... I'm sick of repeating the same thing only to have it ignored and replaced with the same strawman year in and year out.
Use of the term "NSV" is as clear a signal that you are whingeing for
Queensland as you could wish for. It's as transparent as any of the
coded phrases like "traditional British values" which drip from the
lips of nasty British racists. No matter how much they feebly proteest
that they didn't mention colour or race, the agenda of their
utterances is perfectly clear. Whether you like it ot not, alvey's
constant use of the term means that the rest of us automatically
assume that's what you mean.
If you don't want people to think you are whingeing on behlaf of
Queensland, find some other expression.
Cheers,
Mike
"traditional British values " ????
first time I have heard it or first time I have noticed it
how is it racist ?
This gets completely off-topic. In the mouth of a turd like Nick
Griffin, the "leader" of the "British National Party", it means "the
way white people did things in the 1950s".

Cheers,

Mike
--
M***@unimail.com.au
2013-01-04 01:21:47 UTC
Permalink
@Will.

I didn't read that bit. I agree with Mike, but then find myself wondering why he thought it was at all appropriate to use that sort of comparison.

Not nice.

Moby
Bob Dubery
2013-01-04 06:21:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
@Will.
I didn't read that bit. I agree with Mike, but then find myself wondering why he thought it was at all appropriate to use that sort of comparison.
Not nice.
It was appropriate, as Mike explained, in the sense that it's using
coded weasel words. If you're trying to suggest that there was an
implication that you're a BNP style racist, there wasn't.

If you rattle on about NSV then, like it or not, it's taken for
granted that you're siding with Alvey and his risible conspiracy
theory about how the rest of Oz is out to screw Queensland in
particular and states other than NS and V in general. Which, of
course, explains why Hayden was allowed to score all those runs and
there was Tasmanian captain allowed to have a long and mostly
successful reign.

If you mean something else, then use different, plain language and you
won't get misunderstood - assuming, of course, that you are being
misunderstood.
jzfredricks
2013-01-04 06:28:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Dubery
If you rattle on about NSV then, like it or not, it's taken for
granted that you're siding with Alvey and his risible conspiracy
theory about how the rest of Oz is out to screw Queensland in
particular and states other than NS and V in general.
Or perhaps you and Mike could do them the courtesy of actually listening to them, especially when they make the point over and over.
Bob Dubery
2013-01-04 07:14:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by jzfredricks
Post by Bob Dubery
If you rattle on about NSV then, like it or not, it's taken for
granted that you're siding with Alvey and his risible conspiracy
theory about how the rest of Oz is out to screw Queensland in
particular and states other than NS and V in general.
Or perhaps you and Mike could do them the courtesy of actually listening to them, especially when they make the point over and over.
I've seen quite enough of this over the years to have formed an
opinion as to what it's about. There's been enough from them over the
years about how Australia have been hard done by by the ICC or other
countries or fans of other countries, and the whole "NSV" thing is
reasonably interpreted as further belly aching about how hard done by
Qld players are by the rest of Australia and the shadowy forces that
control things behind the scenes.

Having seen plenty of it over the years I'm not worried that I don't
diligently check every week to see what position Moby and/or Alvey has
decided to take.

They're also capable of using different, plain language for the
avoidance of doubt and so that their message will be stated clearly
and unambiguously. I said something like that, and you snipped it.
Mike Holmans
2013-01-04 10:12:25 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 23:14:13 -0800 (PST), Bob Dubery
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by jzfredricks
Post by Bob Dubery
If you rattle on about NSV then, like it or not, it's taken for
granted that you're siding with Alvey and his risible conspiracy
theory about how the rest of Oz is out to screw Queensland in
particular and states other than NS and V in general.
Or perhaps you and Mike could do them the courtesy of actually listening to them, especially when they make the point over and over.
I've seen quite enough of this over the years to have formed an
opinion as to what it's about. There's been enough from them over the
years about how Australia have been hard done by by the ICC or other
countries or fans of other countries, and the whole "NSV" thing is
reasonably interpreted as further belly aching about how hard done by
Qld players are by the rest of Australia and the shadowy forces that
control things behind the scenes.
Having seen plenty of it over the years I'm not worried that I don't
diligently check every week to see what position Moby and/or Alvey has
decided to take.
They're also capable of using different, plain language for the
avoidance of doubt and so that their message will be stated clearly
and unambiguously. I said something like that, and you snipped it.
Indeed. After seeing the term "NSV" bandied around for over 15 years,
it automatically marks the post as being "Waaaaah, Queensland" whether
or not the specific point is valid. I've no doubt there is a pro-NSW
bias in Australia, and not just in cricket, but attributing every
perceived slight to that bias is plain stupid.

Johnson is in the same unfortunate position as Steve Harmison after
2005. He's basically lost it as bowler and he spends an awful lot of
time worrying about whether he's going to bowl well, and usually
doesn't as a result. It's quite understandable that captains would
look for almost any credible alternative to giving him the new ball.
None of the alternatives offer what Johnson would if he ever bowled
well, but most of them aren't as bad when they're bad as Johnson is,
so you're risking less.

Cheers,

Mike
--
eusebius
2013-01-05 02:01:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Holmans
Indeed. After seeing the term "NSV" bandied around for over 15 years,
it automatically marks the post as being "Waaaaah, Queensland" whether
or not the specific point is valid. I've no doubt there is a pro-NSW
bias in Australia, and not just in cricket, but attributing every
perceived slight to that bias is plain stupid.
Johnson is in the same unfortunate position as Steve Harmison after
2005. He's basically lost it as bowler and he spends an awful lot of
time worrying about whether he's going to bowl well, and usually
doesn't as a result. It's quite understandable that captains would
look for almost any credible alternative to giving him the new ball.
None of the alternatives offer what Johnson would if he ever bowled
well, but most of them aren't as bad when they're bad as Johnson is,
so you're risking less.
Cheers,
Mike
--
When you are in that prism of seeing the world in a certain way, it is
easy to jump to conclusions. But I can understand that Alvey may be
seeing this because in my view, the NSW machine is taking even less
prisoners. This is not becoming better in my view. And I think I have
a considered view. Of course, even a considered view can be
wrong.Unfortunately for me, when players like Hughes are unjustifiably
recycled it takes away some joy from watching (maybe joy is a strong
word these days, but I can still enjoy the odd session, innings,
bowling spell)
willsutton
2013-01-05 05:22:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by eusebius
Post by Mike Holmans
Indeed. After seeing the term "NSV" bandied around for over 15 years,
it automatically marks the post as being "Waaaaah, Queensland" whether
or not the specific point is valid. I've no doubt there is a pro-NSW
bias in Australia, and not just in cricket, but attributing every
perceived slight to that bias is plain stupid.
Johnson is in the same unfortunate position as Steve Harmison after
2005. He's basically lost it as bowler and he spends an awful lot of
time worrying about whether he's going to bowl well, and usually
doesn't as a result. It's quite understandable that captains would
look for almost any credible alternative to giving him the new ball.
None of the alternatives offer what Johnson would if he ever bowled
well, but most of them aren't as bad when they're bad as Johnson is,
so you're risking less.
Cheers,
Mike
--
When you are in that prism of seeing the world in a certain way, it is
easy to jump to conclusions. But I can understand that Alvey may be
seeing this because in my view, the NSW machine is taking even less
prisoners. This is not becoming better in my view. And I think I have
a considered view. Of course, even a considered view can be
wrong.Unfortunately for me, when players like Hughes are unjustifiably
recycled it takes away some joy from watching (maybe joy is a strong
word these days, but I can still enjoy the odd session, innings,
bowling spell)
why is it unjustified ?


A player scores centuries in his first 2 Tests in SA but ultimately
fails and is dropped.. Now They try him again and he fails. Now this
player moves to another State and then works very hard on his batting,
so much so that he is just about if not the best Shield batsmen going
around.

To me that is justified and you would have to have your head so far up
Al's arse you cant see the end of your nose.

But the main thing is .... there is no-one putting their hand up
screaming pick me........actually Sean Marsh is starting to get his
confidence via the big bash and he will be in the selectors eyes


