At a mate's birthday party today, we talked briefly about how far the federal Liberal party ranks have fallen. They've gone from hero to zero in a couple of years. It really is quite astounding.
We talked about how it is such a shame that Costello never became PM, that he would have made a great leader, and perfect on the domestic and world stage during this economic crisis.
It got me thinking that a lot of focus goes into Howard's unwillingness to hand the batten to Costello in an orderly leadership transition, but that perhaps there should be more discussion about how much damage Howard has caused the broader party by not doing so.
In the Howard Year's documentary Howard could hardly hide the personal motivation behind not giving Costello the leadership...nobody ever handed it to him so why should he give it to Pete? That was pretty much the thrust of Howard's thinking.
History now shows that by not planning an orderly transition to Costello, running a lacklustre, boring and uninspiring campaign (he looked asleep half the time as he sent us into trance with his "Who do you trust?" questions) Howard set on course a devastation of the senior ranks of the party, to leave the party reeling and unlikely to be really in the contest for another 2 elections. Howard's argument that the benches wanted him to stay is no excuse. He and the senior echelon of the party should have planned the transition and made it clear when the time had come that this was the best thing for the party. The back benches don't really have a say if a leader decides to leave for the good of the party. Howard had a call and he didn't make it.
Howard's mistake cannot be registered as minor amongst a decade-plus of government achievements. It was a massive error of judgment and made worse by the personal bitterness that underpinned it.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
Wallabies Spring Tour Predictions
Originally making my predictions pre-Barnes injury, I've been forced to revise...
Time to record my predictions for the upcoming Spring Tour. Focusing on the Tests only:
All Blacks at Tokyo
The Wallabies should have won last year in Hong Kong. Awful refereeing cost them that game. This year the match up will be very close, with the difference being that the Wallabies front row is on fire, and Elsom will be completly fit now. HOWEVER, having originally picked the Wallabies I now don't think they will be able to overcome the loss of Barnes only a few days before the game. My pick now is the AB's by 9.
England at Twickenham
The Wallabies will have too much balance across the park and will have their second easist victory of the entire tour. Wallabies by 15.
Ireland at Croke Park
Croke Park and referee Jonathon Kaplan. Big factors in this game. The Aussies will struggle against a well organised and pumped up Irish outfit. Ireland by 8.
Scotland at Murrayfield
An easy win for the Wallabies, by 20.
Wales at Cardiff Arms
The Wallabies will be desperate to get a third win for the entire tour. Will be really tough match but the Aussies will be in a groove by this game. Wallabies by 6.
Unfortunately, no grand slam for this team this time around. 3 wins from 5 tests will be claimed as a satisfactory result.
World Cup winning teams tend to build their competitiveness well and truly before the actual WC year, so the Wallabies need to be winning next year's Tri Nations to be on track to win the WC in 2011.
Time to record my predictions for the upcoming Spring Tour. Focusing on the Tests only:
All Blacks at Tokyo
The Wallabies should have won last year in Hong Kong. Awful refereeing cost them that game. This year the match up will be very close, with the difference being that the Wallabies front row is on fire, and Elsom will be completly fit now. HOWEVER, having originally picked the Wallabies I now don't think they will be able to overcome the loss of Barnes only a few days before the game. My pick now is the AB's by 9.
England at Twickenham
The Wallabies will have too much balance across the park and will have their second easist victory of the entire tour. Wallabies by 15.
Ireland at Croke Park
Croke Park and referee Jonathon Kaplan. Big factors in this game. The Aussies will struggle against a well organised and pumped up Irish outfit. Ireland by 8.
Scotland at Murrayfield
An easy win for the Wallabies, by 20.
Wales at Cardiff Arms
The Wallabies will be desperate to get a third win for the entire tour. Will be really tough match but the Aussies will be in a groove by this game. Wallabies by 6.
Unfortunately, no grand slam for this team this time around. 3 wins from 5 tests will be claimed as a satisfactory result.
