Independence of CA's review slammed

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/cricket-australia-review-likened-to-banking-royal-commission-20180510-p4zeip.html

Think Flaming Bailers knew this some time ago.

Here is it:

https://www.cricketaustralia.com.au/media/media-releases/cricket-australia-releases-player-and-independent-organisational-reviews/2018-10-29


Of course those qunts at CA show their true colours:

RECOMMENDATION #17

Members of Australian Test and One Day teams be excused from playing International T20 cricket to the extent necessary for them to play Sheffield Shield and Grade cricket as per recommendation 16 (above). [that is, to play 2 Shield and 1 Grade match per season]

CURRENT STATUS

This recommendation assumes that International T20 competition is of lesser importance.

CA remains committed to the primacy of international cricket – in all three forms – and notes the increasing importance of T20 Internationals with a T20 World Cup every two years.

There are also broadcast and sponsor obligations that prevent this recommendation.

CA RESPONSE

This recommendation is not accepted.

CA will continue to select the best available team for International Cricket taking into account CA’s selection policy and the Players’ Pact, including T20 Internationals.

CA is despicable trash. After 17 Years asleep at the wheel, Sutherland claims Babel as his big success. Babel has proved a disaster for the Shield and development of younger players.

horace wrote:CA is despicable trash. After 17 Years asleep at the wheel, Sutherland claims Babel as his big success. Babel has proved a disaster for the Shield and development of younger players.

JS also appointed Howard who has been shredded in the report.

*Apparently only 24% of players completed the survey aspect of the review.

Probably because they were all shit scared to say what they really think.

JGK wrote:*Apparently only 24% of players completed the survey aspect of the review.

Probably because they were all shit scared to say what they really think.

Sage

So basically the report was a waste of time and paper, well colour me shocked.

Blackadder wrote:So basically the report was a waste of time and paper, well colour me shocked.

Not really. CA Management comes out of it looking utterly shit - especially the increasingly ironically named "High Performance Unit".

So certain parts of the report were redacted because of defamation concerns.

Of course, there is one sure fire defamation defence

JGK wrote:

Blackadder wrote:So basically the report was a waste of time and paper, well colour me shocked.

Not really.   CA Management comes out of it looking utterly shit - especially the increasingly ironically named "High Performance Unit".

They needed a review to tell them that?

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/live/2018/oct/29/cricket-australia-release-findings-of-cultural-review-live?page=with:block-5bd67064e4b08e5e4bd5df48

There are plenty of redactions in the Ethics Centre report, with just Smith, Bancroft and Warner mentioned by name. Jacquie Hey now explains they took external legal advice on that matter, and without the redacted parts, they would not have been able to publish the report publicly in full. And the whole point of undertaking the report, and for it to be “fully impactful”, was that it was transparent.

So it was redacted to make it more transparent?

Will read report in full later. Have run through the Recs and CAs craven responses, which duckshove to the ICC re our pitches or pretend they are already implementing. The response re Recs touching on the Board and senior management were prickly and defensive.

Big Dog wrote:

JGK wrote:*Apparently only 24% of players completed the survey aspect of the review.

Probably because they were all shit scared to say what they really think.

Sage

Ditto.

Peever seems to be on thin ice.

Not so thin since the chest-pounding stupidity of Greg Dire and the ACA threatening to stack on exactly the kind of blue he relishes, and I suspect with a bit more public opinion on his side than he's used to....as Titus O'Reilly says in his latest literary effort, this continues to be the anti-manual for conflict resolution

CA now saying they are waiting for an official submission from the ACA re: clearing Smith, Warner and Bancroft to play immediately in the wake of the review, which implicated CA in culture problems.

Hmm, maybe there's a chance the 3 will be available for Test selection this summer.

skully wrote:CA now saying they are waiting for an official submission from the ACA re: clearing Smith, Warner and Bancroft to play immediately in the wake of the review, which implicated CA in culture problems.

Hmm, maybe there's a chance the 3 will be available for Test selection this summer.

New ICC rules on ball tampering provide for a 6 match test penalty. Theoretically, if CA decided to amend the penalties in line, this would allow the three to be available by the 4th Test.

Personally I think this would be ludicrous and a disservice to the other players they would potentially replace.

Realistically unless Bangers finds form on his return I doubt he will play Test cricket again. He did not show enough prior to the suspension. Of course WA rules could apply.

The gcspoc should never be selected again but of course he will be.

Smith will of course get another crack whenever available.

I can see them being permitted to play shield with a "wait and see" approach to the tests, i.e if we're getting a caning the board might wimp.

(shrugs) Marsh and others are calling for the suspensions to end in the light of this report. I don't see the logic, frankly. They still have to do their punishment.

Given CA were criticised in the review for a combative relationship with the players, CA might relent on the punishments as acknowledgment of their role in the culture problems AND as a show of good faith in a relationship building exercise with the ACA.

Then again, pigs might fly.

Err... that might require an admission that they were wrong.

In that respect (and that only) Peever is like the Fonz.

Dunno....Leave It To Peever prob also believes if you thump anything hard enough you can get it to work

Bancroft actually was showing signs of settling into Test cricket before it all went tits-up....but if Renshaw's the one that ends up cementing his spot then he's shot, can't see them opting for a Banger-Wrench opening partnership and 0-50 at lunch, esp with Seasick still missing

horace wrote:

skully wrote:CA now saying they are waiting for an official submission from the ACA re: clearing Smith, Warner and Bancroft to play immediately in the wake of the review, which implicated CA in culture problems.

Hmm, maybe there's a chance the 3 will be available for Test selection this summer.

New ICC rules on ball tampering provide for a 6 match test penalty. Theoretically, if CA decided to amend the penalties in line, this would allow the three to be available by the 4th Test.

Personally I think this would be ludicrous and a disservice to the other players they would potentially replace.

Realistically unless Bangers finds form on his return I doubt he will play Test cricket again. He did not show enough prior to the suspension. Of course WA rules could apply.

The gcspoc should never be selected again but of course he will be.

Smith will of course get another crack whenever available.

Would open a whole new can of worms introducing bans retrospectively,maybe a get out clause if CA say they have reduced the ban to 6 games.
Meanwhile say what you like about him, but Chappelli is bang on the money https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-30/ian-chappell-attacks-leadership-of-cricket-australia/10448310?fbclid=IwAR2xCMa-b0xQAqe9YsLNxjw-3BUgqzF_JThhpnNAD7cJdRxO8W9eBT_1nyk

Has anyone seen Kevin Roberts in the last few days?