In recent times, England selections have been less haphazard and random, and far more 'pecking-order' orientated. Gone are the days of bizarre one-off selections, and instead we have a system where players battle their way up the ranks, and everyone knows where they stand.
England's policy when injury or loss of form dictates that changes must be made is to look to the 'next cab off the rank'. When Paul Collingwood retired, the next cab was Eoin Morgan. When Jonathan Trott got injured, the replacement cab was Ravi Bopara. England's squad has a clearly defined pecking-order, and everyone knows where everyone else is on the way.
Jimmy Anderson is the leader of the fast-bowling attack, with Stuart Broad behind him. Matt Prior is the number one wicket-keeper, with Steve Davies behind him. And Graeme Swann is England's number one spinner. Or is he?
While the pecking-orders can be set in stone, they can also be flexible. Going into the UAE tour, Tim Bresnan was the third seamer, coming off the back of an excellent India series the previous summer. When Bresnan got injured, Chris Tremlett came in, meaning that Steve Finn was a lowly fifth in line to the fast bowling throne. However, Finn's performances in the ODI series meant that when Stuart Broad was withdrawn from the first warm-up game, Finn was turned to ahead of the now-fit Bresnan.
Graeme Swann has been England's number one spinner since 2009, when he wrested the crown from Monty Panesar in the West Indies. And it wasn't that long ago that Swann was considered the best spinner in test cricket, let alone in England. But Panesar has rip-roared his way back into test cricket after a three year sabbatical, picking up five-fers in each of the four games he's played in since his return. And his ascent has come just as a few questions have been asked of Swann after a quiet 2011, meaning that further down the line, some tough questions could be asked of the selectors.
After England have finished their stint on spin-friendly subcontinental pitches, they'll be back to England to take on West Indies on green pitches in May, meaning that only one spinner will be picked. As it stands, Swann is England's first choice spinner, but what if Monty continues to torment the Sri Lankan batsmen, just as he did the Pakistanis in his two tests against them? There are signs that the pecking-order isn't as set in stone as previously thought, with Swann only asked to bowl 1 over in Pakistan's first innings of the third test, with Panesar bowling 13. The total game comparison saw Monty wheel away for 70 overs compared to Swann's 40 - perhaps a sign that captain Strauss is placing more trust in the massive hands of Panesar?
I'm not saying that I personally would pick Panesar over Swann at this moment in time, it isn't inconceivable that at some stage Swann is superseded by the bearded Monty. However, a healthy rivalry may not be a bad thing for Swann. The pressure put on him by a genuine rival for his place means that he'll have to constantly be on his game, and will push himself harder to produce when it matters. The idea of the pecking-order system means that players constantly need to justify their places in the team or their dropped - just ask Eoin Morgan. This need to perform will see better performances from both Swann and Panesar, which can only be good for English fortunes. While the pair will bowl in tandem for this Sri Lankan tour, and likely at the back end of the year in the Indian tour, their partnership will turn into a fight for a place in the team when only one spinner is required, meaning that the spin contest between Swann and Panesar will surely become a long running battle over the next few years. And with two players pushing harder and harder to do well, this can only be a good thing for England.
Showing posts with label selectors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label selectors. Show all posts
Saturday, 17 March 2012
Monday, 20 February 2012
Dropping Ponting The Right Thing To Do
After being appointed as head of Australia's new selector's panel at the back end of 2011, John Inverarity has wasted no time in making his mark on Australian cricket. After the failures during the Ashes a year before and the fall-out from the Argus Review, Australia's team has undergone a rapid makeover, with the chaff cut and new faces blooded in their place. Australia's success in such a short length of time is due heavily to the ruthless cull from the selectors, and their ability to find replacements who were good enough to come into the team and perform straight away. If you weren't doing your job, regardless of any past glories, you were out, and someone new was in.
