Mark Waugh complains of Queensland 'bias'

[Black Thunder]

This is what i wrote on the topic on another web site.

Well he is right on the three selections there, but it has to be remembered there have always be beneficiaries over the years (even from within the one state side):

Lee v Kasprowicz
Lee v Bichel
MacGill v Hauritz
Symonds v Katich
Clarke v Hodge
Clarke v Lehmann
Watson v Lehmann
Slater v Elliott

There's always selection battle and there's always going to be one winner and multiple losers. And every state has had their handful of lucky cricketers - some of them went on to make the most of their luck and have a great career, some did well from their limited chances but didn't get much of a run, but most were just duds as was suspected.

But i do think there should be a bit of a change in the selection panel. They are doing a great job but i think each state should get one representative.

As i said in another thread i reckon when picking touring squads it should be the 6 selectors (taking into account input from the coach and captain) to pick squads with the chairman of selectors (voted by the 6 selectors). When picking teams on the actual day of a game it should be done only by the captain, coach and chairman.

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

haha. what do you mean? we've been whinging for the past 10 years. its just that no-one else cares. in two weeks, paul reiffell and damien fleming should have both played 100 tests each.

That's a lot of tests to play in two weeks! haha

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

http://aus.cricinfo.com/link_to_data...20FEB2005.html

You ARE kidding, right?

A player from NSW is complaining about selection bias?!?! Man, that is rich, particularly since whilst Mark Waugh went through some form struggles in the 90's, guys like Darren Lehmann, Marty Love, Brad Hodge, Stuart Law, etc. were cooling their heels. Didn't complain about any bias then, did he? Why? Because he was a beneficiary. Funny that.

Oh and for the record, Mark, Allan Border was born in NSW and played at least his first season of Sheffield Shield cricket for them. Oopsie.

I still can't believe I've read this. I feel dumber for having gotten all the way through it.

Hmm... I'd not say he was far off the mark on Katich\Symonds... truly was one of the worst pieces of selection I've seen in my time... a guy has scored 202 for once out... and he misses the next 2 Tests for someone who's never played before.
On Hauritz\MacGill... well, MacGill's poor but to compare him to Hauritz is still a compliment to Hauritz.
On Hopes\White... can't really see much in it TBH... if either ever come close to making the grade in ODIs I'll eat my computer.
So he's got a bit of meaning but surely he must know what it's gonna look like for a NSWman to say stuff like this.
And as you point-out, Corey - he might have done well to remember AB's NSW roots.

[biased indian]

Originally Posted by Black Thunder

But i do think there should be a bit of a change in the selection panel. They are doing a great job but i think each state should get one representative.

If BCCI was to introduce this in India it would be a big Slection panel with 27+ states

[Richard]

Good job no-one's suggested it in India, eh, bi?

[tooextracool]

with some of the stupidest selections from any country off late, im pretty sure mark waugh has his reasons to slag the australian selectors. i cant believe that some people are actually arguing his point by saying that the selectors were more biased towards NSW in the 90s. the point of it all is that the selectors are biased, the rest is irrelevant.

[Linda]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

the point of it all is that the selectors are biased, the rest is irrelevant.

No, "the point of it all" is that in some people's opinions, the selectors are bias.

[vic_orthdox]

if i'm correct, allan border is based in queensland. therefore it doesn't matter what state he comes from, he sees more of the queensland players. therefore he sees more of their best, and hence believes, often fairly, that they are equipped to play test match cricket, because he's seen more of what they're capable of than what someone from, for example, w.a. is able to do.

[mavric41]

Its good to see who Mark Waugh, if he is made a selector, WON'T be favouring.

Hauritz and White were both taken to India for experiance. If Warne didn't take out the paddiing in his batting glove, neither would have got close. i reckon even if it was one day earlier MacGill would have been on a plane.

Hopes was picked for NZ as he is a medium pacer who would suit NZ pitches much better than the spinner White.

Katich was unlucky in tests but the only reason he is in the OD team atm is because he had a whinge. (1 score in 12 matches is not setting the world on fire.)

Michael Clarke probably would still not be picked if he was from any other state.

Lee continues to be picked because he is from NSW. (Others like Tait would be given a go before now)

Why was Hussey picked over Jimmy Maher if Qlders get preference?

Its obvious to most that Shane Watson will be something special with the right grooming. (and he got picked from Tassie)

Back to the bad old days again.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by mavric41

Why was Hussey picked over Jimmy Maher if Qlders get preference?

