Mark Waugh complains of Queensland 'bias'

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Mister Wright]

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.

Just because you're in love with Mark Waugh does not mean that what he has to say makes sense.

 

[Richard]

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

So he's been bowling better than anyone else available?

 

[Richard]

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.

Successful domestic side doesn't neccesarily = large number of intl candidates.
For one thing, the side with the most internationals (eg NSW) is likely to be less successful than might be expected due to lots of absences.

The unlukiest player IMO is Jimmy Maher.

Really, so by averaging 25.76 in 20 ODI innings you're unlucky to be dropped?

 

[Mister Wright]

Successful domestic side doesn't neccesarily = large number of intl candidates.
For one thing, the side with the most internationals (eg NSW) is likely to be less successful than might be expected due to lots of absences.

Like I said, I'm not claiming that all 11-12 players from Queensland are good enough to play at International level, just 4 or 5.

Really, so by averaging 25.76 in 20 ODI innings you're unlucky to be dropped?

If you look at his record in the top 3 it is very good. Maher has never consistently been selected for Australia, and therefore has never found any rythum on tour. He has had to bat down the order, and has done quite well on occasions, but in reality he is a top order batsman. Given a consistent go for Australia in the top order, I have no doubt that record will improve. He has been Australia's best domestic One Day batsman for the last 3-4 years, he deserves another go.

 

[Craig]

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

I think his point was that if it was a Queensland bias, Maher WOULD have been picked.

No?

 

[mavric41]

I think his point was that if it was a Queensland bias, Maher WOULD have been picked.

No?

Thanks Craig. thats the point I was trying to get across.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, I understand that - but the point I was making was that, Qlander or wherever, surely his record is a sufficient deterrant to picking him, and a WAn with far less ODIs to his name was so much a better choice that even Qland bias couldn't sway it.
See?

 

[Richard]

Like I said, I'm not claiming that all 11-12 players from Queensland are good enough to play at International level, just 4 or 5.

Yeah - but that won't manifest itself in Queensland being successful, it'll come from Queenslanders having good averages.

If you look at his record in the top 3 it is very good. Maher has never consistently been selected for Australia, and therefore has never found any rythum on tour. He has had to bat down the order, and has done quite well on occasions, but in reality he is a top order batsman. Given a consistent go for Australia in the top order, I have no doubt that record will improve. He has been Australia's best domestic One Day batsman for the last 3-4 years, he deserves another go.

Hmm - I can understand about the never given a consistent run bit - but the batting-order...
Maher's an opener, and 11 out of his 20 ODI innings have come as an opener - plus 2 more at three. As an opener, he averages 14; at one, two and three combined he averages 19.54. Amazingly, at six he averages 125 (having been dismissed just once in 4 innings); and he's also batted twice at five and, stupidly, once at eight.
I too rate Maher highly at the domestic level - in Australia and England - but whether he's ODI class I'm not sure.