The selectors have today shown that sentiment is of no relevance to their decisions, with the Ricky Ponting, he of 375 ODIs and 13704 50-over runs, being unceremonially booted out of the squad midway through the tri-series. While Ponting has arguably been Australia's most successful ODI player ever, the recent dry spell of five consecutive single figure scores has meant that he isn't justifying his place, and has been shown the door. On the face of it, the decision is obvious - Ponting won't be around for the 2015 World Cup, isn't scoring enough runs, and Australia have plenty of replacements ready to come in. John Inverarity tellingly said: "You don't put your heart to one side, but your head has got to dominate, and to the credit of the NSP, everyone holds Ricky in the highest regard, as a player and as a person, but we've got a decision to make, and we made a decision we believe is the right decision and the best decision in the interest of Australian cricket". Wise words indeed.
Ponting being dropped will of course upset a true legend of Australian cricket, but the selectors know that it's worth a few days of angst from Ponting if the team is to be more successful with him out rather than in it. Compare this ruthless attitude to that of the Indian selection panel. While in the recent test series, Australia were prepared to make some big calls and change things, India were all too happy to watch their team of legends fail, and fail again, coming off the back of tour of England where they failed even more. While a few superficial changes were made to the bowling attack, the much vaunted batsmen were left to their own devices. It's telling that the only batsman to get the chop after the English tour was Suresh Raina, who conveniently was the only batsman not to be backed up by thousands of caps or hundreds of hundreds. It was patently obvious that India's top, and middle order needed to be broken up and scrapped despite their success over previous decades, but nobody in the Indian selection panel was brave enough to make those gutsy calls, even though their over-the-hill performers just weren't cutting it.
Neither India or Australia are the best teams in world cricket, but Australia have realised this and are attempting to find a way to take over the mantle once again. India, on the other hand, have consistently buried their heads in the ground, and have blissfully ignored their big problems. The focus isn't on test cricket for a while, with the circus of a unnecessarily long ODI tournament taking centre stage for the time being, but before too long both teams will be back in the whites with some big calls to make. Australia's big calls, including dropping Ponting, have shown that nobody's place is guaranteed, which has led to players constantly needing to stay on the top of their games to stay in the side. Certainly the same can't be said about India, as too many players have been given places in the team for life, and they've been firmly in the comfort zone ever since. The big calls must be made, and Australia's success over recent times have proved their worth. Whether India can follow suit remains to be seen...
The selectors have today shown that sentiment is of no relevance to their decisions, with the Ricky Ponting, he of 375 ODIs and 13704 50-over runs, being unceremonially booted out of the squad midway through the tri-series. While Ponting has arguably been Australia's most successful ODI player ever, the recent dry spell of five consecutive single figure scores has meant that he isn't justifying his place, and has been shown the door. On the face of it, the decision is obvious - Ponting won't be around for the 2015 World Cup, isn't scoring enough runs, and Australia have plenty of replacements ready to come in. John Inverarity tellingly said: "You don't put your heart to one side, but your head has got to dominate, and to the credit of the NSP, everyone holds Ricky in the highest regard, as a player and as a person, but we've got a decision to make, and we made a decision we believe is the right decision and the best decision in the interest of Australian cricket". Wise words indeed.
Ponting being dropped will of course upset a true legend of Australian cricket, but the selectors know that it's worth a few days of angst from Ponting if the team is to be more successful with him out rather than in it. Compare this ruthless attitude to that of the Indian selection panel. While in the recent test series, Australia were prepared to make some big calls and change things, India were all too happy to watch their team of legends fail, and fail again, coming off the back of tour of England where they failed even more. While a few superficial changes were made to the bowling attack, the much vaunted batsmen were left to their own devices. It's telling that the only batsman to get the chop after the English tour was Suresh Raina, who conveniently was the only batsman not to be backed up by thousands of caps or hundreds of hundreds. It was patently obvious that India's top, and middle order needed to be broken up and scrapped despite their success over previous decades, but nobody in the Indian selection panel was brave enough to make those gutsy calls, even though their over-the-hill performers just weren't cutting it.