I dont like Hughes..... he should go and have a talk to Boon and learn
some guts



BUT to say its unjustified is bloody stupid ... it may be hard to
swallow but its not unjustified
eusebius
2013-01-05 05:34:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by willsutton
Post by eusebius
Post by Mike Holmans
Indeed. After seeing the term "NSV" bandied around for over 15 years,
it automatically marks the post as being "Waaaaah, Queensland" whether
or not the specific point is valid. I've no doubt there is a pro-NSW
bias in Australia, and not just in cricket, but attributing every
perceived slight to that bias is plain stupid.
Johnson is in the same unfortunate position as Steve Harmison after
2005. He's basically lost it as bowler and he spends an awful lot of
time worrying about whether he's going to bowl well, and usually
doesn't as a result. It's quite understandable that captains would
look for almost any credible alternative to giving him the new ball.
None of the alternatives offer what Johnson would if he ever bowled
well, but most of them aren't as bad when they're bad as Johnson is,
so you're risking less.
Cheers,
Mike
--
When you are in that prism of seeing the world in a certain way, it is
easy to jump to conclusions. But I can understand that Alvey may be
seeing this because in my view, the NSW machine is taking even less
prisoners. This is not becoming better in my view. And I think I have
a considered view. Of course, even a considered view can be
wrong.Unfortunately for me, when players like Hughes are unjustifiably
recycled it takes away some joy from watching (maybe joy is a strong
word these days, but I can still enjoy the odd session, innings,
bowling spell)
why is it unjustified ?
A player scores centuries in his first 2 Tests in SA but ultimately
fails and is dropped.. Now They try him again and he fails. Now this
player moves to another State and then works very hard on his batting,
so much so that he is just about if not the best Shield batsmen going
around.
That simply doesn't fit the facts. Averaging low 40s for 2 seasons is
far from the 'best Shield batsman going around', nor is it 'just
about'.
Post by willsutton
To me that is justified and you would have to have your head so far up
Al's arse you cant see the end of your nose.
But the main thing is  ....   there is no-one putting their hand up
screaming pick me........actually Sean Marsh is starting to get his
confidence via the big bash and he will be in the selectors eyes
'The Big Bash' (aptly named) is not a breeding ground for test
cricketers.
Post by willsutton
I dont like Hughes..... he should go and have a talk to Boon and learn
some guts
BUT to say its unjustified is bloody stupid  ... it may be hard to
swallow but its not unjustified
Hughes has serious technical flaws, he is a proven failure at test
level, with only a moderate Shield record. It is time to move on from
proven failures, even if he seemed to promise something early on. Sean
Marsh has not had anywhere near the same level of opportunities, do
you agree? Also he revealed less of the fundamental flaws. A few low
scores, and he is gone, permanently it seems. There is a huge double
standard when it comes to certain players. Coincidentally, most of
them seem to come from NSW. Regardless, Hughes' selection is
inexplicable on any sensible grounds.
Bob Dubery
2013-01-05 06:57:14 UTC
Permalink
On Jan 5, 7:34 am, eusebius <***@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Post by eusebius
Post by willsutton
A player scores centuries in his first 2 Tests in SA but ultimately
fails and is dropped.. Now They try him again and he fails. Now this
player moves to another State and then works very hard on his batting,
so much so that he is just about if not the best Shield batsmen going
around.
That simply doesn't fit the facts. Averaging low 40s for 2 seasons is
far from the 'best Shield batsman going around', nor is it 'just
about'.
Now stats aren't everything, but stats are what I have to look at and
I notice that the top scorer in the Sheffield Shield this season is on
PJ Hughes with 518 runs from 10 innings. SO he's got reasonable form,
I'd say and he's certainly not the worst selection that could have
been made. Looking at the averages, and excluding guys with a low
number of innings, there's not many better who, on the numbers, look a
better bet than Hughes (who has no not outs).
<snip>
Post by eusebius
Hughes has serious technical flaws, he is a proven failure at test
level, with only a moderate Shield record. It is time to move on from
proven failures, even if he seemed to promise something early on. Sean
Marsh has not had anywhere near the same level of opportunities, do
you agree?
OK... so there's flaws. That's not the issue. The selectors can only
pick from what's available to them, so who is clearly a better bet
right now?

I note that this season Shaun Marsh has played 3 shield matches and in
6 innings has 61 runs. It would be a very bold piece of selection to
pick him on current form.

Also he revealed less of the fundamental flaws. A few low
Post by eusebius
scores, and he is gone, permanently it seems. There is a huge double
standard when it comes to certain players. Coincidentally, most of
them seem to come from NSW. Regardless, Hughes' selection is
inexplicable on any sensible grounds.
willsutton
2013-01-05 09:21:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by eusebius
Post by willsutton
Post by eusebius
Post by Mike Holmans
Indeed. After seeing the term "NSV" bandied around for over 15 years,
it automatically marks the post as being "Waaaaah, Queensland" whether
or not the specific point is valid. I've no doubt there is a pro-NSW
bias in Australia, and not just in cricket, but attributing every
perceived slight to that bias is plain stupid.
Johnson is in the same unfortunate position as Steve Harmison after
2005. He's basically lost it as bowler and he spends an awful lot of
time worrying about whether he's going to bowl well, and usually
doesn't as a result. It's quite understandable that captains would
look for almost any credible alternative to giving him the new ball.
None of the alternatives offer what Johnson would if he ever bowled
well, but most of them aren't as bad when they're bad as Johnson is,
so you're risking less.
Cheers,
Mike
--
When you are in that prism of seeing the world in a certain way, it is
easy to jump to conclusions. But I can understand that Alvey may be
seeing this because in my view, the NSW machine is taking even less
prisoners. This is not becoming better in my view. And I think I have
a considered view. Of course, even a considered view can be
wrong.Unfortunately for me, when players like Hughes are unjustifiably
recycled it takes away some joy from watching (maybe joy is a strong
word these days, but I can still enjoy the odd session, innings,
bowling spell)
why is it unjustified ?
A player scores centuries in his first 2 Tests in SA but ultimately
fails and is dropped.. Now They try him again and he fails. Now this
player moves to another State and then works very hard on his batting,
so much so that he is just about if not the best Shield batsmen going
around.
That simply doesn't fit the facts. Averaging low 40s for 2 seasons is
far from the 'best Shield batsman going around', nor is it 'just
about'.
THIS SEASON ....

and his average this year was about the best when selected....... may h
ave been in its 40's and that shows the pathetic state of Australian batting
Post by eusebius
Post by willsutton
To me that is justified and you would have to have your head so far up
Al's arse you cant see the end of your nose.
But the main thing is .... there is no-one putting their hand up
screaming pick me........actually Sean Marsh is starting to get his
confidence via the big bash and he will be in the selectors eyes
'The Big Bash' (aptly named) is not a breeding ground for test
cricketers.
Post by willsutton
I dont like Hughes..... he should go and have a talk to Boon and learn
some guts
BUT to say its unjustified is bloody stupid ... it may be hard to
swallow but its not unjustified
Hughes has serious technical flaws, he is a proven failure at test
level, with only a moderate Shield record. It is time to move on from
proven failures, even if he seemed to promise something early on. Sean
Marsh has not had anywhere near the same level of opportunities, do
you agree? Also he revealed less of the fundamental flaws. A few low
scores, and he is gone, permanently it seems. There is a huge double
standard when it comes to certain players. Coincidentally, most of
them seem to come from NSW. Regardless, Hughes' selection is
inexplicable on any sensible grounds.
lots and lots of Test bats have flaws and I cant see anything
outstandingly bad in his style ... but I predict he will fail big
time against the spin in India

and to be quite honest he looks a hell of a lot better bat then Cowan

double standards ... what a load of shit ? people like you scream
about picking on form and when they pick on form you scream double standards


btw: he is also a proven century maker in Test matches
CaraMia
2013-01-05 10:38:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by eusebius
When you are in that prism of seeing the world in a certain way, it is
easy to jump to conclusions. But I can understand that Alvey may be
seeing this because in my view, the NSW machine is taking even less
prisoners. This is not becoming better in my view. And I think I have
a considered view. Of course, even a considered view can be
wrong.Unfortunately for me, when players like Hughes are unjustifiably
recycled it takes away some joy from watching (maybe joy is a strong
word these days, but I can still enjoy the odd session, innings,
bowling spell)
Hasn't Johnson also been recycled just like Hughes?
**matto**
2013-01-05 10:57:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by CaraMia
Hasn't Johnson also been recycled just like Hughes?
Johnson's shield form hasn't been all that impressive either. At least Hughes had substance behind his latest recall.
CaraMia
2013-01-05 14:17:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by **matto**
Post by CaraMia
Hasn't Johnson also been recycled just like Hughes?
Johnson's shield form hasn't been all that impressive either. At least Hughes had substance behind his latest recall.
Exactly. This isn't Johnson's first recall either, right? His case seems
to be quite like Hughes. Both come back just like bad pennies.
M***@unimail.com.au
2013-01-06 03:29:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Holmans
On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 23:14:13 -0800 (PST), Bob Dubery
Post by Bob Dubery
Having seen plenty of it over the years I'm not worried that I don't
diligently check every week to see what position Moby and/or Alvey has
decided to take.
Yes, I can accept that this is what you do. That it's an offensive, arrogant approach to take and then have the hide to tell me what I think is also without doubt.

I've explained, quite clearly, my position several million times over the years. My position is not the same as Alvey's. I am not the same person as Alvey.

Why I am bothering yet again to explain it, I don't know. You clearly won't read it and, next time I turn up wanting to discuss cricket, you'll just come back with the self-same bullshit strawman that you always do.

But for the last time.

I do not think that there is a conspiracy. I do think that people tend to be insular and tend to go with what they know. When combined with a strong media doing the same thing, it is inevitable that there will be a bias.

This is not a contraversial position. ffs, Mike agrees with this position below when he says "I've no doubt there is a pro-NSW bias in Australia, and not just in cricket".

This, Bob, is my position. The only point where it differs from what Mike said is that he doesn't think it happens as often as I do.

Which is fair enough.

What's not fair is that, instead of saying "no, I realise that there is a bias, but I don't think it applies this time and this is why", what I get is:

1) A claim that I'm only saying it because I want a Queenslander picked (even when I've named a Western Australian (for example) as a better option.

Followed by

2) A claim that there's no point reading what I write because my position changes frequently (it does not).

And then, if that doesn't work, generally someone comes up with a way of accusing me of being racist. I accept that I was unfair on Mike before, but given the number of times I've copped such an allegation with the likes of you sitting by and doing nothing, I think I'm entitled to be a bit touchy about that sort of thing.