Err - because Maher's a proven failure, Qlander or WAn, and Hussey has barely had a chance before now?

[Mister Wright]

Originally Posted by Black Thunder

This is what i wrote on the topic on another web site.

Well he is right on the three selections there, but it has to be remembered there have always be beneficiaries over the years (even from within the one state side):

Lee v Kasprowicz
Lee v Bichel
MacGill v Hauritz
Symonds v Katich
Clarke v Hodge
Clarke v Lehmann
Watson v Lehmann
Slater v Elliott

There's always selection battle and there's always going to be one winner and multiple losers. And every state has had their handful of lucky cricketers - some of them went on to make the most of their luck and have a great career, some did well from their limited chances but didn't get much of a run, but most were just duds as was suspected.

But i do think there should be a bit of a change in the selection panel. They are doing a great job but i think each state should get one representative.

As i said in another thread i reckon when picking touring squads it should be the 6 selectors (taking into account input from the coach and captain) to pick squads with the chairman of selectors (voted by the 6 selectors). When picking teams on the actual day of a game it should be done only by the captain, coach and chairman.

Add to that Katich v Love.

[Mister Wright]

Mark Waugh should have a look at the records of the state teams over the last decade. Queensland have made the last 6 domestic first class finals and did win 4 of those in a row. Given that, they should have more candidates available for selection than other states due to their consistency.

Although Queensland have lost their last 2 One Day finals, they have been very close to the finals in the previous decade, and hence again consistency comes into question. Obviously there are some Queenslanders who should never go near a baggy green or yellows for Australia, but there are 4 or 5 players of genuine international class that should be in the Australian team on a regular basis. The unlukiest player IMO is Jimmy Maher.

[howardj]

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

mark waugh tells it like it is, doesn't seem to want to pull too many punches, doese he? he'd know andrew symonds pretty well, and says that his selection was "one of the worst decisions i'd seen for years". then says that hauritz "bowled as his figures suggested" in the mumbai test and after playing against james hopes, he "couldn't see him wearing australian colours". at least he's not afraid to say what he thinks, better than most cricket writers going around, pandering to the aussies all the time.

Couldn't agree more - he is so honest. Least he doesn't mind offending the odd person. Unlike most other former players who dribble out the same platitudes - summer after summer - with no insight or criticism. Lest they dare criticise the Aussies, and risk being excluded from the brotherhood. Furthermore, it's hard to argue with his three examples. Whether it's 'bias' though, is another question.

[age_master]

Originally Posted by mavric41

Its good to see who Mark Waugh, if he is made a selector, WON'T be favouring.

Hauritz and White were both taken to India for experiance. If Warne didn't take out the paddiing in his batting glove, neither would have got close. i reckon even if it was one day earlier MacGill would have been on a plane.

Hopes was picked for NZ as he is a medium pacer who would suit NZ pitches much better than the spinner White.

Katich was unlucky in tests but the only reason he is in the OD team atm is because he had a whinge. (1 score in 12 matches is not setting the world on fire.)

Michael Clarke probably would still not be picked if he was from any other state.

Lee continues to be picked because he is from NSW. (Others like Tait would be given a go before now)

Why was Hussey picked over Jimmy Maher if Qlders get preference?

Its obvious to most that Shane Watson will be something special with the right grooming. (and he got picked from Tassie)

Back to the bad old days again.

lol have a look at brett lee and tell me he should not be in the team? hes been bowling superbly of late

Katich and Hussey have bothe been close to selection for a fair while now, both have great records and both are class players.

Clarke has a great OD record, which is why he got picked for the OD team, and based on what he had done in that and the way he plays spin he was picked for india...

Hopes wouldn't be there is Watson wasn't injured. i personally may have picked white and than sent Watson over when fit.

and Hauritz playing a test was a little silly.

[mavric41]

Originally Posted by age_master

lol have a look at brett lee and tell me he should not be in the team? hes been bowling superbly of late

Katich and Hussey have bothe been close to selection for a fair while now, both have great records and both are class players.

Clarke has a great OD record, which is why he got picked for the OD team, and based on what he had done in that and the way he plays spin he was picked for india...

Hopes wouldn't be there is Watson wasn't injured. i personally may have picked white and than sent Watson over when fit.

and Hauritz playing a test was a little silly.

Most of my comments were directed at the selection of the Test team. I've got no problems with the selections. I can see the selectors line of thinking. They are not Nostradamus so can't get everything right. Unfortunately Mark Waugh can't see that. He sees somthing blue and picks it. I'd hate to be a smurf's nose.