Rolling Ashes Squad Thread, now featuring Haddin XII v Hick XII beginning p. 147

[Shooter#17]

Ponting was 21

My mistake, actually 20 same age as Pucovski

 

[Woody15]

See that part that says BECAUSE THE SELECTORS WONT CHANGE POLICY? Well that’s the line that states the reason why I understand it won’t happen. That’s very different than actually agreeing with the policy.

Oh come on. You're just trying to weasel out of it.

But you said.. "There’s literally no reason at all an in form batsman should not be included''.. I’d be pushing head out. and now you're saying there is a reason?

You've gone from no reason he should not come in for Head... to posting an article stating that selectors wont be rushing Patterson in and that its a ****ing joke.... to you understanding the reason it wont happen.

Riiiiiggghhht.

 

[damochandler]

My mistake, actually 20 same age as Pucovski

But Ponting played a lot more first class cricket

 

[Shooter#17]

Don’t respond after you insulted me

What are you 12? A little hint for when you grow up, if you can't take it don't dish it out.

 

[Shooter#17]

But Ponting played a lot more first class cricket

Merely due to the fact far more 1st class cricket (in proper form) was played back then. You can only perform in the games you're selected in which Will has done with aplomb. And if you have a look at his record at international u19 level it's incredible.

 

[Len Nicodemo]

Oh come on. You're just trying to weasel out of it.

But you said.. "There’s literally no reason at all an in form batsman should not be included''.. I’d be pushing head out. and now you're saying there is a reason?

You've gone from no reason he should not come in for Head... to posting an article stating that selectors wont be rushing Patterson in and that its a ******* joke.... to you understanding the reason it wont happen.

Riiiiiggghhht.

Jesus Christ mate you’re shuffling the facts to fit your theory and now you’re assuming I said something because you want to slide it into your argument.

IN MY OPINION - I don’t believe Patterson should miss and I don’t believe in the policy of not picking from a tour game based off form, BUT - I understand WHY he won’t be picked and that’s because the SELECTORS have enforced the policy even though I DONT AGREE WITH IT!!!!!!

 

[Len Nicodemo]

Oh come on. You're just trying to weasel out of it.

But you said.. "There’s literally no reason at all an in form batsman should not be included''.. I’d be pushing head out. and now you're saying there is a reason?

You've gone from no reason he should not come in for Head... to posting an article stating that selectors wont be rushing Patterson in and that its a ******* joke.... to you understanding the reason it wont happen.

Riiiiiggghhht.

Of course there’s a reason he isn’t playing! The policy is the reason! And I am explicitly saying I don’t agree and think he should be!

It’s not that hard! I haven’t done or said anything other than that and I am sorry if you don’t get it by now!

 

[Woody15]

Of course there’s a reason he isn’t playing! The policy is the reason! And I am explicitly saying I don’t agree and think he should be!

It’s not that hard! I haven’t done or said anything other than that and I am sorry if you don’t get it by now!

There's no policy. It's just common sense. The squad was already named. Selectors wont reward players on the back of 1 excellent match and punish another. It was debatable whether he should have been picked. You even said it yourself:

It’s not like he is just some mid tier batsman who has hit a couple of decent scores, he is a guy constantly at the top of the shield averages who had a lean patch this year but then has blasted two tons. I mean seriously what is wrong with people!
.

You've clearly been advocating the inclusion of Patterson as a result of his performances in the CAXI match. You've been outraged that they wont bring him in. Now you're just twisting it because you've been called out by numerous posters.

 

[Len Nicodemo]

Oh come on. You're just trying to weasel out of it.

But you said.. "There’s literally no reason at all an in form batsman should not be included''.. I’d be pushing head out. and now you're saying there is a reason?

You've gone from no reason he should not come in for Head... to posting an article stating that selectors wont be rushing Patterson in and that its a ******* joke.... to you understanding the reason it wont happen.

Riiiiiggghhht.

My argument = Patterson should be playing. I posted an article disagreeing with says policy. I stated Head should make way. My opinion is a direct product of my argument.

Reason for not playing = Selection policy! Do I UNDERSTAND!?! Yes I get how it works; a policy is in place and it is enforced by nominated administrators of said policy. Do i AGREE? No!

Am I allowed to disagree with something but also understand how it works? Yes!

