Selectors Name Ashes Squad, Debate Ensues.

This morning, Cricket Australia Chief Selector John Inverarity,

John Inverarity explained the "logic"
behind selections with a short term outlook.

on behalf of the the "National Selection Panel (NSP) announced the 16 man squad for the tour to England for this winter's Ashes series. Dan Brettig made the case a couple of days ago for picking elder statesmen from the Australian domestic scene who are tough, committed and reliable performers and who have gained experience playing in the UK, and it seems the NSP have listened. 
Many analysts and commentators have reluctantly supported the squad selection, while the British press are delighted with the selection, with odds for a 5-0 whitewash shortening since the announcement.  

Batsmen: Michael Clarke (c), Brad Haddin (vc),  Ed Cowan, Phil Hughes, Usman Khawaja, Chris Rogers,Matt Wade, David Warner, and Shane Watson 

Chris Rogers: my ideal candidate to open with Cowan

The inclusion of in form Chris Rogers is a great sign, a "horses for courses" selection policy is always risky,  but in Rogers, the NSP have selected an experienced player who knows and is comfortable in his technique and range of shots, knows the conditions through his years of county cricket and is hungry to add to his 1 test cap without being a newly minted debutant. Although Haddin is no doubt an experienced campaigner, his batting temperament has always been under question, as he is prone to withering under the pressure of quality swing bowling and being dismissed cheaply/softly after getting his "eye in". Although Hughes gained some experience of the conditions prior to the previous away Ashes, he is still vulnerable to quality swing bowling, while Warner, Khawaja, Wade and to some extent Watson, have all struggled against top quality swing and seam bowling. 

How much ever we would like to, we cannot recall Ponting and Hussey for a single series and we must trust in the best available players to perform at their peak in the conditions. 

Bowlers: Jackson Bird, James Faulkner, Ryan Harris,  Nathan Lyon, James Pattinson,  Peter Siddle, Mitchell Starc, 

The only surprise is the inclusion of James Faulkner and to a lesser extent Ryan Harris and the omissions of a second spinner, Ben Hilfenhaus and Mitchell Johnson.

Wicketkeepers: Brad Haddin (vc), Matt Wade.
Slightly surprised to see Paine not called up in the initial squad, while the "leadership" reasons for Haddin's call up are understandable, and his recent Bupa Shield form is promising and is hopefully indicative of a change in batting temperament.  

Leadership: 
Having overseen the disastrous tour of India where the side didn't win a session, let alone a game, and where once critical members of the squad were suspended for ill discipline and poor attitude.  Although Watson, Pattinson, Khawaja and Johnson were all identified as potential rotten apples in the cart, the NSP have thought it wise to include 3 of them in the squad for the arguably the most important and difficult tour of the year.  As a part of the press conference, Inverarity made some interesting remarks in regards to the process and thoughts behind certain selections and omissions. 

Haddin could be in the side as a specialist batsman.

"“You will immediately see that Brad Haddin has come in as vice-captain. The CA Board approved the NSP’s recommendation that Brad take up the vice-captaincy. As the case with the awarding of player contracts, Michael Clarke was not part of the decision to recommend Brad. Having said that, Michael absolutely supports the NSP and the Board’s decision to appoint Brad as the new vice-captain of the Test team.  It is a strange day in sport and leadership science when a non-regular team member can be elevated straight into a position of leadership. Yes, Haddin had been a regular for a long period before his years absence, but the dynamic of the team has no doubt changed in that period of time. I would also like to know just how enthusiastic Clarke is to have Haddin as his 2nd in command. "Absolutely supporting" a decision after it has been made is a political statement to keep the peace in the selection panel, and the veracity of that statement can only be verified by Clarke in the future. I remain skeptical of this "absolute support", as I think Clarke would rather have a younger member of the side take up the formal rank, while elder campaigners, who might not be in the side for the long term, support him from an informal advisory position, like Ponting and Hussey did for the last 18 months. 