Neither India or Australia are the best teams in world cricket, but Australia have realised this and are attempting to find a way to take over the mantle once again. India, on the other hand, have consistently buried their heads in the ground, and have blissfully ignored their big problems. The focus isn't on test cricket for a while, with the circus of a unnecessarily long ODI tournament taking centre stage for the time being, but before too long both teams will be back in the whites with some big calls to make. Australia's big calls, including dropping Ponting, have shown that nobody's place is guaranteed, which has led to players constantly needing to stay on the top of their games to stay in the side. Certainly the same can't be said about India, as too many players have been given places in the team for life, and they've been firmly in the comfort zone ever since. The big calls must be made, and Australia's success over recent times have proved their worth. Whether India can follow suit remains to be seen...
Friday, 29 July 2011
Morgan's Place No Pressing Issue
The nature of the English cricket press is that there always needs to be someone sweating over their place. Last summer, it was Alastair Cook, but he then went on to have the winter to end all winters. The spotlight then moved to Kevin Pietersen, who has since refound his top form. Last week it was Stuart Broad who was the next in line to be throw overboard, instead he's had a few of his best days in test cricket. So who's next on death row as the cricket press bottle spins onto it's next target? Well, after three failures in a row, it's going to be Eoin Morgan.
Eoin Morgan, for all of his ODI success, has had a quiet start to his test career. Other than the excellent ton against Pakistan last summer, he's yet to stamp his mark on test cricket and firmly assert himself as England's number six batsman. When Paul Collingwood retired, a space opened up in the England batting order, and the selectors chose Morgan; basically saying that he was their man to play in the middle order for the next few years. This wasn't that long ago.
England have been actually doing pretty well in test cricket over the past while, so there aren't many players who are under pressure for their place in the team. However, as there always needs to be someone in trouble (otherwise there is no story), Morgan is the man they've picked.
Techically, there's a lot that Eoin Morgan has to work on. But there's no denying that he is an absolute class batsman who can score a lot of runs, and has the perfect temprament for test cricket. In three innings this series, Morgan's had a couple of dubious decisions, and ended up with three low scores. This doesn't automatically make him a bad player or that he should be dropped. These things happen. It wasn't that long ago he was being backed as a permanenent member of the England team for years to come - so what's changed?
England's selectorial policy under Andy Flower has been as far removed from the knee-jerk as possible, with players going through lean spells being nursed back into form and returning to past glories. Eoin Morgan may not have the illustrious record of some of his teammates, but he certainly has the same ability. And it was only last month that Flower, Geoff Miller, and Strauss confirmed this by picking him for the Sri Lanka series.
England haven't got where they are today by making snap decisions and dropping out of form players. Eoin Morgan may be in a slight trough and James Taylor may be on the crest of a wave, but there's no need for impulsive change for changes sake on the back of one poor day of test cricket. Luckily, I think the selectors and Andy Flower know that, but the real issue is whether the press know that too.
Eoin Morgan, for all of his ODI success, has had a quiet start to his test career. Other than the excellent ton against Pakistan last summer, he's yet to stamp his mark on test cricket and firmly assert himself as England's number six batsman. When Paul Collingwood retired, a space opened up in the England batting order, and the selectors chose Morgan; basically saying that he was their man to play in the middle order for the next few years. This wasn't that long ago.
England have been actually doing pretty well in test cricket over the past while, so there aren't many players who are under pressure for their place in the team. However, as there always needs to be someone in trouble (otherwise there is no story), Morgan is the man they've picked.
Techically, there's a lot that Eoin Morgan has to work on. But there's no denying that he is an absolute class batsman who can score a lot of runs, and has the perfect temprament for test cricket. In three innings this series, Morgan's had a couple of dubious decisions, and ended up with three low scores. This doesn't automatically make him a bad player or that he should be dropped. These things happen. It wasn't that long ago he was being backed as a permanenent member of the England team for years to come - so what's changed?