World Cup winning teams tend to build their competitiveness well and truly before the actual WC year, so the Wallabies need to be winning next year's Tri Nations to be on track to win the WC in 2011.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Hasbeens Match Report 19 Oct 09
It will be recorded in history as one of the great arm-wrestles of the modern touch footy era. Played in conditions that would rival the average game of touch on a normal Icelandic afternoon in winter, or the dark side of the moon (i.e. no light), the Hasbeens succumbed to a deluge of bad ref calls and dubious sportsmanship.
Forever to be remembered as a hit only bettered by the Fuifui Moimoi-Ben Hannant clash of the 2009 NRL final, our very own Adam Connolly put a major one on his esteemed team mate Dave Ekins. Remarkably to all watching and to Ekins himself, he (Ekins) was back on his feet within minutes, and went on later to score a brilliant solo try, skirting the left sideline with his inimitable high-stepping style. ASADA drug testers have been notified.
No doubt, Connolly's step back into Ekins surprised not only Ekins but also Connolly. The grip on his new white as white shoes, marked with an X, as in "X for Xavier the red Vespa rider in the pink shirt" propelled him in new directions at such speed he really had no idea where he was going. At one point, neither did the defence, as Xavier saw a gaping hole and went straight through to open the Hasbeens tally for the evening. He later commented that it "was like taking corn from a blind parrot".
Other highlights included Sammy "Raging Bull" Turnbull's hit on the opposing team's 'captain of dickhead-ness', a fellow of loathsome character who had a habit of calling out where he was going to pass the ball, in the futile hope that the Hasbeens would fall for his "oral dummy". The Hasbeens might be slow, old, decrepid, unfit, tactically moronic and lacking ball skills...but we didn't come down in the last shower sonny jim.
Loathsome-oral-dummy-thrower only scored 2 tries and put 3 others on, in a quiet night for a man of his immense skill, or rather, general 'immensity' (read, large, polyester shorts, with... dare I say... a bloody Wallabies logo on them. Fair dinkum, we are so desperate for supporters in rugby we'll let any dickhead become a fan these days).
The Hasbeens' followers were devastated by the one-eyed calls given all night by the 'referee'. He seemed like an ok bloke, but he was clearly on the payroll of one of the opponent's illegal brothels or meth labs.
The Hasbeens will re-group, having made their complaints known to the referee's review panel, and intend to put some more hits on in future weeks.
Upcoming reports will contain mentions of other players once I learn their names...
Forever to be remembered as a hit only bettered by the Fuifui Moimoi-Ben Hannant clash of the 2009 NRL final, our very own Adam Connolly put a major one on his esteemed team mate Dave Ekins. Remarkably to all watching and to Ekins himself, he (Ekins) was back on his feet within minutes, and went on later to score a brilliant solo try, skirting the left sideline with his inimitable high-stepping style. ASADA drug testers have been notified.
No doubt, Connolly's step back into Ekins surprised not only Ekins but also Connolly. The grip on his new white as white shoes, marked with an X, as in "X for Xavier the red Vespa rider in the pink shirt" propelled him in new directions at such speed he really had no idea where he was going. At one point, neither did the defence, as Xavier saw a gaping hole and went straight through to open the Hasbeens tally for the evening. He later commented that it "was like taking corn from a blind parrot".
Other highlights included Sammy "Raging Bull" Turnbull's hit on the opposing team's 'captain of dickhead-ness', a fellow of loathsome character who had a habit of calling out where he was going to pass the ball, in the futile hope that the Hasbeens would fall for his "oral dummy". The Hasbeens might be slow, old, decrepid, unfit, tactically moronic and lacking ball skills...but we didn't come down in the last shower sonny jim.
Loathsome-oral-dummy-thrower only scored 2 tries and put 3 others on, in a quiet night for a man of his immense skill, or rather, general 'immensity' (read, large, polyester shorts, with... dare I say... a bloody Wallabies logo on them. Fair dinkum, we are so desperate for supporters in rugby we'll let any dickhead become a fan these days).