“In regards to the vice-captaincy, we feel it’s important to have a senior, seasoned player support Michael at this time. When Shane Watson advised of his decision to stand down, the NSP viewed Brad as the exceptional candidate to step into this leadership void." 
The Shane Watson subplot to the fiasco in India posed many questions in regards to his cricketing worth, his personal characteristics & his leadership qualities. Seemingly rewarded for his ill-discipline in the early part of the Indian tour with the captaincy in the 4th Test, Watson's contributions on the field were woeful, scoring a series total 99 runs at 16.5 while not bowling, and this was after he had the temerity to put pressure on his fellow teammates my declaring himself to be the best opener in the squad but he would bat where required.
Upon returning to the tour, he led the side in a more aggressive performance from the side, with the players around him performing to a higher standard, though his own form did not improve. Having "taken the decision" to  step down from the vice-captaincy to focus on his form, a decision which I believe does more to highlight his own ego than show any humility or concern for team dynamics, (especially when he so emphatically insisted that it was purely his decision to stand down), I wonder if he does enough with as a pure batsman to warrant a place in the side.

Watson bowling is, at least for now, a thing of the past.

I have a theory that an all-rounder must be sufficiently skilled with both bat and ball to warrant a place in the side as an "individualist".  This means that an all-rounder should not get into the side if he is a top batsmen and but would fail to consistently take 10 wickets a series, or a top bowler but couldn't be relied upon to average 40 in most series.  The popular consensus is that a all-rounder does their job if they contribute with either bat or ball and its a bonus if they do so with both. However this is a false dichotomy, as I think sides that don't field an all-rounder but instead include another specialist have been successful throughout the history of cricket.

Given Watson's lack of reliable fitness to bowl prolonged or even short spell, I don't think the current Australian side can afford to carry him either as an all-rounder nor as a specialist batsman, when other options are available, both in terms of all-rounders ( Smith, Maxwell,Henriques, McDonald) or specialist batsmen (Doolan, Rogers,Bailey etc).


Wicket-keeping Situation:
 Upon re-reading the top quote from the previous section, no-where did Inverarity state that Haddin had the wicket-keeping sport secured, with the following line leaving things in a state of tension and uncertainty. “Matthew Wade is a very good cricketer and remains central to our plans for the future."  With Wade's inclusion in the squad, and with no real or clear insights given to the make up of the starting XI, it is not inconceivable that both Wade and Haddin could fit into the side, with one playing as a lower middle order batsman. 

As for the relatively small squad size, Inverarity gave hope to some of the Aussies playing in the British domestic circuit,"We’ll have approximately 30 players in England at the start of the northern summer and the NSP can add to the Ashes squad at any stage if the need arises."

Hopefully the NSP bring in some top performers from the county circuit to supplement the squad, and reward those in form instead of turning to old hands who are under performing. Otherwise, what is always a difficult tour will become another exercise in futility, and a tour to forget.

Ricky Ponting: Extraordinary Batsmen, Ordinary Captain.

Without wanting to seem disrespectful, Ricky Ponting's career needs a new spark. The composure, timing and technique on  display against India last week shows that although he's gone through a rough period form-wise, he still has the instincts and reflexes to play at the highest level. Having struggled against fast, short balls from Steyn, Morkel, Roach, Broad, Tremlett, Khan and Sharma in the last few years, he's acknowledged that he can no longer attempt to hook his way out of trouble as he did in his youth and has consequently become a safer, smarter batsmen.

If Ricky does decide to leave the post of captaincy, I don't foresee a quick nor quiet removal from the Test team, although the ODI team may look to rebuild in time for the Champions' Trophy and the next World Cup. Micheal Clarke, the bookmakers favourite, should be installed as the Captain of all 3 Australian Sides, and his careful handling of the up and coming spinners is a trait that will be a distinguishing factor between himself and Ponting. 