Notice that? It's more important for you to make a stand against a perception that I'm pro-Queensland than it is to take a stand against an actual instance of someone calling me racist (and no, I do not mean Mike - I have quite clearly stated that I over-reacted). Something to think on.
Post by Mike Holmans
Post by Bob Dubery
They're also capable of using different, plain language for the
avoidance of doubt and so that their message will be stated clearly
and unambiguously. I said something like that, and you snipped it.
Bullshit. I've been quite clear what I think on any number of occasions and I have not changed my position one iota. Further, I am not Alvey and I am not bound by his position. Alvey's position is not one with which I agree.
Post by Mike Holmans
Indeed. After seeing the term "NSV" bandied around for over 15 years,
it automatically marks the post as being "Waaaaah, Queensland" whether
or not the specific point is valid. I've no doubt there is a pro-NSW
bias in Australia, and not just in cricket, but attributing every
perceived slight to that bias is plain stupid.
Mike, I'm stuggling to find any specific instance where you've agreed that something is a result of bias. Could you perhaps direct me to one?
Post by Mike Holmans
Johnson is in the same unfortunate position as Steve Harmison after
2005. He's basically lost it as bowler and he spends an awful lot of
time worrying about whether he's going to bowl well, and usually
doesn't as a result. It's quite understandable that captains would
look for almost any credible alternative to giving him the new ball.
None of the alternatives offer what Johnson would if he ever bowled
well, but most of them aren't as bad when they're bad as Johnson is,
so you're risking less.
This is completely beside the point. I've said on any number of occasions that Johnson is about the equivalent of Lee (the averages, but not the pimping, back me up). If it weren't for at least two bowlers being injured, following the retirement of a bunch of reasonable seamers and with several options not performing well, then I'd never think he should be selected again without a long, long series of good, reliable FC performances.

But that's the situation we have. And EVEN THEN, I wouldn't object to someone opening the bowling ahead of him. But that's not what I'm doing. What I am doing is objecting to the Excuse(TM). It's the Excuse(TM) that Johnson is not opening the bowling, not because he's not good at it, but because he doesn't want to.

On a head to head, as poor as Johnson has been with the new ball, he's not been as poor as Starc. I suggest that it is for this reason that we are hearing the "He doesn't want to" Excuse(TM).

So, let's be clear again.

1) I don't rate Johnson as a good bowling option.
2) As soon as Pattinson and Cummins are back, he should be out of there.
2) But he's the second best non-injured bowler at the moment and the second best with the new ball.

Chance of doing me the courtesy of remembering this and not jumping straight back to the strawman in a few weeks? Well, I guess one can always be an optimist, but on past history, I suspect that what will happen is that this post will be ignored, several more people will again claim that I'm saying something I'm not, a sock puppet will call me racist, no one will bother to correct it, and it'll all get recycled again the next time I forget what an abhorent hole this place is.

Moby
Bob Dubery
2013-01-04 07:16:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by jzfredricks
Post by Bob Dubery
If you rattle on about NSV then, like it or not, it's taken for
granted that you're siding with Alvey and his risible conspiracy
theory about how the rest of Oz is out to screw Queensland in
particular and states other than NS and V in general.
Or perhaps you and Mike could do them the courtesy of actually listening to them, especially when they make the point over and over.
THere's an extra problem with Alvey who, to be diplomatic, is not
known for consistently sticking to the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth.

His repeated assertions about Tendulkar and Monkeygate are a good
example. His position, which he uses to "prove" that Tendulkar is a
liar, flies in the face of the facts (including a statement in the
public domain and signed by Ponting and Symonds). He's the biggest
threat to his own credibility.
Bob Dubery
2013-01-04 06:04:23 UTC
Permalink
"traditional British values "   ????
first time  I have heard it or first time I have noticed it
how is it racist ?
Racism is seldom overt amongst those who are wanting to portray
themselves as respectable political parties.

HF Verwoerd tried to explain apartheid away as "good neighbourliness"
with the black people, who had no access to industry or good farming
land, little access to good schools and who were being arbitrarily
stripped of citizenship of the country in which they were born, being
allowed to pursure their own destiny and practice their own culture
(IE whatever it was they were doing in 1850).

You see? What's all the fuss about?
Mike Holmans
2013-01-03 12:54:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
This whole "Johnson doesn't like the new ball" garbage seems to still have legs.
The truth of the matter is he's never been quoted saying anything of the sort.
Does it actually matter whether he has *said* it?

You'll regularly hear racing commentators say, for instance, that
"Lick My Balls doesn't like soft going" when Lick My Balls is a horse
and is unable to say anything at all about his preferences; what they
*mean* is that Lick My Balls usually runs poorly on soft going.

To me, the phrase is commentator-ese for "Johnson is usually crap with
the new ball". Now, I'm well aware that it's all too easy for someone
to get unfairly tagged on the basis of hardly anything, and that once
it's been decided that this is the player's label, every instance of
confirmatory evidence is seized on and every piece of evidence against
is dismissed as an anomalous aberration, and that even if it were fair
at some point in the past, it ain't necessarily so now.

Still, I think Alastair Cook will feel pretty happy as he sets himself
to receive the first over of an Ashes Test if he sees Johnson warming
up to bowl it.

Cheers,

Mike
--
M***@unimail.com.au
2013-01-03 20:27:24 UTC
Permalink
@Mike.
I agree on all points.

The context here though is that he's up against a slower bowler who is also left handed and who has performed significantly less well with the new ball.

We are then told his lack of opening the bowling is due to him not wanting to.

I'd put it to you that, whatever Cook feels about opening against MJ, he'd feel it in spades opening against Starc right now. At least Johnson might have one of his rare good days.

Moby
alvey
2013-01-04 00:48:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Holmans
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
This whole "Johnson doesn't like the new ball" garbage seems to still have legs.
The truth of the matter is he's never been quoted saying anything of the sort.
Does it actually matter whether he has *said* it?
As the OP said; "MJ has said he doesnt like the brand new ball..." then
it's a fair response.
Post by Mike Holmans
You'll regularly hear racing commentators say, for instance, that
"Lick My Balls doesn't like soft going" when Lick My Balls is a horse
and is unable to say anything at all about his preferences; what they
*mean* is that Lick My Balls usually runs poorly on soft going.
To me, the phrase is commentator-ese for "Johnson is usually crap with
the new ball". Now, I'm well aware that it's all too easy for someone
to get unfairly tagged on the basis of hardly anything, and that once
it's been decided that this is the player's label, every instance of
confirmatory evidence is seized on and every piece of evidence against
is dismissed as an anomalous aberration, and that even if it were fair
at some point in the past, it ain't necessarily so now.
Well and good. But it's the selective use of this technique that gets them
hackles raised. F'rinstance... We were forever told that Hayden couldn't
cut. Tsk tsk. Yet these same critics are somehow totally blind to the
Jupiter sized flaws of P Hughes. (Incidentally, some free investment advice
for you. Having watched the Hughes V.4.0 for the last 30 minutes I'll be
investing heavily against him in the next Arses. He shapes as our Ravi
Bop.)
Post by Mike Holmans
Still, I think Alastair Cook will feel pretty happy as he sets himself
to receive the first over of an Ashes Test if he sees Johnson warming
up to bowl it.
Ah, has AC said that? Did he tell Lick My Balls perhaps?
Besides, wouldn't Cook feel happier facing a bowler who's *never* taken a
wicket with the innings' first spell? (a)




alvey
(a) I've posted that golden nugget into the responses to a hideous NSV
article by the pathetic Brettig in CI. Be interesting to see if it's picked
up.
Bob Dubery
2013-01-04 06:49:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Holmans
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
This whole "Johnson doesn't like the new ball" garbage seems to still have legs.
The truth of the matter is he's never been quoted saying anything of the sort.
Does it actually matter whether he has *said* it?
The situation reminds me of Alan Donald. From a certain point of his
career Donald frequently came on as first change for SA in ODIs
because he found the new white ball harder to control. He never
actually said it in interviews that I can recall, but the commentators
all picked up on it and the coach confirmed it when they asked him.

However there were times when coach and/or skipper would decide that
today, for this match, they'd like him to take the new ball and would
discuss the matter with him and with whoever was now not going to get
the new ball. They don't necessarily canvas opinion amongst fans or
write a detailed report to the press when they do that.

I would agree that some of the goings on about who gets the new ball
for Oz do seem odd but
1) Usually people are confused or incompetent rather than malicious
2) If it WERE malice then they'd set Johnson up to fail every time and
then be done with him
3) I know from reading books by the likes of Clive Lloyd and Mike
Brearley that who gets the new ball can be a conundrum for a skipper,
and they may give it to one bowler on THIS ground in THESE conditions
but to somebody else at another time.
M***@unimail.com.au
2013-01-04 09:13:57 UTC
Permalink
On Friday, January 4, 2013 4:49:32 PM UTC+10, Bob Dubery wrote:
<snip>

Put it this way, JZ.. Bob's been perfectly happy in South Africa for some time.

People with power doing the wrong thing? Never happens as far as he's concerned and he's not willing to listen to the contrary.

Moby

Oh? Is that offensive, Bob? gosh.. who would have thought that someone could possibly take offense at that.



