Well, as most of you probably know by now, the Australian selector to get the axe is Merv Hughes.
Is it unfair that he has to go? In a way, I think so yes. As far as I know, the Australian Selectors Committee is —that's right — a committee; a group collectively responsible for selections. Like the Three Musketeers, it should be all for one and one for all: the entire panel — with the possible exception of Greg Chappell who's been a selector for like 5 seconds — should have done the right thing and resigned: considering the amount of talent in Australian cricket, it's an absolute bloody disgrace that we're now the #5 Test nation in the world.
Yes, of course, it's down to the individual players to perform. But when they don't — and they haven't — it is the task of the selectors to bring in a new guard. Wholesale, if necessary. But the selectors did not. And they should bear the full responsibility for that. Which, at the moment, they don't. They're sitting pretty. Well, except for Merv Hughes.
UPDATE: Link to the post, The Demise of the 'Tache, Sidthegnomenator refers to in comments.
2 Comments:
Yeah, it's been a while since Merv was sitting pretty. He still loving that 'tache.
By the way, link back to you on the Dustbin.
Why can't I make that a link, btw? This comment page won't accept the html.
Merv's 'tache not pretty enough for you?! Tsk, tsk, you're a hard woman to please.
Thanks for the link.
I have no idea why the comment page won't accept links; have to ask Poshin.
Post a Comment
Read not to contradict and confute, nor to believe and take for granted but to weigh and consider.
- Francis Bacon