Form is a myth(-worma)
So says Hayden.
Read on. Also cites the case of Martyn
Now only if the selectors realised it(I'm still waiting for them to admit the mistake, although since its Aus selectors, and with their pool of new talent, not holding my breath). Hayden also offers this retort to the critics of Aussie's Ashes campaign performance
Makes it sound simple, doesn't he? I'm still thinking about the catch in this one, though :-)
"And form is a myth, it's dealing with information gathered in hindsight. You just don't lose talent."
Read on. Also cites the case of Martyn
Hayden rates Martyn as "the best player I have ever seen, technically" and claims there is nothing the West Australian should do to change the way he plays. Nor is there any point in him piling on the runs at domestic level.
Now only if the selectors realised it(I'm still waiting for them to admit the mistake, although since its Aus selectors, and with their pool of new talent, not holding my breath). Hayden also offers this retort to the critics of Aussie's Ashes campaign performance
The 34-year-old takes the view that professional cricketers are tradespeople undertaking specialist work. And he wonders aloud whether other employees who put in a couple of sub-par weeks at the workplace would suddenly have their previous contributions forgotten amid pressure for their careers to be terminated.
Makes it sound simple, doesn't he? I'm still thinking about the catch in this one, though :-)
posted by worma at
8:31 AM
7 Comments:
criclogic: there are other fields in which employees are paid absurd amounts :-) but still judging the best-in-his-area on one bad deal is too harsh. And ironically, the CEO in this case survived...as did the Chairman (Ponting and Buchanan)
By
worma, at 09:26
yeah...Martyn was in the middle of a dream season when he came across the English!
By
worma, at 09:49
tffy, I'm still looking for the catch...but unfortunately the catch you mention is not *it*. There are other positions in the world that are more competitive than this! Heck even a top job in India is more competitive than this....if you compare the number of eligible candidates for that position. Or take a global example...do you think a top engineer in microsoft....or a top executive in apple...those are not highly competitive? Just calculate how many cricketers play in Aus at state level....and compare that with how many engineers are potentially eligible for that microsoft job?
By
worma, at 15:08
jiet, I think Hayden must've meant in the Aus team..or someone he has seen closely?
By
worma, at 15:48
OK....looks like I've figured out the catch.....I think the catch is that these cricketers (and indeed all sportsperson in similar roles) are not just paid professionals....but they also have an element of 'public duty' or 'public office' attached to their roles. I say only an 'element' of that....because its not exactly a public office role....but since they are sort of representatives of the country, even in a symbolic way, hence this additional element.
And we all know that in public office not all aspects of 'paid professionals' apply. Sometimes things have to be done to 'show' action to the public....sometimes to bring back trust of the people....for example a railway minister resigning on moral grounds in the case of a huge train crash...that kind of thing.
By
worma, at 16:41
To go by his reasoning,the retirement age for a professional cricketer is about 35.In that case he about 58 years old if he was working in a different profession.It is natural that his employers are looking for his successor.While making his arguement he merely forgot that cricketers age in dog years!
By
retroauro, at 17:18
criclogic....but in the entertainment industry its the public (or the actual consumers) who are 'rejecting' a star...so its all economic...if he's not making money for his investors (producer etc) that means public is not consuming enough...then he goes out. Simple?
In case of crickters theres no exact way of measuring the consumer power (although that force does act to some extent, but not too much. Esp not with CA :-)
But I dont agree with your economic reasoning. As I said earlier...I think there are many other top jobs where the demand of personnel is much lower than the supply (of eligible candidates) if you simply go by the ratios. For example....here its only 11 out of 50-70 cricketers, right? While a top executive job may have thousands (or hundreds of thousands) eligible candidates. No?
By
worma, at 03:10
Post a Comment
<< Home