Anyway, I'm off, this play reeks.
Bob Dubery
2013-01-04 09:51:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
<snip>
Put it this way, JZ.. Bob's been perfectly happy in South Africa for some time.
Whatever that means. Well... it can mean whatever you want when you
need it to mean something, can't it?
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
People with power doing the wrong thing?  Never happens as far as he's concerned and he's not willing to listen to the contrary.
I'm quite happy to accept that people in power can abuse situations
and I've said so, certainly as regards SA. That doesn't mean that I
accept risible conspiracy theories.
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
Moby
Oh?  Is that offensive, Bob?  gosh.. who would have thought that someone could possibly take offense at that.
Well if you were candid it might be, or it might be clear BS that we
could sort out with a quick "show proof or retract" (my guess is you'd
not be capable of either). But I suppose you never said nuffink, and
that you seldom do.
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
Anyway, I'm off, this play reeks.
Oh? Not sticking around in case you're asked to clarify you're vague
ramblings?
eusebius
2013-01-05 01:54:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
<snip>
Put it this way, JZ.. Bob's been perfectly happy in South Africa for some time.
Whatever that means. Well... it can mean whatever you want when you
need it to mean something, can't it?
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
People with power doing the wrong thing?  Never happens as far as he's concerned and he's not willing to listen to the contrary.
I'm quite happy to accept that people in power can abuse situations
and I've said so, certainly as regards SA. That doesn't mean that I
accept risible conspiracy theories.
Look, just because something is a conspiracy theory doesn't mean it is
inherently lunetic. The idea that selection policies are pro-NSW is
something that Qlders imbibe with their XXXX (although this isn't
drunk much anymore). If that view was confined to Qld, then perhaps it
could be disregarded. Other states have the same view. Even the
Victorians believe the same (which sort of mitigates against the whole
NSV thing, at least the V part). It is true that CA is unbalanced in
the number of delegates it has from the various states (or did, I am
not aware of any changes). Now not all of the 'supporting evidence'
tha Alvey provides may stand up to withering scrutiny (this thread may
be a case in point. Or maybe it was just Alvey venting his spleen).
But as a Qld cricket fan, it is dispiriting to see Qld cricketers
serially overlooked, not persevered with, and almost campaigned
against by the very influential Sydney press and the Nein comms. Of
course, it isn't just directed against Qlders, but seemingly anyone
without a NSW connection. Particular players, like Hughes, are 'rooted
for' unashamedly by this process. Now you may find this a little
difficult to believe. But the level of parochialism in Australian
states (especially in NSW and admittedly Queensland, also Western
Australia- doesn't seem to apply quite so much in South Australia)
goes well beyond the rivalries between certain countries. US states
and Canadian provinces, although not without rivalry, don't have
anything like this. A Canadian friend was amazed at the level of
rivalry and bickering at all levels between various Australian
localities, especially the states (but not confined to that- there is
a fair degree of contempt in the word 'Brizzos' used by SE Qlders
outside Brisbane, and 'Coasties' used by people from Brisbane, for
example). So that even if you don't like the way Alvey expresses his
views, it doesn't mean that there isn't a strong kernel of truth
behind the basic premise, which is that in cricket, NSW players are
strongly favoured (this happens and has happened in other sports like
rugby league, less so in sports which have non-arbitrary methods of
selection. In swimming for example, Qlders have predominated for
decades).
Bob Dubery
2013-01-05 05:31:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by eusebius
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
<snip>
Put it this way, JZ.. Bob's been perfectly happy in South Africa for some time.
Whatever that means. Well... it can mean whatever you want when you
need it to mean something, can't it?
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
People with power doing the wrong thing?  Never happens as far as he's concerned and he's not willing to listen to the contrary.
I'm quite happy to accept that people in power can abuse situations
and I've said so, certainly as regards SA. That doesn't mean that I
accept risible conspiracy theories.
Look, just because something is a conspiracy theory doesn't mean it is
inherently lunetic. The idea that selection policies are pro-NSW is
something that Qlders imbibe with their XXXX (although this isn't
drunk much anymore). If that view was confined to Qld, then perhaps it
could be disregarded. Other states have the same view. Even the
Victorians believe the same (which sort of mitigates against the whole
NSV thing, at least the V part).
There's too many counter examples, and what is required to make things
work is too complicated.

Counter examples: Hayden. How the hell was he allowed to score all
those runs when the mysterious behind the scenes forces are conspiring
against Queenslanders (or non NSV players)? What went wrong there?
Trevor Hohns. If there's this active conspiring to keep Queenslanders
in their place then how did he get to be chairman of selectors? I
remember the first time I was an official Oz side playing. The new
ball - as was usual in those days - was taken by Craig McDermott, a
Queenslander. McDermott is now the bowling coach. Talking of coaches,
the coach during a very successful recent period for Australia was a
Queenslander.

So we have these guys all succeeding, but when Johnson, who, these
days, is not what one would call "reliable", doesn't get the new ball
it's because Queenslanders are actively hamstrung by this mysterious
force?

Pah!
p***@gmail.com
2013-01-05 08:53:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by eusebius
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
<snip>
Put it this way, JZ.. Bob's been perfectly happy in South Africa for some time.
Whatever that means. Well... it can mean whatever you want when you
need it to mean something, can't it?
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
People with power doing the wrong thing?  Never happens as far as he's concerned and he's not willing to listen to the contrary.
I'm quite happy to accept that people in power can abuse situations
and I've said so, certainly as regards SA. That doesn't mean that I
accept risible conspiracy theories.
Look, just because something is a conspiracy theory doesn't mean it is
inherently lunetic. The idea that selection policies are pro-NSW is
something that Qlders imbibe with their XXXX (although this isn't
drunk much anymore). If that view was confined to Qld, then perhaps it
could be disregarded. Other states have the same view. Even the
Victorians believe the same (which sort of mitigates against the whole
NSV thing, at least the V part).
There's too many counter examples, and what is required to make things
work is too complicated.
Counter examples: Hayden. How the hell was he allowed to score all
those runs when the mysterious behind the scenes forces are conspiring
against Queenslanders (or non NSV players)? What went wrong there?
Hayden? Are you cereal?

Which players come from Qld which from N.S.W.? Which one had their test debut in England in 1993? And which one ended up with a test average approximately 20% higher than the other two?

Player A
1991-92 1028 @54.10
1992-93 1249 @52.04
1993 1150 @57.50 (in England)

Player B
1991-92 98 @32.66
1992-93 1019 @59.94
1993 1275 @53.12 (in England)

Player C
Post by Bob Dubery
Trevor Hohns. If there's this active conspiring to keep Queenslanders
in their place then how did he get to be chairman of selectors? I
remember the first time I was an official Oz side playing. The new
ball - as was usual in those days - was taken by Craig McDermott, a
Queenslander. McDermott is now the bowling coach. Talking of coaches,
the coach during a very successful recent period for Australia was a
Queenslander.
So we have these guys all succeeding, but when Johnson, who, these
days, is not what one would call "reliable", doesn't get the new ball
it's because Queenslanders are actively hamstrung by this mysterious
force?
Pah!
Bob Dubery
2013-01-05 13:14:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by eusebius
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
<snip>
Put it this way, JZ.. Bob's been perfectly happy in South Africa for some time.
Whatever that means. Well... it can mean whatever you want when you
need it to mean something, can't it?
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
People with power doing the wrong thing?  Never happens as far as he's concerned and he's not willing to listen to the contrary.
I'm quite happy to accept that people in power can abuse situations
and I've said so, certainly as regards SA. That doesn't mean that I
accept risible conspiracy theories.
Look, just because something is a conspiracy theory doesn't mean it is
inherently lunetic. The idea that selection policies are pro-NSW is
something that Qlders imbibe with their XXXX (although this isn't
drunk much anymore). If that view was confined to Qld, then perhaps it
could be disregarded. Other states have the same view. Even the
Victorians believe the same (which sort of mitigates against the whole
NSV thing, at least the V part).
There's too many counter examples, and what is required to make things
work is too complicated.
Counter examples: Hayden. How the hell was he allowed to score all
those runs when the mysterious behind the scenes forces are conspiring
against Queenslanders (or non NSV players)? What went wrong there?
Hayden?  Are you cereal?
Indeed. And he got how many bites at the cherry? Was picked, was crap,
was dropped and then this native son of Queensland was not only
allowed back into the team but ended up scoring prodigiously.
Which players come from Qld which from N.S.W.? Which one had their test debut in England in 1993? And which one ended up with a test average approximately 20% higher than the other two?
Dunno. You can "prove" anything by carefully selecting your data. In
general there seems to me to be enough evidence of Queenslanders (100%
Queenslanders, not NSV stooges like Border) getting chances, indeed,
positions of prominence in the side and getting into positions of
power in the administration to lead me to not taking claims of plots
against players from that state seriously.
jzfredricks
2013-01-05 13:39:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Dubery
You can "prove" anything by carefully selecting your data.
My "Wow-did-he-just-say-that" meter just exploded.
eusebius
2013-01-05 14:11:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by eusebius
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
<snip>
Put it this way, JZ.. Bob's been perfectly happy in South Africa for some time.
Whatever that means. Well... it can mean whatever you want when you
need it to mean something, can't it?
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
People with power doing the wrong thing?  Never happens as far as he's concerned and he's not willing to listen to the contrary.
I'm quite happy to accept that people in power can abuse situations
and I've said so, certainly as regards SA. That doesn't mean that I
accept risible conspiracy theories.
Look, just because something is a conspiracy theory doesn't mean it is
inherently lunetic. The idea that selection policies are pro-NSW is
something that Qlders imbibe with their XXXX (although this isn't
drunk much anymore). If that view was confined to Qld, then perhaps it
could be disregarded. Other states have the same view. Even the
Victorians believe the same (which sort of mitigates against the whole
NSV thing, at least the V part).
There's too many counter examples, and what is required to make things
work is too complicated.
Counter examples: Hayden. How the hell was he allowed to score all
those runs when the mysterious behind the scenes forces are conspiring
against Queenslanders (or non NSV players)? What went wrong there?
Hayden?  Are you cereal?
Indeed. And he got how many bites at the cherry? Was picked, was crap,
was dropped and then this native son of Queensland was not only
allowed back into the team but ended up scoring prodigiously.
Here, you don't know what you are talking about. He was the best
player in Australia for 2 seasons, then overlooked for Slater (on the
basis of ODOs). He got one chance, but played against SA with a broken
finger (this is probably a game you saw, on which you are basing your
observation). Then he was recalled against WI, and played nervously,
and scored a 'bad hundred'. He also top scored in an innings in Perth.
This was against the might of Ambrose and the somewhat less mighty
Walsh. He did fail in SA (who had an excellent attack) but someone who
happened to be known as Tubby was going through a horror run at the
same time. What you have said above is nonsense. Considering also, vis-
a-vis Hughes, that Hayden was consistently averaging +50 and sometimes
conisderably higher than 50. There is no question that he had the
rough end of the stick from the selectors. He should have played in
the 93 Ashes, which would have cemented his confidence. As it was
Slater got that opportunity (he wasn't all that successful in 93, when
you compare him with others, but this certainly boosted his career
massively). Do you remember Wayne N. Phillips? Hayden was 'too raw' in
91-2. Then they didn't want to 'risk him' against the might of WI in
92-3. Then Slater was promoted, after his 1st season mind, on the
basis of some worthl;ess ODOs. Mind you, I enjoyed Slater the batsman,
most of the time.

