Basically, the problem was that certain players were being rested for this ODI. People in Perth were unhappy because they had bought tickets but would not be seeing Brett Lee, Shane Watson or Michael Clarke. They felt they were being shortchanged.
My comment was this:
We've already won this series. This match is not as important as the world cup, which is weeks away. Clarke and Watson have been playing almost non-stop since October, let them have a rest.
I didn't comment on Brett Lee because I was under the impression he would be playing. If I had commented on him, it would have been along the lines of "he has a tendency to get injured; let's keep him in one piece for the world cup".
Some poor sod agreed with me and took some crap and some swearing from the Perth contingent. I dipped out, incidentally. I couldn't be bothered. Thank you Matt Barton.
Bearing in mind that hindsight is a wonderful thing, here are my extended thoughts on the matter:
- See above on Pup and Twatto
- See above on Brett Lee
- England had no idea how to play on the oddball WACA pitch during the Ashes, there was every chance they hadn't done their homework yet again and we wouldn't need Watson
- It's possible that Clarke has no idea how to play on the oddball WACA pitch, why allow it to crush his new found confidence right before the world cup? And finally ...
- It's the 7th match of a 7 match series; there was every chance from the first that it was going to be a dead rubber - if you didn't know that when you bought your tickets, you're a fucking idiot.
I blame Shane Watson.
Naturally.
19 thoughts on this post:
I especially agree with point 5.
Sid,
I would say, you really can't blame the fans. Its not their fault that their city got the 7th match and it wasn't a series that was to be decided in the last game.
Though I can't quite disagree to your point of giving rests to players like Binga, who are injury-prone as well.
But, I still wouldn't blame the fans for being disappointed.
Agree with point 5.
p.s. Yeah it's all Shane Watson's fault.
I know it's not the fan's fault their city got the final match, but when they bought the tickets they knew it was the final match - so they shouldn't complain if it's a dead rubber and players are rested. There was always a high chance that would happen.
Perth people should just be happy that the players actually CAME to the WACA, what with the bushfires and everything.
They should just enjoy the cricket match, it's not every day that something happens in Perth.
:P
Too right.
I don't find your argument without merit, but I tend to disagree.
Finding themselves in a situation in which cricket in general seems to be losing support/audience interest here in Australia, especially when it comes to getting people in through the gates, it is pretty daft, at least from a PR point-of-view, of Cricket Australia not to field the players people expected - however idiotically - to see when they bought the tickets to the game.
In the last 12 months or so, at least some of the Australian players would have played roughly 110 days (not matches) of cricket in the national XI and yes, some of them will have played an awful lot of cricket since October. So what? They're professional sportsmen. If it's too hot, they should get out of that (rather well-paid) kitchen. Also: if that much cricket really is too much cricket, it is a problem that I strongly feel CA should solve by a way of better planning/scheduling, not by all of a sudden resting uninjured players.
I do think that there's a strong case for not playing dead rubber ODI matches. At all, I mean.
I totally agree it's all Twatto's fault. Naturally.
Spot on. And the argument that it is a tough game and those unwilling to face the heat need to quit cricket, this deserves an examination.
I think more than player welfare, the deicsion was taken to maximize the team's chances in the World Cup.
if betti's argument is "Sock the WC; all that matters is whether the game is played with the best players available; we love the game, not the jingoism of my country winning the WC" - then, hats off to you, more power to you.
If not, and if Australia winning the WC matters to you, please try to see how reasonable it is to try and maximise your country's WC chances.
I'm sure the West Aus fans at the game forgot about all that and STFU once local boy Voges was in and going along like a rather elegant stealth weapon. Without all the dropouts, they wouldn't have got to see that.
Once I found out he was in I was quite pleased even though he is fairly punchable when playing for the Warriors.
Another massive underachiever. But his record at ODI's for Aus is a good one now.
But the final match could have been a decider so it could have been the most important so I don't think there is anything behind the argument that getting the final game is somehow unfair.
