Not shown: a young girl in China, rescuers, her bike or a bus.
Shown: The President of the USA and his family.
Friday, 7 September 2012
Sign of the times: Editorial standards are slipping
Not shown: a young girl in China, rescuers, her bike or a bus.
Shown: The President of the USA and his family.
Thursday, 6 September 2012
Thought of the Day: The Stuart Law rule of improvement
Remember Stuart Law? He was one of Australia's best batsmen in the mid-to-late nineties but only played the one test (one innings, 54 not out) due to the strength of the squad that was being built into a winning dynamo by Steve Waugh.
I was thinking of poor Stuart the other day after pouring over the results of the recent Australia A series against England, as this was a team he would have walked into, but Australia simply doesn't have players of his ilk waiting to get into the team anymore. In fact, they don't have players of his ilk IN the team anymore.
During Stuarts time, Australia won almost every Test they played, even winning 16 in a row at one stage. Ricky Ponting was once asked in an interview how his team could possibly improve and he responded by talking about some sort of minutiae.
Its possible, though, that new players should have been included during this successful period to not only develop skills and experience, but also gain inclusion into that culture of winning, thereby letting the Stuarts of the future thrive - or at least develop a batting average.
I was thinking of poor Stuart the other day after pouring over the results of the recent Australia A series against England, as this was a team he would have walked into, but Australia simply doesn't have players of his ilk waiting to get into the team anymore. In fact, they don't have players of his ilk IN the team anymore.
not naming names
During Stuarts time, Australia won almost every Test they played, even winning 16 in a row at one stage. Ricky Ponting was once asked in an interview how his team could possibly improve and he responded by talking about some sort of minutiae.
Its possible, though, that new players should have been included during this successful period to not only develop skills and experience, but also gain inclusion into that culture of winning, thereby letting the Stuarts of the future thrive - or at least develop a batting average.
Thursday, 16 August 2012
Thought of the day: Hughes for T20
That would have been brilliant though.
Facing possibly the second-best bowling line-up England (& Wales & Ireland) could muster, Hughes did well in scoring a quick 50.
This made me think; the lad obviously has an eye and can score quickly with unorthodox strokes, so long as he isn't facing the short ball, so why not get him to play Twenty20?
Has he told the ACB he is a test player? Shouldn't that be for the ACB to decide? Shouldn't we be trying to win and promote any success in this era of poor average Australian cricket?
Just a thought.
Saturday, 11 August 2012
Tuesday, 10 July 2012
Thought of the Day: Mitch has no peripheral vision
On a day when other cricketers with fine reputations announced their retirements from the game for reasons ranging from admirable to personal, Mitchell Johnson (who you may remember as a man that advertises chicken and underwear) announced that he thought English crowds taunted him about bowling poorly because they felt threatened.
While Michael Di Venuto stepped away from a successful first class career at the age of 38, ensuring he retires before damaging his reputation, and Tatenda Taibu retires to fulfill his unspecific desire to 'serve god', Mr Johnson continues to draw a salary from Cricket Australia and help lose games for Australia.
Perhaps the reason his bowling has been so off is that he has no awareness of his surroundings?
Saturday, 30 June 2012
Thought of the Day: Cricket Australia hates New South Wales?
Cricket Australia (CA) made a big change this week, dropping its confusing system for contracting national players for a more baffling one.
The old system provided 25 of the best players in the country with financial assurance to enable them to focus on throwing, catching, bowling and hitting cricket balls. Seemed fairly simple, but the players selected and the contracts given were not always so simple.
The new system allows for less contracts, only 17 now, and has an even more confusing process for allocation; the vast majority of players with national contracts now are bowlers.
While this has been a positive for South Australia and Queensland, who have gained players that lost their national contracts and have gone in search of more lucrative state contracts, the way in which these contracts reconcile to selection is still a mystery.
For example, Mitchell Johnson (last seen advertising underwear, or chicken, or both), has retained his contract though hasn't played anything close to Test cricket for over 18 months.
Further, Steven Smith (who has never looked like a cricketer), lost his contract though was selected for Australia's One Day match against England last night. Making this more confusing was that he was selected seemingly as a batsman, as he wasn't called into bowl, and this was a game in which the Australian bowlers needed greater support (only taking 5 wickets).
There are many more examples of this, which has made me consider who has benefited from this system most and least. The players don't seem to have benefited, as there is now less structure and certainty, though many of the states now have due to the Diaspora. The one state that has suffered the most though, is New South Wales, with Phil Hughes and Usman Khawaja both leaving the state for better deals.
After decades of support from CA, has NSW now fallen out of favour? Is this just a means of encouraging interest in the Sheffield Shield again, or is something more personal at play?
The old system provided 25 of the best players in the country with financial assurance to enable them to focus on throwing, catching, bowling and hitting cricket balls. Seemed fairly simple, but the players selected and the contracts given were not always so simple.
The new system allows for less contracts, only 17 now, and has an even more confusing process for allocation; the vast majority of players with national contracts now are bowlers.
While this has been a positive for South Australia and Queensland, who have gained players that lost their national contracts and have gone in search of more lucrative state contracts, the way in which these contracts reconcile to selection is still a mystery.
For example, Mitchell Johnson (last seen advertising underwear, or chicken, or both), has retained his contract though hasn't played anything close to Test cricket for over 18 months.
Further, Steven Smith (who has never looked like a cricketer), lost his contract though was selected for Australia's One Day match against England last night. Making this more confusing was that he was selected seemingly as a batsman, as he wasn't called into bowl, and this was a game in which the Australian bowlers needed greater support (only taking 5 wickets).
There are many more examples of this, which has made me consider who has benefited from this system most and least. The players don't seem to have benefited, as there is now less structure and certainty, though many of the states now have due to the Diaspora. The one state that has suffered the most though, is New South Wales, with Phil Hughes and Usman Khawaja both leaving the state for better deals.
After decades of support from CA, has NSW now fallen out of favour? Is this just a means of encouraging interest in the Sheffield Shield again, or is something more personal at play?
Saturday, 2 June 2012
Question of the Day: Whatever happened to Theo from Die Hard?
Watching Die Hard for the umpteenth time the other night, I suddenly realised that not all of the terrorists in the movie are killed.
In the climax of the movie, the evil IT geek Theo (able to hack elevators, stop escalators, break safes etc) is getting ready to make a break for it in a stolen Ambulance when he is knocked out by Argyle, the sassy limousine driver.
We know that at the end of the movie John McLane has been shot, blown up and beaten up, so decides to go back to his estranged wife's house for the palliative care that can only be provided by an illegal immigrant - driven by said limousine driver.
But what ever happened to Theo? Did the police find him, unconscious in a fake ambulance? Or did he wake in time to flee the scene, only to go on and wreak havoc on elevators everywhere? And finally, why didn't Argyle let the police know that one of the terrorists was knocked out in the car park?
In the climax of the movie, the evil IT geek Theo (able to hack elevators, stop escalators, break safes etc) is getting ready to make a break for it in a stolen Ambulance when he is knocked out by Argyle, the sassy limousine driver.
 |
| Sassy limousine driver and inspiration to a young Usher |
We know that at the end of the movie John McLane has been shot, blown up and beaten up, so decides to go back to his estranged wife's house for the palliative care that can only be provided by an illegal immigrant - driven by said limousine driver.
 |
| I can't administer care right now, I'm on the phone to a sassy limousine driver |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)