Another curious case is Damien Martyn, he played a rash shot v SA in
93-4, and was on the outer for years. Yet Hughes can fail and be
recycled within a year. If you can't see that this is a double
standard, perhaps you are too far out of the loop to really see it.
Post by Bob Dubery
Which players come from Qld which from N.S.W.? Which one had their test debut in England in 1993? And which one ended up with a test average approximately 20% higher than the other two?
Dunno. You can "prove" anything by carefully selecting your data. In
general there seems to me to be enough evidence of Queenslanders (100%
Queenslanders, not NSV stooges like Border) getting chances, indeed,
positions of prominence in the side and getting into positions of
power in the administration to lead me to not taking claims of plots
against players from that state seriously.
Other than David Ogilvie for a couple of games, a Queensland born
batsman did not play for Australia between the late 60s and 1982.
Plenty of NSW batsmen were selected in that time, despite their not
winning a shield in those years. Remember Stuart Law, btw? What is a
position of prominence, btw? Of the top of my head, the only
Queensland born captain was Bill Brown, who captained for 1 match.
Between 1984 and 2004, the team was captained by New South Welshmen,
and from 2010 on. Between 2004 and 2010, he was only Sydney domiciled.
Players like Mark Taylor and Mark Waugh had innumerable chances to
recover form from within the team, others like McDermott and Hayden
were in and out before having to impose themselves in order to secure
a place. Rackemann also had no chance to shine (yes there were rebel
tours and injuries which affected his career also, but he was a
dominant force at domestic level and a really fine bowler). Greg
Ritchie was given the door permanently in favour of such luminaries as
Matthews and Veletta (true he had weight issues, but what about Boon
and 'Tubby' Taylor?), Could you really imagine a scenario in which a
NSW batsman scored 50 not out on his test debut and was never given
another chance? If you did, you would really evince ignorance of the
way things work here.

As an aside, it is also noteworthy that cricket has been very poor in
utilizing talent from non-anglo backgrounds, and in that I include
those of aboriginal and islander background. In rugby league and
australian rules football the ethnic mix is much, much more diverse.
There has never been an Australian test cricketer fully of Greek,
aboriginal, islander, or Chinese origin, and only 1 Italian. This is
amazing compared with other sports. Cricket here I believe is a
bastion of privilege (although far less than rugby union)
p***@gmail.com
2013-01-05 17:27:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by eusebius
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by eusebius
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
<snip>
Put it this way, JZ.. Bob's been perfectly happy in South Africa for some time.
Whatever that means. Well... it can mean whatever you want when you
need it to mean something, can't it?
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
People with power doing the wrong thing?  Never happens as far as he's concerned and he's not willing to listen to the contrary.
I'm quite happy to accept that people in power can abuse situations
and I've said so, certainly as regards SA. That doesn't mean that I
accept risible conspiracy theories.
Look, just because something is a conspiracy theory doesn't mean it is
inherently lunetic. The idea that selection policies are pro-NSW is
something that Qlders imbibe with their XXXX (although this isn't
drunk much anymore). If that view was confined to Qld, then perhaps it
could be disregarded. Other states have the same view. Even the
Victorians believe the same (which sort of mitigates against the whole
NSV thing, at least the V part).
There's too many counter examples, and what is required to make things
work is too complicated.
Counter examples: Hayden. How the hell was he allowed to score all
those runs when the mysterious behind the scenes forces are conspiring
against Queenslanders (or non NSV players)? What went wrong there?
Hayden?  Are you cereal?
Indeed. And he got how many bites at the cherry? Was picked, was crap,
was dropped and then this native son of Queensland was not only
allowed back into the team but ended up scoring prodigiously.
Here, you don't know what you are talking about. He was the best
player in Australia for 2 seasons, then overlooked for Slater (on the
basis of ODOs). He got one chance, but played against SA with a broken
finger (this is probably a game you saw, on which you are basing your
observation). Then he was recalled against WI, and played nervously,
and scored a 'bad hundred'. He also top scored in an innings in Perth.
This was against the might of Ambrose and the somewhat less mighty
Walsh. He did fail in SA (who had an excellent attack) but someone who
happened to be known as Tubby was going through a horror run at the
same time. What you have said above is nonsense. Considering also, vis-
a-vis Hughes, that Hayden was consistently averaging +50 and sometimes
conisderably higher than 50. There is no question that he had the
rough end of the stick from the selectors. He should have played in
the 93 Ashes, which would have cemented his confidence. As it was
Slater got that opportunity (he wasn't all that successful in 93, when
you compare him with others, but this certainly boosted his career
massively). Do you remember Wayne N. Phillips? Hayden was 'too raw' in
91-2. Then they didn't want to 'risk him' against the might of WI in
92-3. Then Slater was promoted, after his 1st season mind, on the
basis of some worthl;ess ODOs. Mind you, I enjoyed Slater the batsman,
most of the time.
Another curious case is Damien Martyn, he played a rash shot v SA in
93-4, and was on the outer for years. Yet Hughes can fail and be
recycled within a year. If you can't see that this is a double
standard, perhaps you are too far out of the loop to really see it.
Post by Bob Dubery
Which players come from Qld which from N.S.W.? Which one had their test debut in England in 1993? And which one ended up with a test average approximately 20% higher than the other two?
Dunno. You can "prove" anything by carefully selecting your data. In
general there seems to me to be enough evidence of Queenslanders (100%
Queenslanders, not NSV stooges like Border) getting chances, indeed,
positions of prominence in the side and getting into positions of
power in the administration to lead me to not taking claims of plots
against players from that state seriously.
Other than David Ogilvie for a couple of games, a Queensland born
batsman did not play for Australia between the late 60s and 1982.
Plenty of NSW batsmen were selected in that time, despite their not
winning a shield in those years. Remember Stuart Law, btw? What is a
position of prominence, btw? Of the top of my head, the only
Queensland born captain was Bill Brown, who captained for 1 match.
Between 1984 and 2004, the team was captained by New South Welshmen,
and from 2010 on. Between 2004 and 2010, he was only Sydney domiciled.
Players like Mark Taylor and Mark Waugh had innumerable chances to
recover form from within the team, others like McDermott and Hayden
were in and out before having to impose themselves in order to secure
a place. Rackemann also had no chance to shine (yes there were rebel
tours and injuries which affected his career also, but he was a
dominant force at domestic level and a really fine bowler). Greg
Ritchie was given the door permanently in favour of such luminaries as
Matthews and Veletta (true he had weight issues, but what about Boon
and 'Tubby' Taylor?), Could you really imagine a scenario in which a
NSW batsman scored 50 not out on his test debut and was never given
another chance? If you did, you would really evince ignorance of the
way things work here.
Not to mention Bichel and Kasprowicz who for the best part of their career were the 2nd and 3rd best seamers in the country and rarely if ever played a test together, can't have two Qlders in the attack (especially when there's a Golden Bollocks to pick).
Bob Dubery
2013-01-05 20:38:59 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by eusebius
Post by Bob Dubery
Indeed. And he got how many bites at the cherry? Was picked, was crap,
was dropped and then this native son of Queensland was not only
allowed back into the team but ended up scoring prodigiously.
Here, you don't know what you are talking about. He was the best
player in Australia for 2 seasons, then overlooked for Slater (on the
basis of ODOs). He got one chance, but played against SA with a broken
finger (this is probably a game you saw, on which you are basing your
observation).
I'm basing my observations on a born Queenslander getting picked,
getting dropped, getting recalled and eventually going on to do very
well indeed. Which happened. It' a bit awkward for anybody who is
going to argue that Queenslanders get a raw deal. He was dropped. He
was out of it. Why recall him when they could have their pick of NSV
players with no history of being dropped already?

So it goes to the great conspiracy theory. If it's all so loaded
against non NSV players (or Queenslanders, take your pick) then how
come Hayden got more than one bite of the cherry. As I said a while
earlier, there's too many counter-examples for me to swallow the
nonsense about NSV and the machinations against those from Queensland.
As does the guy who was behind the stumps when Hayden was coming into
the team. There's another Queenslander who was allowed to have a long,
successful career.

By the way, given that it was Johnson's place in the attack that
sparked the current outbreak of NSV-itis, do you think the bowling
coach might have had anything to do with that?
jzfredricks
2013-01-05 20:44:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Dubery
There's another Queenslander who was allowed to have a long,
successful career.
So you'll only call it a bias once absolutely zero Queenslanders get selected during a certain period? Let's say 50 years? Does that sound about right to you?