England's selectorial policy under Andy Flower has been as far removed from the knee-jerk as possible, with players going through lean spells being nursed back into form and returning to past glories. Eoin Morgan may not have the illustrious record of some of his teammates, but he certainly has the same ability. And it was only last month that Flower, Geoff Miller, and Strauss confirmed this by picking him for the Sri Lanka series.
England haven't got where they are today by making snap decisions and dropping out of form players. Eoin Morgan may be in a slight trough and James Taylor may be on the crest of a wave, but there's no need for impulsive change for changes sake on the back of one poor day of test cricket. Luckily, I think the selectors and Andy Flower know that, but the real issue is whether the press know that too.
Saturday, 21 May 2011
The Joy of Six... or The Case for Morgan
Tomorrow, we'll learn the identity of the man picked to bat at six for England in the first test against Sri Lanka next week. While not that long ago it seemed to be a four-horse race between Bopara, Morgan, Hildreth and Taylor, it seems that the latter two have dropped out, leaving it a straight choice between Ravi and Eoin.
When I wrote something about the announcement of the Lions squad, I spoke of how it looked like being the highest run scorer to take the spot. And with Morgan getting 193 and Bopara only 17, it would seem that Morgan would have won that particular battle fairly convincingly.
However, the journos and general people in the know reported that the performance in the Lions game was academic, as Bopara had already been pencilled in before the match even began. It appears that Andy Flower wanted to reward Bopara's committment to his test future by shunning the IPL to play county cricket, and thought that Bopara would be in better nick with the red ball. And if, as believed, Andy Flower thought that on Thursday, it would probably still be the case this evening. This England regime is not one that makes knee-jerk reactions after one good performance.
While Ravi's stance to play for Essex in the early months of the county season must be applauded (he is finally showing the maturity that appeared to be lacking in the early years of his international career), I don't think that this alone should be why he plays at Cardiff next week. In cricketing terms, England have to decide who will make more test runs in the long run - Ravi Bopara or Eoin Morgan? Yes, Bopara's willingness to play in the tests should be praised, but not at the expense of a player in Eoin Morgan who for my money would consistently outscore Ravi Bopara in test cricket.
It may well be the case that Morgan's actions over the past few weeks may be "punished" by overlooking him for the test. While nobody has begrudged Morgan the chance to cash in on his T20 abilities (of which he is arguably the world's best batsman), the timing of his comments the other day just appear odd and out of character. By stating that if he isn't picked for Cardiff he intends to return to the IPL for the Knight Riders is putting out the message to the ECB that he'd prefer to earn a few more rupees than play for Middlesex and fight for his place in subsequent tests in the series. What if Bopara breaks his finger on Thursday morning and a replacement is needed? Morgan won't be much use if he's on a plane over the Indian Ocean.
As a batsman, Morgan's mentality is unquestioned. He is clearly mentally ready for a prolonged run in test cricket - something that is probably the biggest question mark over Ravi Bopara. Morgan's technique probably isn't completely ready for test cricket, but we saw last summer against Pakistan at Trent Bridge that when it all comes together, Morgan is as good as they come. Morgan is a batsman who moves absolutely seamlessly through the gears and is as comfortable with his back against the wall as he is with the foot against the throat. Bopara may be the better batsman, but Morgan would be far more consistent and is a better player. And don't forget, he has just scored as-near-as-dammit a double hundred against Sri Lanka. Who would the Sri Lankan bowlers least prefer to see walking out onto the pitch with England four down next week - Ravi Bopara or the guy who made them toil for for a day and a half?
The word on the street is that Ravi Bopara will be selected tomorrow, and while I have no doubts that Bopara will be a very good test batsman for England, I just think that Eoin Morgan could be one of the very best.
When I wrote something about the announcement of the Lions squad, I spoke of how it looked like being the highest run scorer to take the spot. And with Morgan getting 193 and Bopara only 17, it would seem that Morgan would have won that particular battle fairly convincingly.
