Bias between state player

[GameOver]

Hughes has averaged 17 this season so they've picked him based on last year's form by your reckoning?? What better way to lose than base everything on the past. Smith is neither a no.6 nor a spin bowler so he's a useless selection. As Warnie said yesterday, we're playing 1 batter short & 1 bowler short due to the selections. Plenty of others that have shown talent but don't get a look in. It's embarrassing.

And that's regional based... Khawaja is pretty much next in line which IMO is justified... Hughes and Smith were not

 

[BarneyBent]

Hughes has averaged 17 this season so they've picked him based on last year's form by your reckoning?? What better way to lose than base everything on the past. Smith is neither a no.6 nor a spin bowler so he's a useless selection. As Warnie said yesterday, we're playing 1 batter short & 1 bowler short due to the selections. Plenty of others that have shown talent but don't get a look in. It's embarrassing.

That's perfectly reasonable. What isn't reasonable is the assumption that their state has anything to do with it. Basing on the past might be disagreeable, but it's what they are doing. Hughes benefited also from there being no competition.

 

[peternorth]

Hughes has averaged 17 this season so they've picked him based on last year's form by your reckoning?? What better way to lose than base everything on the past. Smith is neither a no.6 nor a spin bowler so he's a useless selection. As Warnie said yesterday, we're playing 1 batter short & 1 bowler short due to the selections. Plenty of others that have shown talent but don't get a look in. It's embarrassing.

did he say smith should be dropped to make way for a batsman?

 

[The_Reaper]

did he say smith should be dropped to make way for a batsman?

Knowing Warne, I have a feeling he could be having a dig at Ponting.

 

[Kickett Punches Read]

question

shaun marsh is opening the batting (which he has in the past) for NSW instead of WA. and his opening partner for NSW is phil hughes... who would be playing for Australia right now? it sure as hell wouldnt be phil hughes..... i dont mind there being 11 NSW players in the side if they are the best 11..... but phil hughes playing ahead of marsh is just ridiculous, they should have elevated hussey to the openers position and brought kwaja in. or simply played marsh as the opening batsman. hughes playing with the form he has been in all year as an indication of just how bad the situation is for us at the moment

 

[aneale]

they both could be, and Watson down the order where he should be.

Personally I think thats how it should be Marsh and Hughes.

 

[BarneyBent]

question

shaun marsh is opening the batting (which he has in the past) for NSW instead of WA. and his opening partner for NSW is phil hughes... who would be playing for Australia right now? it sure as hell wouldnt be phil hughes..... i dont mind there being 11 NSW players in the side if they are the best 11..... but phil hughes playing ahead of marsh is just ridiculous, they should have elevated hussey to the openers position and brought kwaja in. or simply played marsh as the opening batsman. hughes playing with the form he has been in all year as an indication of just how bad the situation is for us at the moment

Marsh is NOT an opener! If Marsh was playing for NSW, he'd be playing at 4, and Hughes would still be in the Test team! And if he did open beside Hughes, he'd probably be averaging 35 like he has the rest of his opening career.

 

[ROSEMVP]

marsh has no right to be consided

plus he is injury prone. shame chris rogers is injured would have made 500 + runs this ashes series.

 

[NQTIGER]

I Smith is the next warne, then WTF is clark and not smith bowling?

Surely Smith isnt the 6th best batsman in AUS.

ROFL at the nine cmmentators, talking about englands woes with paul collingwood.....jesus if that was only our problem.

 

[XFactor1979]

explanation on abc grandstand

why so many players from NSW?!?!?!

because nsw has 7 million out of 22 for the country.

and there is no need to contend with choosing to play afl unlike Victoria and WA

case in point: the story of a young 17 year old kid in wa had to choose between cricket and afl the other week.

 

[CAS79]

The problem is the Shield, it's nothing more blind self interest from State's whose main concern is manufacturing results so they get 6 points rather than 2 and picking players that they think can achieve that rather than benefit Australian cricket.

.