There's a big difference between bias and total-fucking-corruption.
Bob Dubery
2013-01-05 21:15:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by jzfredricks
Post by Bob Dubery
There's another Queenslander who was allowed to have a long,
successful career.
So you'll only call it a bias once absolutely zero Queenslanders get selected during a certain period? Let's say 50 years? Does that sound about right to you?
There's a big difference between bias and total-fucking-corruption.
There's a difference between being asked and being told, but you're
managing to blur that distinction quite nicely.

Putting that aside, I get the feeling that there's some overarching
point you're trying to make, but I can't figure out what it might be.
jzfredricks
2013-01-06 00:36:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by jzfredricks
There's a big difference between bias and total-fucking-corruption.
Putting that aside, I get the feeling that there's some overarching
point you're trying to make, but I can't figure out what it might be.
Listing a few QLDers who might have been given a decent go does absolutely nothing to disprove a pro-NSW bias.

A wise man once said - You can "prove" anything by carefully selecting your data.

Having said that, I'm a bit reluctant to use the term "disprove", as the bias itself hasn't been proven.
M***@unimail.com.au
2013-01-06 03:32:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by jzfredricks
Listing a few QLDers who might have been given a decent go does absolutely nothing to disprove a pro-NSW bias.
That this happens is fairly ample evidence as to the benefit of taking the straw-man approach.

If you call it a conspiracy, you can, indeed, simply argue the outlier.

In fact, I completely agree that the fact that a few QLDers have been given a decent go does absolutely prove that there is no conspiracy.

Except, it's not a conspiracy, it's just human beings doing what human beings do: forming cliques and favouring the known.

Moby
jzfredricks
2013-01-06 03:41:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
Except, it's not a conspiracy, it's just human beings doing what human beings do: forming cliques and favouring the known.
I've never bothered spending much time considering the CAUSE of the bias, mainly as there is little evidence. Having said that, I'm happy to put it down to nepotism.
p***@gmail.com
2013-01-06 03:39:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
<snip>
Post by eusebius
Post by Bob Dubery
Indeed. And he got how many bites at the cherry? Was picked, was crap,
was dropped and then this native son of Queensland was not only
allowed back into the team but ended up scoring prodigiously.
Here, you don't know what you are talking about. He was the best
player in Australia for 2 seasons, then overlooked for Slater (on the
basis of ODOs). He got one chance, but played against SA with a broken
finger (this is probably a game you saw, on which you are basing your
observation).
I'm basing my observations on a born Queenslander getting picked,
getting dropped, getting recalled and eventually going on to do very
well indeed. Which happened. It' a bit awkward for anybody who is
going to argue that Queenslanders get a raw deal. He was dropped. He
was out of it. Why recall him when they could have their pick of NSV
players with no history of being dropped already?
So it goes to the great conspiracy theory. If it's all so loaded
against non NSV players (or Queenslanders, take your pick) then how
come Hayden got more than one bite of the cherry.
Bites of the cherry? You mean nibble right. One test at least two years after he should have debuted, where Australia got flogged and Hayden was scapegoated is hardly a bite. If he was a blue he’d have been allowed at least 40 bites of the cherry; e.g.
13, 5, 8, 0, 11, 74, 1, 1, 0, 12*, 2*, 39*, 6, 0, 28, 71, 79*, 10, 49, 0, 73, 21, 61, 55, 10, 27, 20, 0, 13, 1, 19, 59, 4, 90, 91, 26, 42, 3, 55*, 12, 8
Gee wonder what state he was from.


As I said a while
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
earlier, there's too many counter-examples for me to swallow the
nonsense about NSV and the machinations against those from Queensland.
As does the guy who was behind the stumps when Hayden was coming into
the team. There's another Queenslander who was allowed to have a long,
successful career.
By the way, given that it was Johnson's place in the attack that
sparked the current outbreak of NSV-itis, do you think the bowling
coach might have had anything to do with that?
M***@unimail.com.au
2013-01-06 03:42:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Dubery
do you think the bowling
coach might have had anything to do with that?
I'm sorry to respond to this one, given that I have not given you an opportunity to respond to the earlier. I reply only to give JZ a bit more insight. I am sure that you will have already re-thought your position above.

Notice the way in which the strawman conspiracy is disproved by the assumption that, if there was a conspiracy by one party, then there must be a conspiracy by others. It's a favoured tactic of, for example, Matto.

This approach argues that, by adding new bias, they counteract the old bias. They do this AT THE SAME TIME as they argue that there is no old bias anyway. You see "Others" are biased (probably due to being lesser people who are rednecks or soemthing), but "We" are not.

It is my position (and it has always been my position), that the way to fix the bias (not conspiracy) is not to inject new bias, but rather to put in place processes to avoid a situation where one group gains an advantage due to human nature.

Moby

**matto**
2013-01-05 22:03:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by eusebius
Here, you don't know what you are talking about. He was the best
player in Australia for 2 seasons, then overlooked for Slater (on the
basis of ODOs). He got one chance, but played against SA with a broken
finger (this is probably a game you saw, on which you are basing your
observation). Then he was recalled against WI, and played nervously,
and scored a 'bad hundred'. He also top scored in an innings in Perth.
This was against the might of Ambrose and the somewhat less mighty
Walsh. He did fail in SA (who had an excellent attack) but someone who
happened to be known as Tubby was going through a horror run at the
same time. What you have said above is nonsense. Considering also, vis-
a-vis Hughes, that Hayden was consistently averaging +50 and sometimes
conisderably higher than 50. There is no question that he had the
rough end of the stick from the selectors. He should have played in
the 93 Ashes, which would have cemented his confidence. As it was
Slater got that opportunity (he wasn't all that successful in 93, when
you compare him with others, but this certainly boosted his career
massively). Do you remember Wayne N. Phillips? Hayden was 'too raw' in
91-2. Then they didn't want to 'risk him' against the might of WI in
92-3. Then Slater was promoted, after his 1st season mind, on the
basis of some worthl;ess ODOs. Mind you, I enjoyed Slater the batsman,
most of the time.
Another curious case is Damien Martyn, he played a rash shot v SA in
93-4, and was on the outer for years. Yet Hughes can fail and be
recycled within a year. If you can't see that this is a double
standard, perhaps you are too far out of the loop to really see it.
The big difference in the Hughes situation compared to the Hayden situation is that the door was closed by Slater, who later on was dropped for two years for playing a stupid shot against India.

Hughes is the leading run scorer when vacancies in the batting line up due to retirements and form opened up.

Martyn was nearly dropped from the WA side at one stage. He was only a fill-in for an injured Steve Waugh in that Test he played. He played in the ODI's afterwards and barely scored a run.
Post by eusebius
Other than David Ogilvie for a couple of games, a Queensland born
batsman did not play for Australia between the late 60s and 1982.
Plenty of NSW batsmen were selected in that time, despite their not
winning a shield in those years. Remember Stuart Law, btw? What is a
position of prominence, btw? Of the top of my head, the only
Queensland born captain was Bill Brown, who captained for 1 match.
Between 1984 and 2004, the team was captained by New South Welshmen,
and from 2010 on. Between 2004 and 2010, he was only Sydney domiciled.
Players like Mark Taylor and Mark Waugh had innumerable chances to
recover form from within the team, others like McDermott and Hayden
were in and out before having to impose themselves in order to secure
a place. Rackemann also had no chance to shine (yes there were rebel
tours and injuries which affected his career also, but he was a
dominant force at domestic level and a really fine bowler). Greg
Ritchie was given the door permanently in favour of such luminaries as
Matthews and Veletta (true he had weight issues, but what about Boon
and 'Tubby' Taylor?), Could you really imagine a scenario in which a
NSW batsman scored 50 not out on his test debut and was never given
another chance? If you did, you would really evince ignorance of the
way things work here.
Matthews was passed over at the same time as Ritchie. He lost his spot to Veletta (yep WA). So is WA now a mysterious part of NSW and Victoria?

How do you explain a player with only six Shield games being rushed straight into the Australian team ahead of more established performers in 1988?
Post by eusebius
As an aside, it is also noteworthy that cricket has been very poor in
utilizing talent from non-anglo backgrounds, and in that I include
those of aboriginal and islander background. In rugby league and
australian rules football the ethnic mix is much, much more diverse.
There has never been an Australian test cricketer fully of Greek,
aboriginal, islander, or Chinese origin, and only 1 Italian. This is
amazing compared with other sports. Cricket here I believe is a
bastion of privilege (although far less than rugby union)
LOL but the moment Henriques gets picked for Australia you will scream NSW bias. So Cricket Australia can't win either way hahahahaha.
p***@gmail.com
2013-01-05 17:13:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by eusebius
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
<snip>
Put it this way, JZ.. Bob's been perfectly happy in South Africa for some time.
Whatever that means. Well... it can mean whatever you want when you
need it to mean something, can't it?
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
People with power doing the wrong thing?  Never happens as far as he's concerned and he's not willing to listen to the contrary.
I'm quite happy to accept that people in power can abuse situations
and I've said so, certainly as regards SA. That doesn't mean that I
accept risible conspiracy theories.
Look, just because something is a conspiracy theory doesn't mean it is
inherently lunetic. The idea that selection policies are pro-NSW is
something that Qlders imbibe with their XXXX (although this isn't
drunk much anymore). If that view was confined to Qld, then perhaps it
could be disregarded. Other states have the same view. Even the
Victorians believe the same (which sort of mitigates against the whole
NSV thing, at least the V part).
There's too many counter examples, and what is required to make things
work is too complicated.
Counter examples: Hayden. How the hell was he allowed to score all
those runs when the mysterious behind the scenes forces are conspiring
against Queenslanders (or non NSV players)? What went wrong there?
Hayden?  Are you cereal?
Indeed. And he got how many bites at the cherry? Was picked, was crap,
was dropped and then this native son of Queensland was not only
allowed back into the team but ended up scoring prodigiously.
Which players come from Qld which from N.S.W.? Which one had their test debut in England in 1993? And which one ended up with a test average approximately 20% higher than the other two?
Dunno. You can "prove" anything by carefully selecting your data. In
general there seems to me to be enough evidence of Queenslanders (100%
Queenslanders, not NSV stooges like Border) getting chances, indeed,
positions of prominence in the side and getting into positions of
power in the administration to lead me to not taking claims of plots
against players from that state seriously.
This is a post of simple ignorance, anyone who saw Bargearse, Slater and Hayden batting in the early 90s and thought Hayden wasn't by the length of the straight (and the final bend)a better player was either a blue or knew nothing about cricket. Hayden was never given a fair run.