Although he has the highest winning percentage of any previous Australian Captain and oversaw  another 16 game winning streak, he benefited immensely from the presence and form of great players like Hayden, Langer, Martyn, Hussey, Gilchrist, Warne, McGrath & Lee, at the peak of their powers. He conducted most of his tactical tweaking in conference with Gilchrist, Warne and Hayden, which proved to be very successful, although the extent to which Ponting led or was directed is another matter all together.  Ponting couldn't win a series in India in 3 attempts, while Gilchrist made a few astute tactical changes to lead his side to a famous victory in what was considered the "Final Frontier".  Three Ashes series defeats sours the public's perception of him as a captain, but should not tarnish his reputation as  one of Australian Cricket's greatest ever batsmen.  

He may yet have an important part to play in the reestablishment of Australia as the world's preeminent side, as the Test side's anchoring batsmen, alongside young, up and coming batsmen.     

Exit fees are all they had.

With Wayne Swan looking to pass legislation to ban mortgage exit fees, one must contemplate what effects this will have on the retail mortgage market. If banks are no longer allowed to write in compensatory fees/fines for terminating their agreement, they will lose control of their mortgage portfolios. Customers will move from bank to bank in search of the best rate, terms and conditions and the banks themselves will be squeezed to the limit, with increased competition making it almost impossible for them to make any money from the business of lending money.

Consequentially, this will lead to a decrease in the number of loans the banks will be willing to write, which will put pressure on both the housing market and the wider economy as they will be even less willing to fund small business growth. The worst case scenario, however, is the creation of regulatory conditions that encourages collusive behaviour.  This would make the mortgage business similar to the retail petrol business, where prices are almost identical between competitors and fluctuations are synchronised so as to not lose customers to competitors.

Yes, collusion and anti-competitiveness is investigated by the ACCC and punishable by the courts, but building enough evidence to prove such behaviour is extremely difficult, as the Visy case showed. It is much better to maintain an environment that promotes competition and fairness, than try and deal with the problem after contributing to its creation. Instead of banning them completely, the government should be looking to regulate the size of exit fees, to make them proportional to the size of the loan, while also taking into account the socio-economic status of the mortgage holder. Otherwise, they'll be chasing the proverbial horse after unlocking the stables.

The Ties that Bind

The Importance of Maintaining Ancestral, Cultural and Religious Ties

If you don’t stand for anything, you’ll fall for everything. This succinctly sums up a problem faced by many people who have left their homeland in search of a better future. Many 1^st generation Indian migrants worry that their children and their children’s children will grow up without the traditional moral, cultural and religious platform that they acquired while growing up in India. One may wonder how a person could possibly lose touch with their ancestral and cultural heritage, in this age of global connectivity, web 2.0 and easy access to vast online resources.  But access to books online and the ability to email or Skype a relative pales in comparison to the ability to physically interact with like minded people, who are willing to share their experiences with those of a younger generation. This is what our parents fear they have deprived us of by moving overseas.

Maintaining the association of people of a good calibre, people with a good understanding of the world around us and with people of similar religious faith is no easy feat. Creating a network of like minded individuals with the freedom to discuss sometimes controversial philosophy in a non judgmental setting is an undertaking we have aimed to do. Although opinions can sometimes get heated, and ideals can just as easily set people apart, they can just as easily be brought closer together in the knowledge that there are others in the community who think and believe just as you do.

 Attending community religious and cultural events, and participating in voluntary service hosted by the various associations and clubs around Melbourne give all people the chance to congregate, socialize and have fun while participating in an activity that is mentally, spiritually and holistically fulfilling. It provides opportunities to contribute to society in ways we would not usually do routinely, and reveals facets to our own character we would have otherwise never discovered. 