However, the journos and general people in the know reported that the performance in the Lions game was academic, as Bopara had already been pencilled in before the match even began. It appears that Andy Flower wanted to reward Bopara's committment to his test future by shunning the IPL to play county cricket, and thought that Bopara would be in better nick with the red ball. And if, as believed, Andy Flower thought that on Thursday, it would probably still be the case this evening. This England regime is not one that makes knee-jerk reactions after one good performance.
While Ravi's stance to play for Essex in the early months of the county season must be applauded (he is finally showing the maturity that appeared to be lacking in the early years of his international career), I don't think that this alone should be why he plays at Cardiff next week. In cricketing terms, England have to decide who will make more test runs in the long run - Ravi Bopara or Eoin Morgan? Yes, Bopara's willingness to play in the tests should be praised, but not at the expense of a player in Eoin Morgan who for my money would consistently outscore Ravi Bopara in test cricket.
It may well be the case that Morgan's actions over the past few weeks may be "punished" by overlooking him for the test. While nobody has begrudged Morgan the chance to cash in on his T20 abilities (of which he is arguably the world's best batsman), the timing of his comments the other day just appear odd and out of character. By stating that if he isn't picked for Cardiff he intends to return to the IPL for the Knight Riders is putting out the message to the ECB that he'd prefer to earn a few more rupees than play for Middlesex and fight for his place in subsequent tests in the series. What if Bopara breaks his finger on Thursday morning and a replacement is needed? Morgan won't be much use if he's on a plane over the Indian Ocean.
As a batsman, Morgan's mentality is unquestioned. He is clearly mentally ready for a prolonged run in test cricket - something that is probably the biggest question mark over Ravi Bopara. Morgan's technique probably isn't completely ready for test cricket, but we saw last summer against Pakistan at Trent Bridge that when it all comes together, Morgan is as good as they come. Morgan is a batsman who moves absolutely seamlessly through the gears and is as comfortable with his back against the wall as he is with the foot against the throat. Bopara may be the better batsman, but Morgan would be far more consistent and is a better player. And don't forget, he has just scored as-near-as-dammit a double hundred against Sri Lanka. Who would the Sri Lankan bowlers least prefer to see walking out onto the pitch with England four down next week - Ravi Bopara or the guy who made them toil for for a day and a half?
The word on the street is that Ravi Bopara will be selected tomorrow, and while I have no doubts that Bopara will be a very good test batsman for England, I just think that Eoin Morgan could be one of the very best.
Monday, 9 May 2011
Poor Colly
I've written a few times about my admiration for the man that is Paul Collingwood. He's been an exceptional, unwavering servant to English cricket, and has achieved an incredible amount - arguably more than any other English cricketer ever. While it may probably be time for him to hang up his international boots, it shouldn't be forgotten that Collingwood led England to a World T20 triumph, and the world record for consecutive T20 wins. All in the last year.
Collingwood has subsequently been replaced as England put Broad in charge of the T20 team in their captaincy triumvirate, and while it may be the right decision going forward with a World T20 in 2012 that Collingwood probably wouldn't be around for, you do have to feel for the man that led England to unrivalled success in the shortest form.
In this article from the BBC Website, Collingwood speaks of the "hurt" caused by the decision to axe him from his position in favour of Broad.
"I was full of optimism about trying to regain my form and my place in the one-day side... I felt a bit uneasy when I took the call (from Geoff Miller)"
"The problem was, try as I might, I couldn't think what else he would need to see me about. Then again I thought to myself, 'Hang on, I've been captain of a side who've won the World Cup and set a world record. Can they really sack me after that? ... I had been trying to convince myself that it wasn't going to be the news I feared. But unfortunately it was."
"We had met so early because I had to get to London to present ITV4's IPL coverage. But once the meeting was over, I had to call the studio and tell them I couldn't go on. I felt bad about letting them down, but I was in a state."