 

[Len Nicodemo]

There's no policy. It's just common sense. The squad was already named. Selectors wont reward players on the back of 1 excellent match and punish another. It was debatable whether he should have been picked. You even said it yourself:



You've clearly been advocating the inclusion of Patterson as a result of his performances in the CAXI match. You've been outraged that they wont bring him in. Now you're just twisting it because you've been called out by numerous posters.

Oh FFS!!!!!!!!

No shit I’ve been advocating mate!!!!! Of course I want him playing! Twisting what!!???? Saying I want him in isn’t twisting anything! I said I get why he isn’t playing due to the POLICY.

**** mate you just don’t get it.... there’s only so many ways I can explain it.....

 

[Len Nicodemo]

There's no policy. It's just common sense. The squad was already named. Selectors wont reward players on the back of 1 excellent match and punish another. It was debatable whether he should have been picked. You even said it yourself:



You've clearly been advocating the inclusion of Patterson as a result of his performances in the CAXI match. You've been outraged that they wont bring him in. Now you're just twisting it because you've been called out by numerous posters.

I haven’t twisted a thing and I am not going to worry about being ‘called out’ by a bunch of keyboard warriors wanting to paw the ground looking for something not there!

I am really really sorry you haven’t worked it out....

 

[Woody15]

Oh I have worked it out. Its clear as day in all your posts.

 

[Len Nicodemo]

Oh I have worked it out. Its clear as day in all your posts.

Cheers, you got it.

Go and tell your mummy you cracked the clue you Wally.

 

[Woody15]

Lol.

So was Patterson in form or in a lean patch? Didnt quite get an answer from you..

 

[Ohitsthatguy]

I've been advocating for Patterson for two years.

The amount of people who were worried about his ability to convert... lol.

Not like the rest of Australia's batsmen know how to make a hundred anyway.

I'm honestly embarrassed for our selectors it has taken this game to show he should be in the test team.

Chappell and Hohns need to go.

 

[Sproj]

I could have sworn Ponting was 19 and made 96 on debut

 

[Matera92]

Guy makes 250 runs in 3 days, nah can't have him in the squad cause we've already announced it.

What an absolute joke Aus Cricket it.

 

[eddiesmith]

I see the NSW media is pushing Patterson by including grade cricket scores as a reason to get picked for the test side...

As for the early naming of the squad, that’s because typically this practice match wouldn’t have half the test team in it, if not for the fact there has been no FC cricket in Australia for over a month there wouldn’t be an issue. You’d name the test team, name the CA XI or A team and you wouldn’t have to worry about the non test player outperforming the test squad members as no test squad members would be playing.

But you would still get the usual bleating about player X not in the test side after plundering a hundred in a tour match, been happening for as long as tour games have existed and will continue to do so in the future. Doesn’t mean the selectors are wrong

 

[Ohitsthatguy]

I see the NSW media is pushing Patterson by including grade cricket scores as a reason to get picked for the test side.../QUOTE]

Yeah you're a joke.

 

[Ohitsthatguy]

I see the NSW media is pushing Patterson by including grade cricket scores as a reason to get picked for the test side...

As for the early naming of the squad, that’s because typically this practice match wouldn’t have half the test team in it, if not for the fact there has been no FC cricket in Australia for over a month there wouldn’t be an issue. You’d name the test team, name the CA XI or A team and you wouldn’t have to worry about the non test player outperforming the test squad members as no test squad members would be playing.

But you would still get the usual bleating about player X not in the test side after plundering a hundred in a tour match, been happening for as long as tour games have existed and will continue to do so in the future. Doesn’t mean the selectors are wrong

I'm embarassed for you.

But with your stupid Pommy avatar no one could take you seriously.

NSW media... lmfao. Patterson has been performing in the Shield for three years.

I'm a Queenslander... NSW bias... lmfao.

 

[eddiesmith]

So you’re denying the SMH article included grade cricket scores as part of their case?

 

[Ohitsthatguy]

What are you even talking about you stupid campaigner?

 

[Richard Cranium]

Man I really regret reading the last couple of pages of this thread...

 

[Len Nicodemo]

Lol.

So was Patterson in form or in a lean patch? Didnt quite get an answer from you..

He hasn’t had the best season this year, but overall his shield numbers stack up and he has just hit two centuries. I’d say based on his last two knocks he looks in form. Wouldn’t you?

 

[TBoyleSuperstar]

Seems Patterson has thrown his hat into the ring as a possible tourist. If he can finish off the shield season well, would certainly deserve a spot on the plane.