Discussion Random Discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, but that book sounds good. A lot of military incompetence comes from the aristocracy having a right to govern and rule in the past. They would send their kids to the war room while the poor sent theirs as fodder.

My cousin did officer training in the airforce and started when he was 16, he ran away from it as soon as he'd done his training. He seemed to think they weren't much better now. He's a smart guy and smart guys generally don't enjoy the idea of military of any kind so you get psychopaths and politically motivated types taking all the high positions.

Some interesting comparisons to sports administration. Lots of boards are stacked with successful business men who are not risk averse, lawyers who are risk averse and entrepreneurs who are impatient. You get a kind of mix of incompatible personality types and the hardest ones bully opinion over the others. Probably a similar thing occurs in administration of any kind really.
I can't recommend the book highly enough, give it a go :)
The irony of your cousin being a smart guy, one of the markers of authoritarian leaders they don't value intelligence, either personal or of the gathered variety, or the arts, authoritarianism is sort of like compound interest the more you have of it the more it self generates, the authoritarian boss likes the same in his workers and promotes them who like it in their underlings and so on, then when crisis arrives no one can do anything other than follow orders.

Was it the ancient Athenians recognised these issues? So when things got really tough, they'd forcibly elect the guy that didn't want the job of fixing things. Pluses being that his ego wasn't involved in the outcome, he was far more likely to get a positive outcome and his distaste for the whole process meant that when he'd fixed the problem he'd get out as fast as he could, basically anyone that is driven to be in charge probably shouldn't be.

In business and sporting clubs we need some authoritarians those that will do the job and be a bit controlling, but how many do we need and in what positions? After all we can't all lay about in the sun scratching our balls not caring about the outcome.

Interesting that in the last few weeks the Hawks have really relaxed are playing for the pleasure of it and are playing better for it.

One of the criticism of The Saints are that we are and traditionally have been too serious, introverted, quiet (authoritarian) we need more life, more jokers in the pack, in retrospect the time of a deeply authoritarian Lyon with a deeply authoritarian game plan and leadership in Roo, promoting authoritarian players McWalter, Eddy indeed any role player; in those knife edge moments when the game swings is in the balance those players mentally freeze or utensil up, and we lose, not by much but we still loose and we bemoan the bounce, the toe poke, the smother, the missed opportunities. We don't have a Dipper or a Dominator or a Dermie a Buddy or an Isaak Smith, a Scarlett or Heath Shaw and Tom Libba. Guys that live for the contest and for finals. We do have coaches that love process and drills, and then we are surprised when they don't win.

Or rather think of cricket and the 12th of March 2006, Sth. Africa 438-9 beat Aust. 434-4, the Sth Africans so authoritarian that when they believe they can't win relax and actually give themselves a chance, then the miracle occurs (again authoritarian) but some how choke when they should win June 17 1999, World Cup Semi Final, they could have won the should have won, but too many authoritarian moments and they lost.
 
Try having one in the north of England :D
Too may different places, one had a pool, time in the bush with waterfalls and swimming holes in creeks, rivers and dams, 4 years in England in the 70's I remember a very hot day, 28C and a young man decides to jump off a bridge into the river Sow, just to cool off, the water was so cold it stopped his heart and killed him. Happy days :oops::D:think:
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Too may different places, one had a pool, time in the bush with waterfalls and swimming holes in creeks, rivers and dams, 4 years in England in the 70's I remember a very hot day, 28C and a young man decides to jump off a bridge into the river Sow, just to cool off, the water was so cold it stopped his heart and killed him. Happy days :oops::D:think:

Anything over 25 degrees is a signal of the end of the world.
 
In Oz if it's rainy and cold we sit by the fire and wait until it blows over, try that anywhere in England (and it gets worse the further north you get), you'd never do anything.

Nah, just means;

If winter: Likely have heating since it'll drop to 2-5
If spring: Likely to be mid teens to low 20's
If summer: Still can be 40ish, just high moisture
If autumn: Mix winter & spring

Then cycle this on a daily basis, so, I still go walking in it just means putting on a coat instead of showing white pasty guns is all.
 
Nah, just means;

If winter: Likely have heating since it'll drop to 2-5
If spring: Likely to be mid teens to low 20's
If summer: Still can be 40ish, just high moisture
If autumn: Mix winter & spring

Then cycle this on a daily basis, so, I still go walking in it just means putting on a coat instead of showing white pasty guns is all.
Sounds like a day living in Melbourne.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Just livid, cannot stand umpiring deciding a game.

Yes, I understand we used our reviews but if the umpires are competent (as they ******* well should be for obvious decision like that) you don’t have to rely on them to expect a fair outcome for a match.

If he is competent, he calls that out, then England can review it and if it is a bad decision, it rightly gets overturned.

I don’t care if people think it’s sour grapes, this is just a disgracful way to decide a match
 
Just livid, cannot stand umpiring deciding a game.

Yes, I understand we used our reviews but if the umpires are competent (as they ******* well should be for obvious decision like that) you don’t have to rely on them to expect a fair outcome for a match.

If he is competent, he calls that out, then England can review it and if it is a bad decision, it rightly gets overturned.