The Hasbeens' followers were devastated by the one-eyed calls given all night by the 'referee'. He seemed like an ok bloke, but he was clearly on the payroll of one of the opponent's illegal brothels or meth labs.
The Hasbeens will re-group, having made their complaints known to the referee's review panel, and intend to put some more hits on in future weeks.
Upcoming reports will contain mentions of other players once I learn their names...
Monday, October 19, 2009
Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize
Come on, give me a break. The Nobel Peace Prize as a form of 'encouragement'. When I received the "Encouragement Award" for Under12B's rugby, I knew the award meant "you tried really hard but didn't really do anything amazing". Given there was no C team to be dropped to, I guess they were left with no choice but to encourage the guys who weren't stars.
The lack of any particular rigour around the criteria to receive the Nobel Peace Prize makes the decision each year a bit arbitrary. Christopher Hitchens gets stuck right in for his Newsweek article this week. Not that I have much time for that goose who can write well but on this occasion he makes a good argument that this is a virtual prize, given Obama hasn't actually achieved anything.
I'm in that camp. The award to Obama is a mistake. It's damaged the Nobel brand. Alfred would be turning in his dynamite crater.
The lack of any particular rigour around the criteria to receive the Nobel Peace Prize makes the decision each year a bit arbitrary. Christopher Hitchens gets stuck right in for his Newsweek article this week. Not that I have much time for that goose who can write well but on this occasion he makes a good argument that this is a virtual prize, given Obama hasn't actually achieved anything.
I'm in that camp. The award to Obama is a mistake. It's damaged the Nobel brand. Alfred would be turning in his dynamite crater.
Joe Hockey, Future PM
Cruising the back aisles of Bunnings Artarmon on Saturday, Audrey and Drew in tow (sort of), I ran into one of Australia's future PM's, Joe Hockey. Labelled "Sloppy Joe" by the once hopeless, and now apparently formidable, Labour front bench, Joe was indeed looking like any normal Dad on a Saturday morning...joggers, shorts and... wait for it... a sloppy joe. I don't think he intended the visual pun.
I had a quick chat with Joe, asking him how his walk up Kili was. "Tiring" he said. Frankly, it did look as though he'd literally just flown in. I thought later about how hard these pollies work. All the long hours without decent breaks. And the constant need to be 'mentally up', when the media lurk at any turn, would wear any of us down.
Being a bit of a political buff, I'll henceforth unweild my views on Joe's future. I know he reads my blog avidly ;) so I hope to do his future the justice it deserves.
There is nothing to be gained by Hockey taking on the liberal leadership for at least 3 more years. From a family perspective, seeing him saunter around Bunnings with his young child reminded me that there is an immeasurable toll politicians pay by taking on the top job. Hockey's kids need him around as much as possible in these formative young years and I think he should put their early child development ahead of political ambition in the short to medium term.
Regardless of whether that first point is valid or not, Hockey can only lose and not gain, from being the Leader of the Opposition for at least one more electoral term. He would be foolish to take on the leadership now even if it was thrust on him by Turnbull retiring from the post or from politics altogether (unlikely, given Turnbull's belief that one day being PM is his destiny). To do so would leave him exposed to exactly the same cyclical issues that Turnbull is facing and Nelson faced. Rudd's approval rating (I dare not say 'popularity', as nobody really likes him) is unlikely to drop much in the next couple of years. He's dodged a bullet with the economy, has no looming wars to get him into trouble, and is well tapped into the mindset of the average Australian (i.e.tapped in via polls) evidenced by his recent (apparently unsolicited) admission that he whacked his kids. (What a crock of a news story). Did Rudd wake up one morning, realise it was a slow news day and decide this would be an interesting revelation for a nation starved of Rudd-ness because of his recent lay-up on the sick bed??
