I totally agree with this article....
The World Cup selectors have erred
December 22 2002
By Peter Roebuck
Australia has made a dog's breakfast of choosing its World Cup squad. Frankly, the right-wing of the ALP makes a better fist of selecting candidates.
Unless the organisers take Australia's predicament into account, the holders will be naming a compromised squad on December 31. The regulations were not studied. Australia did not prepare for any contingency. A single dive, an awkward fall was all it took to expose the folly of the prevailing policy.
Stuart MacGill might not be the man to replace Shane Warne, whose chances of taking part are slim, but you would like to have the option of recalling him. A group of 30 is enough to cover all options.
James Sutherland, the amiable ACB chief executive, said all concerned understood the finality of the party of 30 chosen to represent the country in this highly pressurised event. According to him, the selectors acted upon the correct advice as they sifted through the candidates. If so, it is astonishing places were found for three wicketkeepers, four inexperienced spinners and some chaps whose mothers would leave them out.
An impression was given that players could be called in from outside the party at the drop of a hat. An ACB statement on December 2 said: "Players who have not been named can still be drafted in to represent Australia at the tournament."
A fortnight later the board admitted this was wrong. A man might be forgiven for smelling a rat. Certainly, the selectors seemed to name about 20 strong candidates and another 10 they wanted to encourage. It's hard to believe they set out to choose the best 30 one-day players in the country in case something went wrong, such as a regular bowler dislocating a shoulder.
Some of the most feared competitors in the world were ignored. Mark Higgs and Cameron White were preferred to MacGill and a place was found for Damien Wright but not Steve Waugh.
Australia has taken its eye off the ball and a minor regulation has been allowed to create confusion. No one is suggesting Waugh or MacGill are shoo-ins for a spot in the final 15 but the case for including them in the top 30 was overwhelming. Perhaps the selectors were reluctant to reverse their previous position. The administrators were duty bound to give clear instructions. Trevor Hohns and his colleagues were obliged to choose the 30 men most likely to bring the cup back down under, and then whittle them down to 15.
The selection committee is in danger of becoming jobs for the boys. This is not a tin-pot competition. This is a World Cup.
Essendon 2000 premiers
2001 runners up
2002 fifth
2003 ????
The slide continues
VERY INTERESTING
-
Donny
- Posts: 80285
- Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2002 6:01 pm
- Location: Toonumbar NSW Australia
- Has liked: 63 times
- Been liked: 27 times
M8, this IS Peter Roebuck, after all!!
"No one is suggesting Waugh or MacGill are shoo-ins for a spot in the final 15 but the case for including them in the top 30 was overwhelming"
Overwhelming!? What a grossly exaggerated statement. Why would they have included Steve Waugh when they'd just dropped him because of diminishing form? It wasn't as if they were desperate for another batsman - with Blewett, Love, Maher, Hussey, Clarke, Elliott, Langer etc. all in better form - and Tugga hadn't exactly strung together any big scores, had he?
MacGilla may well be considered next best to Warney in Tests, and deservedly so, but Higgs, Hogg and White are all batsmen as well. They have scored centuries.
"...a place was found for Damien Wright but not Steve Waugh" What's the connection? How silly is this!? He's saying a young promising pace bowler has been included but not a former great who's obviously past his prime.
How does this bloke still earn money as a journalist!?
Donny.
GO THE MIGHTY WOODSMEN !! ALL THE WAY IN 2003 AND BEYOND !!!!
[This message has been edited by MAGFAN8 (edited 26 December 2002).]
"No one is suggesting Waugh or MacGill are shoo-ins for a spot in the final 15 but the case for including them in the top 30 was overwhelming"
Overwhelming!? What a grossly exaggerated statement. Why would they have included Steve Waugh when they'd just dropped him because of diminishing form? It wasn't as if they were desperate for another batsman - with Blewett, Love, Maher, Hussey, Clarke, Elliott, Langer etc. all in better form - and Tugga hadn't exactly strung together any big scores, had he?
MacGilla may well be considered next best to Warney in Tests, and deservedly so, but Higgs, Hogg and White are all batsmen as well. They have scored centuries.
"...a place was found for Damien Wright but not Steve Waugh" What's the connection? How silly is this!? He's saying a young promising pace bowler has been included but not a former great who's obviously past his prime.
How does this bloke still earn money as a journalist!?
Donny.
GO THE MIGHTY WOODSMEN !! ALL THE WAY IN 2003 AND BEYOND !!!!
[This message has been edited by MAGFAN8 (edited 26 December 2002).]
-
gobbles21
- Posts: 1326
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2002 6:01 pm
- Location: Tiwi Islands, NT, Australia