I don’t care if people think it’s sour grapes, this is just a disgracful way to decide a match
Horrible horrible decision.

Yes Paine is a dumbass for burning that review on something that clearly pitched 3ft outside leg.
Yes Lyon should have just completed the run out the ball before.
Yes Stokes played an amazing innings.

But how the f**k was that not given out?? Absolutely plumb!! Have the guts to make the decision you incompetent muppet...
 
Last edited:
Horrible horrible decision.

Yes Paine is a dumbass for burning that review on something that clearly pitched 3ft outside leg.
Yes Lyon should have completed the run out the ball before.
Yes Stokes played an amazing innings.

But how the f**k was that not given out?? Absolutely plumb!! Have the guts to make the decision you incompetent muppet...
That’s the thing, yes there are reviews and I understand you need to be strategic about using them but that’s expecting a certain level of competence from the umpires that we just haven’t had the whole series. It has been shocking.

But to have that terrible non-decision impacting the game right at the death... that’s too much. It literally caused us not winning the Ashes in England for the first time since 2001. Hats off to Stokes but his innings should have been filed on the “nearly” category like we had in 2005 or back in 1993 with McDermott against the Windies. He makes the correct and obvious decision for something so plumb, well, if England are aggrieved, they could have reviewed it.

He bottled it pure and simple and that’s just not good enough.
 
That’s the thing, yes there are reviews and I understand you need to be strategic about using them but that’s expecting a certain level of competence from the umpires that we just haven’t had the whole series. It has been shocking.

But to have that terrible non-decision impacting the game right at the death... that’s too much. It literally caused us not winning the Ashes in England for the first time since 2001. Hats off to Stokes but his innings should have been filed on the “nearly” category like we had in 2005 or back in 1993 with McDermott against the Windies. He makes the correct and obvious decision for something so plumb, well, if England are aggrieved, they could have reviewed it.

He bottled it pure and simple and that’s just not good enough.
Unbelievable! 😲

I dozed off after they were 9 down still needing about 56
Completely content in the knowledge we were home!

So your not sh!tting me then?
We f#cking lost! 🥺
 
Unbelievable! 😲

I dozed off after they were 9 down still needing about 56
Completely content in the knowledge we were home!

So your not sh!tting me then?
We f#cking lost! 🥺
Yep, great innings by Stokes but we also shot ourselves in the foot with easy missed runout, tough dropped catch and stupid unnecessary review.

Then, to top it all off, an absolutely plumb LBW that, after all of the above, would and should have still won us the Ashes. When it somehow wasn’t given and, of course, DRS showed it clattering into the stumps, that was enough for me. Turned it off.

Pretty infuriating end to an amazing Test match.
 
Yep, great innings by Stokes but we also shot ourselves in the foot with easy missed runout, tough dropped catch and stupid unnecessary review.

Then, to top it all off, an absolutely plumb LBW that, after all of the above, would and should have still won us the Ashes. When it somehow wasn’t given and, of course, DRS showed it clattering into the stumps, that was enough for me. Turned it off.

Pretty infuriating end to an amazing Test match.
Man. I tell ya following sport passionately last few years has not been kind! 😳

Might take up a new hobby! I believe dogging sounds promising!
 
I'm so glad I stayed up to watch the ashes :rolleyes:
A very StKilda like performance from our test team
To be able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory is outstanding.
That LBW decision will go down in folklore as one of the worst decisions ever!
 
Unsurprisingly lots about the umpire is crap and very little about Lyons incompetence in stuffing up a straight forward run out.

I have to say when I saw the ball live I immediately thought Not Out!!!. Going down legside.

And I've watched it about 20 times now, slowed it down to 1/4 speed, marked my screen with texta's but every time I rerun it at normal speed I still can't believe that the ball wasn't going to miss leg stump. Right arm around the wicket ball pitching in line with leg stump, understandable call in the situation.

Anyway - what everyone should be talking about is the absolute audacity and brilliance of Ben Stokes innings. 3 of 73 balls before the new ball was taken and finishes the test off with 135 off 218 balls - including 75 of the last wicket stand of 76 - absolutely staggering innings.

That reverse sweep of Lyon and the ramp shot were absolutely incredible - the innings was the perfect blend test stoicism and one day bravado.
 
I woke up and decided to check the scores, having England 9 down with plenty of runs to play with I though I’d watch us cruise to victory.

Stokes was fantastic so hats off to him and it was a great win by England. Now the Australian team, firstly Paine is not a captain he’s a joke. Totally let stokes control the play made little or no attempt to change fields and slow the game down and to top it off decided to review a decision that was never going to be out costing Australia a chance to review a decision that clearly was. A big shout out to Harris for the dropped catch but particularly Lyon who just made a C grade mistake on a routine run out, pressure.

Really stokes looked like Steve Smith had walked out to play against Elwood and although we lost I’m glad I saw him play last night.
 
Last edited:
hate to say it but ...……….. Payne's actions as well as those of Lyon reek of authoritarian personalities, freezing at the crucial moment, the review that shouldn't have happened even with the bowler saying no, with all his own experience Payne shouldn't have called for the review but he panicked and we see what happened next.

A test match lost the Ashes still undecided all resting on one decision of one man and he fluffed it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top