Thanks Captain Obvious (aka Kevin Roberts)

[TigerCraig]

"Over the last decade or so there has been some suggestion that perhaps potential may have played more of role in selections than previously and I think that's a good question for us to ask," Kevin Roberts, the Cricket Australia CEO, told SEN Radio on the second day in Sydney. "I'm not saying we have it way out of whack at the moment, but they are important questions to ask ourselves. Are we placing enough emphasis on performance - potential is important but, as they say, potential never won a game."

 

[Richard Pryor]

Translation from CEO-ese: "This criticism is gaining legs, I acknowledge it in the hopes it gets people to stop talking about it".

 

[TigerCraig]

Translation from CEO-ese: "This criticism is gaining legs, I acknowledge it in the hopes it gets people to stop talking about it".

Elite Honesty

 

[Blue1980]

Translation from CEO-ese: "This criticism is gaining legs, I acknowledge it in the hopes it gets people to stop talking about it".

I reckon he’s realized he’s picked up more of a shit show than he anticipated.

Seems random biases and players picked on weird hunches and love ins and wanting to be proven right have been driving a lot of selections of recent times.

 

[Pacman Carney]

"Over the last decade or so there has been some suggestion that perhaps potential may have played more of role in selections than previously and I think that's a good question for us to ask," Kevin Roberts, the Cricket Australia CEO, told SEN Radio on the second day in Sydney. "I'm not saying we have it way out of whack at the moment, but they are important questions to ask ourselves. Are we placing enough emphasis on performance - potential is important but, as they say, potential never won a game."

Comes back to one man....Gregory Stephen Chappell

 

[The Swans Blog]

Comes back to one man....Gregory Stephen Chappell

I still remember the late 00s, early 10s when there was a concerted push to elevate potential not just to Shield at the expense of experience, but to the test team too.

Smith made it, but so many shitty players go caps that had no right. Worse yet was good players being punted from the Shield for all the highly touted teenagers from club/grade cricket. Victoria in particular suffered from making an aggressive change.

Which made Voges and Rogers call ups the more bizarre, because it flew in the face of everything the selectors had said.

 

[Pacman Carney]

I still remember the late 00s, early 10s when there was a concerted push to elevate potential not just to Shield at the expense of experience, but to the test team too.

Smith made it, but so many shitty players go caps that had no right. Worse yet was good players being punted from the Shield for all the highly touted teenagers from club/grade cricket. Victoria in particular suffered from making an aggressive change.

Which made Voges and Rogers call ups the more bizarre, because it flew in the face of everything the selectors had said.

Jack Edwards has never made a hundred in club cricket in any grade, fifths to first grade.
He’s made two 50’s in first grade cricket.
Here he is now playing shield cricket and being mentioned as a test potential.
Yes, he made a shield hundred earlier in the year. But how did he get in the side in the first place?
The influence of GREG Chappell.
That’s how.
Potential is one thing, however this is a prime example of what’s gone wrong.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Jack Edwards has never made a hundred in club cricket in any grade, fifths to first grade.
He’s made two 50’s in first grade cricket.
Here he is now playing shield cricket and being mentioned as a test potential.
Yes, he made a shield hundred earlier in the year. But how did he get in the side in the first place?
The influence of GREG Chappell.
That’s how.
Potential is one thing, however this is a prime example of what’s gone wrong.

Best example of this being a terrible way of handling cricket is Ian Craig. Youngest Shield centurion ever, immediately touted as replacement for Bradman, rushed into the Test team, had the Captaincy dumped on him in at 21 (promoted over the head of 26 y.o. Benaud). Crumbled under the pressure, and was retired by 26 with a Test average under 20 and only two 50's.

 

[Len Nicodemo]

Just pick the best side, the best players. Forget potential, forget age, just pick the best eleven.

 

[Len Nicodemo]

Right now, the best team when fully available is;

Harris
Burns
Khawaja
Smith
Wade
Maxwell
Paine
Cummins
Lyon
Starc
Hazelwood

Ext squad - Patterson, Renshaw, Coulter-Nile, Warner, White, Labuschagne (or Head), Pattinson

 

[legend166]

Right now, the best team when fully available is;

Harris
Burns
Khawaja
Smith
Wade
Maxwell
Paine
Cummins
Lyon
Starc
Hazelwood

Ext squad - Patterson, Renshaw, Coulter-Nile, Warner, White, Labuschagne (or Head), Pattinson

In what universe are Harris and Burns better than Warner (or Wade, Maxwell and Khawaja for that matter). Like it or not Warner is our second best batsman. Heck, with the current dearth of openers going around he'd walk into pretty much any side in the world.

 

[to1994]

Right now, the best team when fully available is;

Harris
Burns
Khawaja
Smith
Wade
Maxwell
Paine
Cummins
Lyon
Starc
Hazelwood

Ext squad - Patterson, Renshaw, Coulter-Nile, Warner, White, Labuschagne (or Head), Pattinson

Really? Burns is our best opener and not Warner?

Anyone who thinks Warner shouldn't be in the side because of team harmony (if that's the reason, if it's based on skill level that would be even odder) shouldn't be arguing about selection biases and picking our best team. He averages nearly 50 in Tests when we're playing guys like Marsh and Finch. He comes straight back in unless we no longer care about winning.

