Sign of the Times: Australia is very modern

The following Australian team list for the impending ODI against South Africa was posted as follows on Cricinfo.com:

Good to see Jane Richardson (#9) getting a go and making a statement about equality.

You'd really think it'd get more press...

Thought of the Day: B-Grade sci fi predicts the future of the human race

Wanting to expand my knowledge of science fiction movies outside Star Wars and Star Trek, I recently revisited Cherry 2000; a B-Grade sci-fi from 1987. For those of you unlucky enough not to have seen it, the preview pretty much covers the whole storyline.

The basic outline of the plot is fairly familiar; the setting is a post-apocalyptic world in which society as we know it has broken down.  The environment is in ruins, with the wealthy having access to things like jobs and booze, while the less fortunate scour barren wastelands & forage for food & entertainment.

…really, there must be a sci-fi writers school in which they just publish Chapter One (the setting) for them & let them fill in the blanks from there.

Anyway, Cherry 2000 is interesting for a number of reasons, not least amongst them Melanie Griffith potentially looking attractive.

This may or may not be Melanie's shadow

Aside from that, though, the futuristic world in which Cherry 2000 is set (the year 2017!) is one in which people pick mates through casual encounters that use smart-phone like technology, with portable computers showing videos of their previous encounters for potential mates to judge them by.

I remember being shocked by this part of the film when I first watched it as a young boy, mostly as I had little inclination as to what they were actually suggesting, but also by the frank & transactional nature of what was being negotiated.

For context, I was equally perturbed by the willingness of E.T to dress in drag

The alternate to finding a human mate, which is also the basic story of the film, is to select a cyborg that is readily available and programmable to ones own specifications.  While nailing a robot, even an attractive one, may seem a little creepy to you or I, the essential proposition being made by the film is that it’s a lot easier than developing a relationship.

That being said, creepy gets a bad name sometimes.

The story ends with the hero falling for a non-cyborg (aka. human) lady whom he has developed a relationship with after going through an adventure together.  The message? That human love can still work, as long as you are being fired at with rocket-launchers.

That being said, the advent of  ‘sexting’, Tinder and other mechanisms of recording oneself in various situations and using these to market oneself in the modern world would seem to suggest that modern society is coming close to resembling the rampant and amoral wasteland presented in Cherry 2000.

So what to do? If the options are between getting shot at by foragers or deal with Lauren Fishburne as your lawyer to define how your next human relationship will develop, I dare say the future of cyborg relations looks good.

Just sayin'

Question of the Day: On-line performance equalling on-field?

The following article was posted on the Melbourne Football Club website (melbournefc.com.au) last weekend:

Given that the article contains 12 words and the title contains 6...could it be said that The Demons' on-line performance is now matching their on-field performance?

Sign of the Times: The Age really doesn't care anymore

With all the hoo-ha in the press about Journalism standards dropping with the advent of Social Media, I would have thought that broadsheets such as "The Age" would be protecting their brand, but it seems that standards may just be for people who care that the photograph matches the story:

courtesy of theage.com.au

(incidentally, the photo shows neither Collingwood or West Coast)

Thought of the Day: CA could learn from the Empire

The recent One-Day (50 over) Cricket match between India A and Australia A provided players, administrators and fans alike with a reminder of why Cricket, particularly 50-over cricket, is still popular.

It is hard to lose with 'A' games, even if your team doesn't score the most runs in the match.  Regardless of the run, everyone is simply interested in the contest to see who played well & may make the transition to the National side.

In this way, 6's aren't expected but applauded, wicket-tally's are held in high-esteem rather than expected and everyone can simply enjoy the game for the entertainment it provides. Should a player not perform well, they can always go back to their first-class side and do well there to be considered for National selection, 'A' games aren't the last chance saloon.

Looking at this particular game in detail, I was quite taken aback when I looked at the Australian team card, which was almost as shocking as the 47th over of the Australian innings (bowled by Kulkarni):

A Quokka-like effort, if every there was one.

For those of you unfamiliar with Australia's second-string players, the names on this team card won't mean much.  For those of you more familiar with the players picked after Darren Lehmann has chosen his preferred mob; these names would be more than familiar.

That is, there is hardly any youth or inexperience in this side at all.

Phil Hughes may be only 25, but he has already played 26 Tests and been dropped more times than the Millenium Falcons Hyperdrive failed to work.

Similarly, many in the team have already played for Australia's Test, ODI or T20 side, but haven't been seriously considered, or "in the mix", for some time.

Starting with the "C's": Cameron White, Callum Ferguson, Clint McKay all have (at least) ODI experience and have performed well (at least) at first class level, but none seem like the future of an Australian team.

Alex Doolan is the Test teams incumbent first-drop, so questions really need to be asked why he is playing in a 50-over game that means nothing when he could be getting more long-form experience elsewhere (e.g. in County Cricket).  If Aaron Finch, who seems to be in contention for the Test sides top-order, isn't playing in this match - there is no reason Doolan should be.

Cameron Boyce (another "C", but in the "D" category) spent the last week watching his first class wicket average move over the 40-mark after getting trashed by the Indian A team, which must really beg the question of where the young spinners are.  Or whose wife Steve O' Keefe has slept with.

Of the rest; Mitch Marsh and Chris Lynne have done well at domestic T20 competition, so should possibly be given a go, though Marsh may not have the aptitude or desire to play Tests.

This leaves Josh Hazelewood, Kane Richardson and Peter Neville, all good players who may represent Australia one-day, but the team selected is hardly a glimpse into the future.

If the majority of this team isn't in serious consideration for playing for Australia in ODI or Test Cricket in future, the question has to be asked; why pick them at all?

Perhaps a lesson can be learnt here from The Galactic Empire.  Sure, they weren't very good at prioritisation, but they did know a lot about succession planning.

From Star Wars Episode I (shudder), Palpatine is looking at Anakin Skywalkers development "closely", while working with and developing other Sith Lords to do his bidding, until such time as they are played out.

In this instance, "played out" and "had your hands cut off" are interchangeable.

Now, I am by no means suggesting that Lehmann begin making his players fight each other to the death for selection in an "A" game (the games are interesting enough as is, thank you), or that older players have their arms severed off by young players, but that 'A' games are used for the point intended; to give the future players more experience against other international teams.

Overheard conversation of the day

Obstetrician: "How do you feel?"
Woman: "Like Ive been f&*ked by a tree stump"

Star Wars YouTube Cip of the Day: AWESOME!