Fark Hayden couldn't even get a go in the ODOs in front of Tubbie back then, and Taylor made Geoff Marsh look like Tendulkar as an ODO opener. That is simply and utterly ludicrous and again anyone who doesn't think so is either a blue, ignorant, or a fucking idiot.
jzfredricks
2013-01-05 20:07:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
That is simply and utterly ludicrous and again anyone who doesn't think so is either a blue, ignorant, or a fucking idiot.
Or perhaps all 3?
Bob Dubery
2013-01-05 20:49:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by eusebius
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
<snip>
Put it this way, JZ.. Bob's been perfectly happy in South Africa for some time.
Whatever that means. Well... it can mean whatever you want when you
need it to mean something, can't it?
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
People with power doing the wrong thing?  Never happens as far as he's concerned and he's not willing to listen to the contrary.
I'm quite happy to accept that people in power can abuse situations
and I've said so, certainly as regards SA. That doesn't mean that I
accept risible conspiracy theories.
Look, just because something is a conspiracy theory doesn't mean it is
inherently lunetic. The idea that selection policies are pro-NSW is
something that Qlders imbibe with their XXXX (although this isn't
drunk much anymore). If that view was confined to Qld, then perhaps it
could be disregarded. Other states have the same view. Even the
Victorians believe the same (which sort of mitigates against the whole
NSV thing, at least the V part).
There's too many counter examples, and what is required to make things
work is too complicated.
Counter examples: Hayden. How the hell was he allowed to score all
those runs when the mysterious behind the scenes forces are conspiring
against Queenslanders (or non NSV players)? What went wrong there?
Hayden?  Are you cereal?
Indeed. And he got how many bites at the cherry? Was picked, was crap,
was dropped and then this native son of Queensland was not only
allowed back into the team but ended up scoring prodigiously.
Which players come from Qld which from N.S.W.? Which one had their test debut in England in 1993? And which one ended up with a test average approximately 20% higher than the other two?
Dunno. You can "prove" anything by carefully selecting your data. In
general there seems to me to be enough evidence of Queenslanders (100%
Queenslanders, not NSV stooges like Border) getting chances, indeed,
positions of prominence in the side and getting into positions of
power in the administration to lead me to not taking claims of plots
against players from that state seriously.
This is a post of simple ignorance, anyone who saw Bargearse, Slater and Hayden batting in the early 90s and thought Hayden wasn't by the length of the straight (and the final bend)a better player was either a blue or knew nothing about cricket. Hayden was never given a fair run.
Take this in the context of what this thread is about - the great
conspiracy against non NSV players. I don't care if Hayden was better
or worse, and I'm happy to accept that he was better than the others
you name. Point is, he got multiple bites at the cherry and ended up
scoring lots of runs - which is a bit odd when, allegedly, there's a
conspiracy to hamstring Queenslanders.

I'll add something else for you to consider. It's possible, I don't
KNOW, but it's possible that factors other than facility with the bat
kept Hayden out for a while. No... not NSV but his temperament and
attitude.

On his first tour, to SA, he played in the first match of the tour
which was a charity fund-raiser against an invitation XI at a private
ground. There were major explosions with Hayden mouthing off at the
umpires and the opposition. Eventually the Waugh twins went to the
host, Nicky Oppenheimer, to apologise for the poor behaviour. This got
him off on the wrong foot with South Africa and he was considered fair
game for a lot of verbals. Then a problem, for Hayden and Australia,
arose where it seemed to be quite easy for him to be talked out, for
the opposition in general, and Pat Symcox in particular, to get up his
nose and under his skin and put him off his game.

These things can count against a player too. Now I don't KNOW if this
was a factor in his dropping, but it doesn't seem to me to be totally
implausible.
**matto**
2013-01-05 08:05:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by eusebius
Look, just because something is a conspiracy theory doesn't mean it is
inherently lunetic. The idea that selection policies are pro-NSW is
something that Qlders imbibe with their XXXX (although this isn't
drunk much anymore). If that view was confined to Qld, then perhaps it
could be disregarded. Other states have the same view. Even the
Victorians believe the same (which sort of mitigates against the whole
NSV thing, at least the V part). It is true that CA is unbalanced in
the number of delegates it has from the various states (or did, I am
not aware of any changes). Now not all of the 'supporting evidence'
tha Alvey provides may stand up to withering scrutiny (this thread may
be a case in point. Or maybe it was just Alvey venting his spleen).
But as a Qld cricket fan, it is dispiriting to see Qld cricketers
serially overlooked, not persevered with, and almost campaigned
against by the very influential Sydney press and the Nein comms. Of
course, it isn't just directed against Qlders, but seemingly anyone
without a NSW connection. Particular players, like Hughes, are 'rooted
for' unashamedly by this process. Now you may find this a little
difficult to believe. But the level of parochialism in Australian
states (especially in NSW and admittedly Queensland, also Western
Australia- doesn't seem to apply quite so much in South Australia)
goes well beyond the rivalries between certain countries.
Pat Howard - Cricket Australia High Management
Andrew Bichel - Australian Cricket Selector
Ian Healy - Channel 9
Allan Border - Fox Sports
Robert Craddock - Chief Cricket Writer for News Limited

Queensland have five very influential supporters.

Ed Cowan, ex-NSW, has been copping a roasting in the Sydney press.

Shane Watson and Mitchell Johnson both have received charmed runs in Australian Cricket. Watson for all his injuries and lack of mental toughness and Johnson fell to pieces in the last two Ashes series' are both certainties to go to England.

Which Queensland players deserve to be in the top 11 or say top 15?

Khawaja will get Hussey's spot.

Cutting is very unlucky I will grant that one, but the pace bowling battery includes Pattinson, Cummins, Siddle, Starc, Bird, Hilfenhaus and JOHNSON.

Katich has been the most controversial axing in recent times and he played for NSW.....
Post by eusebius
and Canadian provinces, although not without rivalry, don't have
anything like this. A Canadian friend was amazed at the level of
rivalry and bickering at all levels between various Australian
localities, especially the states (but not confined to that- there is
a fair degree of contempt in the word 'Brizzos' used by SE Qlders
outside Brisbane, and 'Coasties' used by people from Brisbane, for
example). So that even if you don't like the way Alvey expresses his
views, it doesn't mean that there isn't a strong kernel of truth
behind the basic premise, which is that in cricket, NSW players are
strongly favoured (this happens and has happened in other sports like
rugby league, less so in sports which have non-arbitrary methods of
selection. In swimming for example, Qlders have predominated for
decades).
Queensland players have been getting a very good run in Australian Rugby League Test teams. Yes it happened in 1985 when Fearnley selected his side based along state lines, but a very rare occurance. In fact when the Brisbane competition struggled during the late 1960's and throughout the 1970's a token Queensland-based player would be named in touring sides. From 1984 to 1994 a Queenslander was captain of Australia in every Test match aside from one Test in 1993. In recent times Queensland have dominated the Australian team to the point the Queensland victory song is now the Australian victory song.
Mike Holmans
2013-01-05 23:33:56 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 17:54:59 -0800 (PST), eusebius
Post by eusebius
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
<snip>
Put it this way, JZ.. Bob's been perfectly happy in South Africa for some time.
Whatever that means. Well... it can mean whatever you want when you
need it to mean something, can't it?
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
People with power doing the wrong thing?  Never happens as far as he's concerned and he's not willing to listen to the contrary.
I'm quite happy to accept that people in power can abuse situations
and I've said so, certainly as regards SA. That doesn't mean that I
accept risible conspiracy theories.
Look, just because something is a conspiracy theory doesn't mean it is
inherently lunetic. The idea that selection policies are pro-NSW is
something that Qlders imbibe with their XXXX (although this isn't
drunk much anymore). If that view was confined to Qld, then perhaps it
could be disregarded. Other states have the same view. Even the
Victorians believe the same (which sort of mitigates against the whole
NSV thing, at least the V part).
Exactly. And when we get further informed that the S is for South Oz
rather than NSW or V, it gets to starting with two-thirds of the
population and then adding to it by including all immigrants from the
other third. It gets to the stage that anyone who went to Sydney on a
weekend trip is counted as being NSV.