There is nothing wrong with Shield. It's part of the fabric that has made Australian cricket the strongest country over a prolonged history of international cricket.

State teams attempting to be the best drives players on to play their strongest. Australian first class cricketers cut their teeth n the hardest competition on the planet. . They pick the strongest eleven available the young kids who are in that strongest eleven get tested against the best first class competition in the world. There is no point testing them in a piss poor competition. When there doing the job at Shield level you know there ready for international cricket.

There are times like the present that the standard dips like currently but that's part of the nature of the competition.

But that's where state parochialism should stop. That includes in the commentary box and media as well as here. picking the best national eleven needs to be looked at relisticly than with bias. But Victorians are by far the worst. They idolise Bill Lawry bias Victorian attitude. If there were 10 Victorians in the team they would be talking up the eleventh as being unjustly missing out.

Need any more evidence is they way they talk of Wade despite the fact his keeping to spinners is below par.

 

[GameOver]

did he say smith should be dropped to make way for a batsman?

He said they're confusing the issue by not bowling Smith which means he is in as a batsmen

 

[GameOver]

But that's where state parochialism should stop. That includes in the commentary box and media as well as here. picking the best national eleven needs to be looked at relisticly than with bias. But Victorians are by far the worst. They idolise Bill Lawry bias Victorian attitude. If there were 10 Victorians in the team they would be talking up the eleventh as being unjustly missing out.
.

Agreed that Lawry is bad, but he seems to bite his tongue a lot these days when you know he just wants to say something... worse than Bill Lawry is Mark Waugh... I heard him commentate a T20 state game last season when NSW were on top against VIC and he kept ranting and raving about how good they were... game turned and VIC won with plenty being made in the last few overs and he disappeared from commentating altogether even though he was still in the box

 

[Upgrayedd]

If Smith is in the team surely he should of been picked for his bowling, if he got picked for his batting there are guys infront of him in NSW in Usman, let alone Fergison/Marsh

 

[XFactor1979]

If Smith is in the team surely he should of been picked for his bowling, if he got picked for his batting there are guys infront of him in NSW in Usman, let alone Fergison/Marsh

frazzled confused decisions by the national selectors

 

[Tyberious Funk]

The selections of Smith and Hughes have nothing to do with state bias. Basically, our selectors are idiots. For example, two of the best spinners in the country (O'Keefe and Hauritz) are New South Welshmen, yet they picked Beer. It's not a bias, it's just flat out stupid.

 

[Cleavy]

Need any more evidence is they way they talk of Wade despite the fact his keeping to spinners is below par.

shouldn't be an issue, we don't play a spinner any more

 

[BarneyBent]

The selections of Smith and Hughes have nothing to do with state bias. Basically, our selectors are idiots. For example, two of the best spinners in the country (O'Keefe and Hauritz) are New South Welshmen, yet they picked Beer. It's not a bias, it's just flat out stupid.

Exactly. There are plenty of good arguments for why Hughes and Smith should not be in the team, they were probably bad calls, but you can see WHY the selectors made these calls, and it has nothing to do with their state.

 

[aneale]

There is nothing wrong with Shield. It's part of the fabric that has made Australian cricket the strongest country over a prolonged history of international cricket.

What made us dominant was a very successful Academy, which along with some other really good talent gave us an enormous pool of players to pick from which resulted in a lot of players having much longer Shield careers than you'd expect of someone of their quality.

the abundance of supremely talented 25yo's made it impossible for all them to get a go, they should have all done a Saffer and moved to England and NZ where they would have all had fine careers after waiting it out.

Then what happened? They used to say it was harder to get out of the Test team than to get in, the same can be said for the Shield system. Time to tell the likes of Bracken, Lee, and Clark they aren't in the squad. Make them coaches or something. If you are 32+ and still eligible to play Shield you aren't making the Shield Comp stronger you are holding everything back. The Shield isn't at some amazing level of standard and the game is being left behind as far as 1) identifying kids and 2) attracting kids away from the likes of AFL and other codes.