Anyway I digress. Back to Joe. He's so young to be so prominent and there's little chance he won't be PM one day. It's really a case of biding his time. Unfortunately, so many pollies just don't seem able to do this (Costello aside). I reckon he needs to back himself to one day be the right guy, for the right time. Now is simply not the right time. The Libs would be better off leaving Turnbull to recover in the polls somewhat and see how he does in an election campaign. He won't win, but I think he'll do a damn good job, through his energy and gift of the gab. If there is anyone who can go toe to toe with Rudd in the debates, and who can draw viewers to the screen each night during the election it will be Turnbull. Turnbull suffers from coming across a bit like a pratt at times but he is charismatic. (He needs to get out to Bunnings more). I totally disagree with this view going around Canberra that the email affair has made Turnbull's leadership terminal. That is plain BS. The Australian public forget easily, and by 2010 we'll be thinking about a whole new range of issues, such as the confusion in our lives from the new ETS.
Joe should continue to publicly, privately, and strongly back Turnbull and genuinely work the benches for united support of Turnbull. This will allow Turnbull to stay in the role past the next, lost, election, and position Hockey to take up the role in about 3 years time. Ideally, actually, he would be better off waiting 6 years, as the Coalition cannot win the next two elections. Turnbull can do 3 of those years and two others (Abbott deserves a go) can do the remainder. Hockey can then 'do a Rudd' and finally assume his position at the time when the cycle has turned against the current PM. All competence aside, Australians will tire of Rudd (thankfully), as they have all long-serving leaders before. But its going to take some time Joe...
I had a quick chat with Joe, asking him how his walk up Kili was. "Tiring" he said. Frankly, it did look as though he'd literally just flown in. I thought later about how hard these pollies work. All the long hours without decent breaks. And the constant need to be 'mentally up', when the media lurk at any turn, would wear any of us down.
Being a bit of a political buff, I'll henceforth unweild my views on Joe's future. I know he reads my blog avidly ;) so I hope to do his future the justice it deserves.
There is nothing to be gained by Hockey taking on the liberal leadership for at least 3 more years. From a family perspective, seeing him saunter around Bunnings with his young child reminded me that there is an immeasurable toll politicians pay by taking on the top job. Hockey's kids need him around as much as possible in these formative young years and I think he should put their early child development ahead of political ambition in the short to medium term.
Regardless of whether that first point is valid or not, Hockey can only lose and not gain, from being the Leader of the Opposition for at least one more electoral term. He would be foolish to take on the leadership now even if it was thrust on him by Turnbull retiring from the post or from politics altogether (unlikely, given Turnbull's belief that one day being PM is his destiny). To do so would leave him exposed to exactly the same cyclical issues that Turnbull is facing and Nelson faced. Rudd's approval rating (I dare not say 'popularity', as nobody really likes him) is unlikely to drop much in the next couple of years. He's dodged a bullet with the economy, has no looming wars to get him into trouble, and is well tapped into the mindset of the average Australian (i.e.tapped in via polls) evidenced by his recent (apparently unsolicited) admission that he whacked his kids. (What a crock of a news story). Did Rudd wake up one morning, realise it was a slow news day and decide this would be an interesting revelation for a nation starved of Rudd-ness because of his recent lay-up on the sick bed??
Anyway I digress. Back to Joe. He's so young to be so prominent and there's little chance he won't be PM one day. It's really a case of biding his time. Unfortunately, so many pollies just don't seem able to do this (Costello aside). I reckon he needs to back himself to one day be the right guy, for the right time. Now is simply not the right time. The Libs would be better off leaving Turnbull to recover in the polls somewhat and see how he does in an election campaign. He won't win, but I think he'll do a damn good job, through his energy and gift of the gab. If there is anyone who can go toe to toe with Rudd in the debates, and who can draw viewers to the screen each night during the election it will be Turnbull. Turnbull suffers from coming across a bit like a pratt at times but he is charismatic. (He needs to get out to Bunnings more). I totally disagree with this view going around Canberra that the email affair has made Turnbull's leadership terminal. That is plain BS. The Australian public forget easily, and by 2010 we'll be thinking about a whole new range of issues, such as the confusion in our lives from the new ETS.