If the campaign were about how New South Walians are over-favoured in
Aus cricket, it would be a lot more credible. It's blindingly obvious
that such bias exists: I can't believe that no other State has a crap
all-rounder who's better than Steve Smith. (Incidentally, over here a
"Steve Smith" features in the immensely popular ads for an insurance
comparison website: http://www.comparethemeerkat.com/)

But it's a bit annoying that alvey is only too keen to dissect the
technique of bowlers from his hated States but curiously reluctant to
do the same for the Almighty Johnson, whose technique is appalling. He
has an accurate eye for bowlers who will succeed, so it's doubly
surprising that he should emerge as a champion of Johnson; one can
only conclude that it's on the basis that as long as he isn't from
NSW, he must be good.

It's quite refreshing to realise that it's now very difficult to
detect any bias in England selection beyond the occasional unwarranted
loyalty to a passenger who used to do quite well.

(I realise that Alvey can, because he's obsessed with private
education and would almost certainly point out that a lot of Test
players went to private schools.

It is unfairly more likely that a talented young cricketer will emerge
from the private sector than the state sector because the private
sector schools have generally wonderful facilities and the state
schools have crap ones where they have any at all. If the selectors
pick disproportionately higher numbers of privately-educated
cricketers, it's not because of *their* class bias, but a consequence
of class advantage introduced at age seven or eight. Things would be
different if the ECB ran the government, but they don't. Yet. In the
meantime, they're doing what they can by connecting state schools with
local cricket clubs, an initiative which is said to have started
bearing useful fruit.)

The Welsh might beg to differ, but Glamorgan regularly inhabit the
lower reaches of Div 2 and it is difficult to make an impression on
the England selectors when your team is rubbish. Glamorgan players of
quality tend to attract the chequebooks of richer counties, where they
tend to be happy to go because they will get more attention if they're
playing in Div 1.

But since the mid-90s, the chief selectors have originated from
"unfashionable" counties and have lived a long distance from London,
and most of those appointed as assistant selectors have been similarly
provincial. The last selector to display obvious bias was
Illingworthless, who picked players because they were born in
Yorkshire - and even most Yorks fans reckoned he was off his head for
doing so.

Cheers,

Mike




--
Bob Dubery
2013-01-04 09:52:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
<snip>
Put it this way, JZ..
You do know that you're replying to me and not to JZ?
eusebius
2013-01-05 01:43:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by Mike Holmans
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
This whole "Johnson doesn't like the new ball" garbage seems to still have legs.
The truth of the matter is he's never been quoted saying anything of the sort.
Does it actually matter whether he has *said* it?
The situation reminds me of Alan Donald. From a certain point of his
career Donald frequently came on as first change for SA in ODIs
because he found the new white ball harder to control.
Yes, that was true sometimes. I do think it is fair to say that
Johnson has had real problems with the new ball over his career. He
had a better time of it in Melb, but I can understand why a captain
would be reluctant to use Johnson in the role of new ball bowler. This
is possibly a non-issue.
Mike Holmans
2013-01-05 01:57:29 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 17:43:01 -0800 (PST), eusebius
Post by eusebius
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by Mike Holmans
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
This whole "Johnson doesn't like the new ball" garbage seems to still have legs.
The truth of the matter is he's never been quoted saying anything of the sort.
Does it actually matter whether he has *said* it?
The situation reminds me of Alan Donald. From a certain point of his
career Donald frequently came on as first change for SA in ODIs
because he found the new white ball harder to control.
Yes, that was true sometimes. I do think it is fair to say that
Johnson has had real problems with the new ball over his career. He
had a better time of it in Melb, but I can understand why a captain
would be reluctant to use Johnson in the role of new ball bowler. This
is possibly a non-issue.
Paul Allott, Angus Fraser and Mark Butcher were just discussing it in
the UK Sky studio. They couldn't really understand why Siddle isn't
given the new ball, given that he's far and away the best pace bowler,
but still.

Butcher then said, "Well, you can't give it to Johnson because you
can't be sure he's even going to hit the strip with it," and Gus
Fraser nodded in agreement. Allott brought up his having been given it
in Melbourne and Butcher reckoned Clarke must have been desperate.

Which, if Siddle won't bowl with the new ball, he presumably was.

Cheers,

Mike

--
eusebius
2013-01-05 05:24:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Holmans
On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 17:43:01 -0800 (PST), eusebius
Post by eusebius
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by Mike Holmans
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
This whole "Johnson doesn't like the new ball" garbage seems to still have legs.
The truth of the matter is he's never been quoted saying anything of the sort.
Does it actually matter whether he has *said* it?
The situation reminds me of Alan Donald. From a certain point of his
career Donald frequently came on as first change for SA in ODIs
because he found the new white ball harder to control.
Yes, that was true sometimes. I do think it is fair to say that
Johnson has had real problems with the new ball over his career. He
had a better time of it in Melb, but I can understand why a captain
would be reluctant to use Johnson in the role of new ball bowler. This
is possibly a non-issue.
Paul Allott, Angus Fraser and Mark Butcher were just discussing it in
the UK Sky studio. They couldn't really understand why Siddle isn't
given the new ball, given that he's far and away the best pace bowler,
but still.
Butcher then said, "Well, you can't give it to Johnson because you
can't be sure he's even going to hit the strip with it," and Gus
Fraser nodded in agreement. Allott brought up his having been given it
in Melbourne and Butcher reckoned Clarke must have been desperate.
Which, if Siddle won't bowl with the new ball, he presumably was.
Cheers,
Mike
--
Fraser from my recall didn't bowl with the new ball all that often.
Some prefer and bowl better with a ball that has lost some of its
shine. Johnson though can be devastating with the new ball-
interestingly he has been given 'almost' the new ball in I2 and taken
an early wicket. I believe there was some talk about Johnson modifying
his approach or action, and there is a smidgeon of truth to that. But
on the whole if it was up to me I certainly wouldn't generally use him
to open. Thommo is one who comes to mind who could be really
frightening with the new ball (far more so than Johnson) but often
wasted it.
Mike Holmans
2013-01-05 11:07:48 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 21:24:18 -0800 (PST), eusebius
Post by eusebius
Fraser from my recall didn't bowl with the new ball all that often.
Some prefer and bowl better with a ball that has lost some of its
shine.
Fraser always took the new ball for Middlesex, but when he played for
England there were often other bowlers who would make better use of
it. Gough would have screamed blue murder if he wasn't given it, so he
had to open, and the third pace bowler was often someone like Cork who
could seriously swing the ball and were therefore more likely to make
a breakthrough with it.

Fraser was basically a length bowler who varied his line a little to
get wickets; if he could get some swing too, so much the better, but
it wasn't an essential part of his method so captains could happily
use him as first change. And Atherton also had the tact to be able to
explain his choice convincingly so that Gus wasn't any more grumpy
than usual about patrolling the deep while Devon Malcolm sprayed it
all over the place.
Post by eusebius
Johnson though can be devastating with the new ball-
interestingly he has been given 'almost' the new ball in I2 and taken
an early wicket. I believe there was some talk about Johnson modifying
his approach or action, and there is a smidgeon of truth to that. But
on the whole if it was up to me I certainly wouldn't generally use him
to open.
Everyone knows that Johnson can be devastating. The trouble these days
is that it's a rare occurrence. There's a horrible temptation to
regard each outbreak of splendid bowling as the long-hoped-for return
to his early promising form, but it's probably worth resisting. I kept
making that mistake about Harmison, and the English press spent about
eight years making it about Botham.

Cheers,

Mike
--
eusebius
2013-01-05 13:41:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Holmans
On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 21:24:18 -0800 (PST), eusebius
Post by eusebius
Fraser from my recall didn't bowl with the new ball all that often.
Some prefer and bowl better with a ball that has lost some of its
shine.
Fraser always took the new ball for Middlesex, but when he played for
England there were often other bowlers who would make better use of
it. Gough would have screamed blue murder if he wasn't given it, so he
had to open, and the third pace bowler was often someone like Cork who
could seriously swing the ball and were therefore more likely to make
a breakthrough with it.
Fraser was basically a length bowler who varied his line a little to
get wickets; if he could get some swing too, so much the better, but
it wasn't an essential part of his method so captains could happily
use him as first change. And Atherton also had the tact to be able to
explain his choice convincingly so that Gus wasn't any more grumpy
than usual about patrolling the deep while Devon Malcolm sprayed it
all over the place.
Malcolm was just as much of a new ball waster as Malcolm, but IIRC
Malcolm wasn't as hittable when he was off his game. Johnson tends to
bowl a lot of long hops, if not as erratic as Malcolm seemed to be.
But Malcolm could be hard to hit when spraying it all over the place.
eusebius
2013-01-05 01:39:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Holmans
"Lick My Balls doesn't like soft going"
Oh sorry I thought I stumbled into a different newsgroup for a second.
alvey
2013-01-05 05:48:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by eusebius
Post by Mike Holmans
"Lick My Balls doesn't like soft going"
Oh sorry I thought I stumbled into a different newsgroup for a second.
fx: racecaller

"Annnnnd arrrrcross the line they go in the Bowl A Maiden Over stakes! It's
Lick My Balls first, closely followed by Heavy Breathing and then a fast
finishing Thrust.




alvey
alvey
2013-01-03 06:31:06 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 10:16:25 +1000, alvey wrote:


Well that's the end of the MJ resurrection.
If Clarke wanted him in the team he would've bought him back to bowl to the
shit-scared Lakmal + #11 for a couple of cheap wickets. Instead he bought
back Bird who'd already bowled 4 more overs than MJ.



alvey
"He's a NSWelshman!" KOK celebrating Bird.
jzfredricks
2013-01-04 09:59:23 UTC
Permalink

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...