A cliché riddled rant

the fact of the matter is thus: if the population truly cared about the impact they had on the people surrounding them, their physical surrounds and the  wider environment, they would be willing to compromise and sacrifice to find a viable solution to all of the planets human and natural challenges : Flood, famine, drought, obesity, fire, war, fear, financial distress, the list is almost endless. 
Stop the apportioning of blame, and start thinking of solutions and ways to implement them. There has to be a limit to the amount of time, effort, energy and money spent politicizing problems and point scoring for the sake of popularity, if any true reform is to be undertaken. Leaders must be able to think altruistically, and believe that they are doing the right thing for the future, irrespective of their standing in the polls. Knowledge, expertise, Foresight and insight: we must allow those who have these qualities to have their voices heard, and their ideas publicised, as revolution can be just as important as evolution. If we allow populist opinion to run our nation, and consequently run the world, the human tendency to stagnate, to fear and resist change will overcome our basal tendency to live long and prosper, sometimes, we have to be the change we want to see in the world, there's no point waiting for the world to change, not when the people changing it currently are making it worse, if the people with power can't handle the responsibility, maybe its time to transfer the power.  

Expensive, Expanding and about to Explode.

Next step, living in the Bay? 

The decision made last month by the Victorian State parliament to expand the metropolitan urban boundaries, (from the current yellow to include the brown pockets) has been taken without any thought for the future of our fair city.  

Already struggling under the demands placed upon it by over 4million people, Melbourne's vital infrastructure and public services will be stretched beyond capacity if more people are accommodated further away from the city's centre.

Now I'm all for having more people live in Melbourne, and in Australia in general, but it must be regulated to fit the needs of Australia's developing economy. Given the size of our land, the  number of people occupying it and the relative abundance of our natural resources, Australia's economy is operating well below its capabilities. Broadly speaking, many foreigners are amazed at the size of our continent, and the small number of people making use of it. The skill set required for our country to grow into a true world "player" must be actively sought out by government schemes, while encouraging those in the corporate sector to bring foreigners here who will add to the country,  economically, socially and culturally.

A typical Melbourne Traffic jam, rendering the speed limit useless.

Melbourne is a vibrant, cultural city, it is known world wide for being one of the most "liveable" cities, and is arguably the sporting capital of the world. However, there is only so much people can afford to pay as a premium because of these advantages. The day to day practicalities, however, make this city a nightmare for the commuting public, as patrons have to wait in cramped sardine cans on the late trains, or in banks of traffic that don't seem to dissipate until after the time at which you were meant to be at work.

Melbourne Train System

 A small and unscientific analysis of three cities, Melbourne, London and New York City, sheds light on the long term planning that didn't take place. In terms of population size, New York City holds about .4 million more people than London, with the British capital holding just under 8mil. Melbourne holds under half that, with our population currently hovering around 4 million.
In terms of physical land size, Melbourne, in square kilometres, completely blows New York and London out of the park, with its area totalling 8806sq.km, London in second at 1706.8sq.km and NYC relatively small at 1214.4sq.km.

Greater London Trains- Underground and Above-ground systems

 Counter-intuitively, the young city of Melbourne has by far the worst public rail system. Established and settled in  1835, Melbourne should have been able to build upon years of established technology and engineering experience gained from other cities established around the world. London was established by the Romans in 43AD, and New York in 1624. True, technological advances were relatively few and far between. The City of London began work on its first subterranean railway in the 1850s, with it becoming operational in 1863, it now incorporates 270 stations in its network.

New York's rail network is much more extensive, with  24 lines connecting 468 stations and the ability to carry over 5 million passengers per weekday. It began service in 1904, which begs the question, why didn't Melbourne's planners think long term and build for the future. One common feature of the New York and London system, is that they do not incorporate a central hub to which each and every train must pass, although there are areas of increased connectivity and no doubt activity.
Having greater connectivity and no central hub, makes it easier for people who have no need to enter the congested zones, get to their destinations. The ability to get from home to work, or from Frankston to Clayton, without having to catch 1 train and 2 buses, or 2 different trains and a bus etc.
The improvements required for the upgrading of Melbourne's rail network towards a modern, efficient, user friendly system, will require a lot of planning, international consultation, expertise and last but not least, foresight and a vested interest in making Melbourne a better city.