I'm not sure when supporters bought their tickets but for those that bought them knowing the series was already decided, they cannot really complain, especially with a world cup around the corner. As for the supporters that had bought them a while back, I think they should direct their anger at thee that make up the schedule (and Shane Watson). What was the point of a 7 match ODI series?
As for not playing dead rubbers; I think there is too much planning that goes on to cancel international matches on such short notice. What they should do is reduce the tickets for dead rubbers (pre-purchased can claim a refund).
I've got no doubt it was all forgotten once Voges started looking swish! I can't help but think Raj is right though - the world cup is more important. Yes, they are professional sportsmen but their cricketing board should be doing what they can do minimise exhaustion and injury.
Maybe, that should mean looking at the schedule but this is cricket australia (under the influence of Shane Watson of course) we're talking about. Giving them a rest and placing focus on a more important series is the next best thing.
Stani, long time no see :-) I think when you buy tickets for the final match of a series this long, you are taking a risk. You might get a decider, but there is more chance of it being a dead rubber. I still say that if those who bought the tickets didn't know this, then they are a wee bit silly.
In the end, it is an international game featuring international players...so the crowd got what they came for...the players are not machines to play day in and day out...at least, someone is keeping the bigger picture (World Cup) in mind...
Yeh, had a bit of break, not that anyone gave a shit but I guess that's just the way it is.
Thank you so much for sharing it. that's amazing!...............
Lawn Turf Suppliers Sydney
Do I want Australia to win the World Cup? Yes. But I still think that international matches should be played with the best, uninjured players available. If injury concerns is such a worry, I don't understand why a 7-match ODI series lasting up until about 5 minutes before the start of that World Cup was scheduled.
I admit to having very little patience with the whole idea of resting healthy players in general. I think it's kind of soft. The NHL trophy, the Stanley Cup, is considered the pinnacle of ice hockey: the regular season comprises 82 games; in order to win the Cup, a team will have to play at least 16 matches (four best-of-7-matches rounds). There is no gap between regular season and playoffs. I have never heard or read any fan expressing a desire for star players to be 'rested' for the last matches of the season, even if these are, in effect, dead rubber ones. Never. And ice hockey is hardly a game in which injuries don't occur ... one way or another, even to star players who may be essential for a credible run for the Cup. And that's more or less where I'm coming from.
I see your point, but hockey is a very different game to cricket. With cricket you have the risk of injury, but also the long periods of time in the heat with fluids only at intervals and, when you're batting at least using largely the same muscles over and over, that means the there's a much higher risk of muscle fatigue and dehydration on top of injury. Do that every few days for 4 months, rather than once a week, indoors and for what, 90 minutes at most?
Plus, if you can have a rest because there are decent replacements and the series is won - why wouldn't you?
And Stani - Sunny and I gave a shit. We noticed you weren't around. I popped over to your place a few times but I am not much chop at Pakistani cricket so no commentage. Sorry :-(
I wasn't talking about the site...but that's cool, don't worry about it :)
Compared to ice hockey, especially the NHL kind, the chances of injury in cricket are fairly small. Not for nothing is the Stanley Cup considered one of the hardest trophies in sports to win. And my point was that all uninjured players in an NHL team are expected to play the last match of the regular season, before the Conference and Stanley Cup playoffs, no matter how 'unimportant' that match might be and no matter how 'important' the individual player might be for a successful run for the ultimate trophy; to not do so is considered really bad form. And it is.
Again: if Cricket Australia was worried about players getting injured just before the World Cup, I really don't understand why they scheduled an ODI series that close to it. But they did. And since they did, I think they should have played all the 'best' uninjured players. Incidentally, if the series had been tied 3-3 at that stage, would the same players have been rested then? If yes, then that means that this ODI series was just as irrelevant as that we had v Sri Lanka in November; if no, then that just reinforces the argument that dead rubber matches simply should not be played.
(Parenthetically, in the NHL, teams obviously play more than one game/week: 82 in the regular season which comprises some 26 weeks; at least 16 matches - one match every second day per round until one team has won four matches - in the playoffs for the 16 teams that go that far.)
Post a Comment