 

[Len Nicodemo]

In what universe are Harris and Burns better than Warner (or Wade, Maxwell and Khawaja for that matter). Like it or not Warner is our second best batsman. Heck, with the current dearth of openers going around he'd walk into pretty much any side in the world.

He is cancer. An absolute cheating loud mouthed bogan. Rubbish for our culture.

 

[Len Nicodemo]

Really? Burns is our best opener and not Warner?

Anyone who thinks Warner shouldn't be in the side because of team harmony (if that's the reason, if it's based on skill level that would be even odder) shouldn't be arguing about selection biases and picking our best team. He averages nearly 50 in Tests when we're playing guys like Marsh and Finch. He comes straight back in unless we no longer care about winning.

If he comes back with the right attitude, he is in. If not, not worth the risk.

 

[to1994]

If he comes back with the right attitude, he is in. If not, not worth the risk.

Right then, so you don't actually want our best side on the park? Enough said.

Ironic because the attitude of the "vibe" of the player and things like that and potential are exactly the problem.

 

[Kappa]

He is cancer. An absolute cheating loud mouthed bogan. Rubbish for our culture.

Which players have said Warner damages the culture?

 

[Damon_3388]

Kevin 'Kiss Me' Roberts, as he was known in the 1996-97 cricket sticker book (who else had this as a kid?)

 

[DaRick]

I'd rather not have Warner anywhere near the side because he is the one player I genuinely think could create a toxic team culture, but it really doesn't look like we have much of a choice but to tolerate him - provided he provides meaningful contributions above what the likes of Burns would likely have provided.

The reason why I say this is that losing cultures (which we currently have) are toxic in and of themselves because in such cultures there is often an unhappy, cliquish atmosphere (as per Steve Waugh's thoughts) whereas in winning cultures teams are typically much more united and focused.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

I'd rather not have Warner anywhere near the side because he is the one player I genuinely think could create a toxic team culture, but it really doesn't look like we have much of a choice but to tolerate him - provided he provides meaningful contributions above what the likes of Burns would likely have provided.

The reason why I say this is that losing cultures (which we currently have) are toxic in and of themselves because in such cultures there is often an unhappy, cliquish atmosphere (as per Steve Waugh's thoughts) whereas in winning cultures teams are typically much more united and focused.

Winning matches masks differences. Imagine being in a team with Warne, you'd want him out there every time with you, but you wouldn't want to actually have to talk to him very often off the field. Warner may be the same. I always found it amusing that he and Rogers were a pretty good team as openers as it's almost impossible to imagine two more opposing personalities. For all I know they might be best mates off field though.

 

[Len Nicodemo]

Which players have said Warner damages the culture?

Who is going to come out and say he is a campaigner? Seriously? No one will vocalise that. It’s behind closed doors. Of course he is a bad egg, anyone that orchestrated ball tampering then went to ground during the fallout is a total squid.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Which players have said Warner damages the culture?

There was this 'explosive' report:

David Warner has reportedly angered his Australian team-mates by ‘going rogue’ at the side’s hotel in South Africa.

Foxsports.com.au suggest that Warner has infuriated his team-mates at their hotel in Cape Town by drinking champagne with his non-cricket friends. It’s claimed the disgraced batsman has also left the squad’s Whatsapp group and players want him removed from the hotel before an altercation occurs.

https://metro.co.uk/2018/03/27/david-warner-goes-rogue-hotel-removes-team-whatsapp-group-7420149/

Although even with that jaw-dropping revelation, I don't think Aus can afford to shelve one of the top 10 bats in the world because he's a campaigner. Back in the 00's we could get picky and bench Hodge because the team didn't like him, now they have to suck it up and be professional.

 

[Kram]

Warner makes the perfect fall guy for all this.

Back in the 00's we could get picky and bench Hodge because the team didn't like him, now they have to suck it up and be professional.

Ponting obviously didn't mind him, some captains like a Michael Clarke would have declared on before he got to 200 at the WACA.

This has got to be one of the silliest myths in the history of cricket, he got dropped because he wasn't good enough for a place in a great team and a far better player Damien Martyn iirc was back to replace him.

 

[Len Nicodemo]

Right then, so you don't actually want our best side on the park? Enough said.

Ironic because the attitude of the "vibe" of the player and things like that and potential are exactly the problem.

It isn’t ironic. How is it ironic? He is a blatant cheat who deliberately acted in a way to disrupt the game. He also went to ground when shit hit the fan. There’s nothing logical about comparing a ‘vibe’ to potential. You pick your best side but draw the line at a cheat, and you don’t pick an eleven based off ‘potential’. It’s not a ****ing development squad.

 

[Marstermind]

Maybe if the players could actually cement their own spots in the side and contribute to the current team (aka play some decent cricket) they'd be better placed to influence the selectors on picking or not picking a player based on "we don't like him."

 

[to1994]

It isn’t ironic. How is it ironic? He is a blatant cheat who deliberately acted in a way to disrupt the game. He also went to ground when shit hit the fan. There’s nothing logical about comparing a ‘vibe’ to potential. You pick your best side but draw the line at a cheat, and you don’t pick an eleven based off ‘potential’. It’s not a ******* development squad.

Why is Smith in your squad then? You don't know the facts, you're just basing it on your own personal bias against Warner, same with anyone else who thinks he shouldn't be back.