We can undoubtedly make Melbourne more attractive to the rest of the world by improving our public transport, but if we want to preserve our unique lifestyle and make it easier for families to live and grow, we must accept the need to become an economy of scale. To allow for more people, we must also recognize and accept the fact that living habits must change, and that some luxuries currently afforded to most of the population, must be sacrificed if we are to maintain financial prosperity.  Many of the houses built in the late 50s and 60s are medium sized, well built homes that lie on massive amounts of  unused garden space(see left). However, the structure of our modern society is such that most gardens go under used and under appreciated, with more and more people flocking to public gardens and parks to meet friends and conduct various recreational activities. So what purpose do expansive areas of grass, weeds and plants serve? Gone are the days in which children played with their friends in an unstructured manner.More kids are enrolled in after school care programs and are involved in club sports, martial arts, swimming, dance, drama and gymnastics than ever before; activities meant to add structure to children's lives and developing their all round skills.This is also symptomatic of the work/life balance afforded to their parents, who would rather spend money enrolling their kids in such activities than spending personal time with them. The amount of time they spend in their own front or back yard with their kids is lower than ever before, and its not something working families are willing to change.

So the main advantage of owning land along with a house, is prestige. But what value do people place on owning land that they do not use? Wouldn't they benefit more from selling their land and obtaining cash for it? would Melbourne as a city, not be better off if people capitalized from the land that they own by developing upwards? If we were to sacrifice our front and back yards, build longer and wider, single story houses, developing second and third stories  would generate revenue for land owners, and easily accommodate the predicted population increase

Harry Brown & the Superhero Vigilante Complex.

Harry Brown is not your everyday vigilante super hero movie. Nor is it a character study of a man at the end of his tether, frustrated at the lawless ways of London's "Estate" and the impotence of the police. It is a thrilling depiction of the potential held by normal citizens to "do what must be done" and to "be the change you want to see in the world".  Although it does portray the title character as a hero, we question his methods even if we sympathize with his plight and accept his motives as pure. Director Daniel Barber shoots some tremendously gruesome scenes, with both the opening sequence and the finale depicting horrific, bloody deaths.

Harry Brown shows the depths to which an essentially good man will sink to regain a sense of normalcy. A former Royal Marine with repressed memories of past military activity, Brown seeks to eliminate the threat posed by the local youth gang by out thinking them and by operating alone, as no one believes a man of his  advanced years would be capable of revenge, let alone murder.

This quality film provokes debate amongst its viewers, as it leaves them in a state of limbo, neither barracking for or against the protagonist Harry Brown, whose actions are quietly accepted but not acknowledged by the police.The final scene, wherein the chief of police denies any vigilante involvement and takes all the credit for himself, indicates that Brown  has escaped the rule of the law, and has been granted immunity for his actions. Just like other super heroes, who take the law into their own hands to do what "they feel" is right, Brown acts in a selfish manner to gain revenge over the death of his close friend, which he rationalizes as "doing the public a service", by helping to 'clean up the streets'.

Just as Batman and Spiderman pursue 'wrongdoers' in the name of justice, Brown acts with neither mandate nor method. Acting on instinct and impulse, Brown skirts the police as he takes action against those he has a problem with. Just as Bruce Wayne sought revenge for the brutal murder of his parents, and Peter Parker took revenge upon the man that killed his Uncle, Harry only takes action once he has personally been affected by the "estate gangs". The principle difference between vigilantes and authorized officers of the law is without doubt the emotional connection the vigilante feels towards the victim. Being emotionally driven to take action, however, is not always a good thing, as the decision making process of the vigilante is compromised by the grief and their actions are driven by hatred. Even though the police may be hamstrung by onerous laws which demand proof beyond reasonable doubt, their is still no good reason for people to take the law into their own hands.  
   
The Age Review 1
The Age Review 2