Joe should continue to publicly, privately, and strongly back Turnbull and genuinely work the benches for united support of Turnbull. This will allow Turnbull to stay in the role past the next, lost, election, and position Hockey to take up the role in about 3 years time. Ideally, actually, he would be better off waiting 6 years, as the Coalition cannot win the next two elections. Turnbull can do 3 of those years and two others (Abbott deserves a go) can do the remainder. Hockey can then 'do a Rudd' and finally assume his position at the time when the cycle has turned against the current PM. All competence aside, Australians will tire of Rudd (thankfully), as they have all long-serving leaders before. But its going to take some time Joe...
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Elsom as Captain of the Wallabies
For some time I've been telling anyone that would listen that the Wallabies needed a forward, or halfback, captain. Mortlock is an inspiring player and leader but this one fact tells the story: every World Cup winning team has had a halfback or forward as captain:
87: Kirk (halfback)
91: Farr-Jones (halfback)
95: Pienaar (flanker)
99: Eales (lock)
03: Johnston (lock)
07: Smit (hooker)
11: Elsom (flanker)
15: Genia (halfback)
I think the issue is that so many infringements arise from the breakdown, so the referee spends most of their time at that spot. The captain needs to be able to influence the referee and that means being close to the action. I reckon the perfect position for captain is halfback, because they are right there, but aren't caught at the bottom of the ruck too often. They are usually also very good at nagging the referee! But Australia doesn't have an experienced half at the moment. Elsom will do a good job, and we certainly need it.
87: Kirk (halfback)
91: Farr-Jones (halfback)
95: Pienaar (flanker)
99: Eales (lock)
03: Johnston (lock)
07: Smit (hooker)
11: Elsom (flanker)
15: Genia (halfback)
I think the issue is that so many infringements arise from the breakdown, so the referee spends most of their time at that spot. The captain needs to be able to influence the referee and that means being close to the action. I reckon the perfect position for captain is halfback, because they are right there, but aren't caught at the bottom of the ruck too often. They are usually also very good at nagging the referee! But Australia doesn't have an experienced half at the moment. Elsom will do a good job, and we certainly need it.
Cricket...confused formats
The Aussie cricket team recently lost the Ashes and went on the win the Champions Trophy, and the latter hardly registered a blip in Australia. Warnie is right when he says that 50 over cricket is dead. With the advent of Twenty20 the one-day game is now a complete snore. The sooner the ICC moves on the better. But T20 isn't that much of a game really. It suffers from a systemic issue in that if one team gets a very good score on the board its really difficult to chase. If the chase team gets in trouble its pretty much over. So the 'spectacle' is lost, and at that point the raison detre of T20 isnt' being fulfilled (and the crowd needs to focus on the boundary dancers to feel like they are getting their money's worth!)
As a bloke who grew up in the heyday of Lillee/Marsh/Chappell/Thomson (and Lenny Pascoe of course), I'm much more a fan of the 5 day game. Unique in its tardiness to complete, Test Cricket isn't a game of fast gratification. What I love about it most is its role in our culture: that for the 5 days when a test is on, people from all walks of life are bonded together through the need to go about our daily lives and still stay abreast of the progress of the game. It gives us something more interesting than "gee, its hot outside isn't it?!" as the ice-breaker when we get in the lift or the taxi. Besides that, in a world where everything seems to be instantaneous and short-lived, there is something incredibly gratifying in watching a batsman toil all day to produce 100 test runs.
The cricketers themselves love the 5-day game far more than the other forms. A T20 specialist will never be a 'real Aussie cricketer' because he hasn't worn the baggy green. It would be like having a form of baseball with one innings each (actually on a ratio basis it would only be 0.31 of an innings each) and the players being considered 'real major league ball players'. Ummm... nup. Unfortunately though, Test Cricket seems to be waning in popularity. Other than us playing the Poms or the Proteas (at home) there isn't a huge amount of interest in the game like there used to be (especially when the Windies were such a powerhouse in the 80's). Luckily, the Poms won the recent Ashes. The entire next series, back here in Oz, will be a sell out.