 

[peternorth]

explanation on abc grandstand

why so many players from NSW?!?!?!

because nsw has 7 million out of 22 for the country.

and there is no need to contend with choosing to play afl unlike Victoria and WA

case in point: the story of a young 17 year old kid in wa had to choose between cricket and afl the other week.

and SA.

not sure that argument is entirely valid. doesnt cricket compete with rugby and rugby league for players too???

 

[BarneyBent]

and SA.

not sure that argument is entirely valid. doesnt cricket compete with rugby and rugby league for players too???

Participation in the rugby codes wouldn't be as intense as for Aussie Rules. When you consider the number of players playing VFL in Victoria, WAFL in WA, SANFL in SA, these numbers are huge, and of a pretty damn high standard. While at the top levels, participation % per state is roughly comparable (still in AR's favour though), at the lower levels I'd say there is a lot more depth. Also, AFL pays a lot more than league or union. Simply put, all else being equal, cricket compares more favorably in terms of opportunity and money to the rugbies than it does Aussie Rules.

 

[XFactor1979]

Participation in the rugby codes wouldn't be as intense as for Aussie Rules. When you consider the number of players playing VFL in Victoria, WAFL in WA, SANFL in SA, these numbers are huge, and of a pretty damn high standard. While at the top levels, participation % per state is roughly comparable (still in AR's favour though), at the lower levels I'd say there is a lot more depth. Also, AFL pays a lot more than league or union. Simply put, all else being equal, cricket compares more favorably in terms of opportunity and money to the rugbies than it does Aussie Rules.

the issue however is cricket is an 11 man sport, whereas afl is a 22 man per team sport

a guy like this guy ->

or this guy:->

can play poorly and make no difference to team contribution, the team might still possibly win, and players will still get a reasonable paycheque



whereas this guy->

or

or

are made to look like tools when their team goes down, and EVEN worse if you are failing on the field

 

[benny_cousins]

Exactly. There are plenty of good arguments for why Hughes and Smith should not be in the team, they were probably bad calls, but you can see WHY the selectors made these calls, and it has nothing to do with their state.

I could never see WHY the selectors picked two out of form batsman to come into the team. I put it down to the pressure the NSW media put on the selectors and the selectors being too weak to make up their own minds.

 

[BarneyBent]

I could never see WHY the selectors picked two out of form batsman to come into the team. I put it down to the pressure the NSW media put on the selectors and the selectors being too weak to make up their own minds.

Of course you did. It's all the NSW media's fault.

Hughes was picked because of his (at the time) Test average of 52 and FC average of 55 at the age of just 22. That makes for terrific reading. He was also the last Test opener out, and on that basis was first in. The selectors felt that this was good enough to pick him despite some horrible recent form, since no other openers were mounting any sort of case. I can understand why people disagree with it, I'm very ambivalent myself, but it has nothing to do with being from NSW.

With Smith, he has been picked on potential, and despite what the selectors may say, is definitely in to roll the arm over a bit. I don't think he's ready, but he's the most exciting talent in Australian cricket right now. His 4 FC centuries in a season last year had nothing to do with being from NSW. His Shield bowling average of 30-odd this season doesn't either. If you can't see why the selectors took a punt on him, whether you agree with it or not (I don't/didn't) then there's not much hope for you.

 

[Scotland]

NSW bias is more of an issue in sections of the media than it is with the Australian selectors.

The real problem the selectors have is that they don't know what they are doing. Cameron White batting at 8. Marcus North picked at 29/30. The Hauritz debacle. Smith at 6. Hughes dropped in 2009 Ashes. Martyn in for Hodge. The list goes on...

The selectors just need to sit down and actually plan what they want to achieve and how they want to go about it. Best XI? Best top 6, keeper 1 spinner and 3 quicks? Blood some youth? Pick each XI from test to test based on conditions and form? Whatever - just ditch the bet-hedging, all over the shop approach that we currently have.