So, none of the three formats seem, in my view, to be close to perfect. Test Cricket will always stay, and so it should (despite a continual decline in public interest, especially if the popularity of cricket in England is anything to go by), but the other two formats, without a long heritage and already used to being 'tinkered with' need to be reviewed and somehow blended. I don't know how but there have been some suggestions like: (a) two inning's each of 20 overs, with the entire lineup batting twice; or (b) varying the length to say 30, 35 or 40 over innings. Personally, I'd like to see both forms merged into one 35-over crunch fest, with both teams allowed to nominate 2 already-out batsmen to return to the crease if all wickets fall. This would allow lower-order hitters to take even more risks, knowing that they have 2 top order batters to return. Of course, it would mean weaker batters would throw their wickets toward the end, but so what, if they are trying to hit boundaries. Frankly, it wasn't that fun watching Glenn McGrath try to get bat on ball at the end of an innings.
Ultimately, I think that international players can reasonably only handle the demands of 2 formats. T20 is presently seen as a 'bit of fun' and a major cash earner for those contracted to the IPL, but the ICC needs to be very concerned with the impacts it is having on 50-over cricket. They should be, if a fan like me is anything to go by.
As a bloke who grew up in the heyday of Lillee/Marsh/Chappell/Thomson (and Lenny Pascoe of course), I'm much more a fan of the 5 day game. Unique in its tardiness to complete, Test Cricket isn't a game of fast gratification. What I love about it most is its role in our culture: that for the 5 days when a test is on, people from all walks of life are bonded together through the need to go about our daily lives and still stay abreast of the progress of the game. It gives us something more interesting than "gee, its hot outside isn't it?!" as the ice-breaker when we get in the lift or the taxi. Besides that, in a world where everything seems to be instantaneous and short-lived, there is something incredibly gratifying in watching a batsman toil all day to produce 100 test runs.
The cricketers themselves love the 5-day game far more than the other forms. A T20 specialist will never be a 'real Aussie cricketer' because he hasn't worn the baggy green. It would be like having a form of baseball with one innings each (actually on a ratio basis it would only be 0.31 of an innings each) and the players being considered 'real major league ball players'. Ummm... nup. Unfortunately though, Test Cricket seems to be waning in popularity. Other than us playing the Poms or the Proteas (at home) there isn't a huge amount of interest in the game like there used to be (especially when the Windies were such a powerhouse in the 80's). Luckily, the Poms won the recent Ashes. The entire next series, back here in Oz, will be a sell out.
So, none of the three formats seem, in my view, to be close to perfect. Test Cricket will always stay, and so it should (despite a continual decline in public interest, especially if the popularity of cricket in England is anything to go by), but the other two formats, without a long heritage and already used to being 'tinkered with' need to be reviewed and somehow blended. I don't know how but there have been some suggestions like: (a) two inning's each of 20 overs, with the entire lineup batting twice; or (b) varying the length to say 30, 35 or 40 over innings. Personally, I'd like to see both forms merged into one 35-over crunch fest, with both teams allowed to nominate 2 already-out batsmen to return to the crease if all wickets fall. This would allow lower-order hitters to take even more risks, knowing that they have 2 top order batters to return. Of course, it would mean weaker batters would throw their wickets toward the end, but so what, if they are trying to hit boundaries. Frankly, it wasn't that fun watching Glenn McGrath try to get bat on ball at the end of an innings.
Ultimately, I think that international players can reasonably only handle the demands of 2 formats. T20 is presently seen as a 'bit of fun' and a major cash earner for those contracted to the IPL, but the ICC needs to be very concerned with the impacts it is having on 50-over cricket. They should be, if a fan like me is anything to go by.
Up and away
I decided to get online with my very own personal blog. Those that know me realise I have a few opinions occasionally (!) so what better outlet to express them than from my blog. But I also thought this could be a really useful sort of 'diary' that I might enjoy reading back on in future years. My burgeoning brood of kids might find it interesting, or not, as well.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