As obvious a decision it was to replace Collingwood given his startling loss of form and increasing injury issues, your heart has to go out to a man who has given his all for his country over a decade, and feels very let down by circumstances. I'm not advocating Collingwood staying in his role, as things move on, and I'm not slating Geoff Miller for the way he handled it (in fact, by meeting Collingwood in person it seems as though it was handled very well). But my heart goes out to someone who has given so much to English cricket, and feels so let down by it today. Sorry Colly.
Collingwood has subsequently been replaced as England put Broad in charge of the T20 team in their captaincy triumvirate, and while it may be the right decision going forward with a World T20 in 2012 that Collingwood probably wouldn't be around for, you do have to feel for the man that led England to unrivalled success in the shortest form.
In this article from the BBC Website, Collingwood speaks of the "hurt" caused by the decision to axe him from his position in favour of Broad.
"I was full of optimism about trying to regain my form and my place in the one-day side... I felt a bit uneasy when I took the call (from Geoff Miller)"
"The problem was, try as I might, I couldn't think what else he would need to see me about. Then again I thought to myself, 'Hang on, I've been captain of a side who've won the World Cup and set a world record. Can they really sack me after that? ... I had been trying to convince myself that it wasn't going to be the news I feared. But unfortunately it was."
"We had met so early because I had to get to London to present ITV4's IPL coverage. But once the meeting was over, I had to call the studio and tell them I couldn't go on. I felt bad about letting them down, but I was in a state."
As obvious a decision it was to replace Collingwood given his startling loss of form and increasing injury issues, your heart has to go out to a man who has given his all for his country over a decade, and feels very let down by circumstances. I'm not advocating Collingwood staying in his role, as things move on, and I'm not slating Geoff Miller for the way he handled it (in fact, by meeting Collingwood in person it seems as though it was handled very well). But my heart goes out to someone who has given so much to English cricket, and feels so let down by it today. Sorry Colly.
Friday, 11 March 2011
Scared Selections
England's selectors are notoriously conservative. They just don't like to make brave calls. Obviously I don't want them to make high risk selection decisions every week, but a calculated gamble would be nice every now and again.
I'm not just talking about the current World Cup. England just don't make big, surprise decisions. The lack of any young, exciting batsmen who've played well at county level in this England ODI side (perhaps excluding Morgan) who've played in the last few years is testament to the fact that they don't like to mess around with the status quo. Prime example - Steve Davies; a player who could be a fantastic attacking wicket-keeper but was unproven, was dropped to make way for Matt Prior, a man who wouldn't be such a gamble, but wouldn't pay off spectacularly as much as Davies could.
If we look at this game (v Bangladesh), England had some big decisions to make. England needed a new opener and a new fast bowler, and could mix the spin-bowling options about. I touted Swann to open - a school of thought that was gathering pace. Opening with Swann would be a gamble, but it could pay off spectacularly. South Africa and a few other nations have had success with three spinners, and there were rumours that England could go that way. However, instead of bringing in Tredwell, England bizarrely brought in Collingwood, a man who is horribly out of form with the bat but is part of the establishment, and as such, is worth playing as he can be "relied upon".
England's scared selections annoyed me. This was a genuine chance to do something bold and exciting, yet the team that was put out was a cowardly choice. Prior, who has failed many times as an opener, was promoted, just because it was the least risky thing for the selectors to do. And Collingwood coming in (and batting at number eight) suggests that they knew Yardy needed to go, but were too scared to pick the mercurial James Tredwell. It seems that the selectors would prefer England to fail miserably (as they have done many times) with a stable eleven, than to roll the dice and risk being attacked for making bad decisions.
Well here's my message to the selectors. Don't be scared. Don't be scared to open with Swann, play Tredwell, or finally put Collingwood out of his misery. Don't be scared to call up Adil Rashid, Jimmy Adams, James Hildreth or even Samit Patel. England may win this game v Bangladesh with Collingwood at 8 and Prior opening, but it's a formula that has been proven to not work against the bigger teams. England will not win this World Cup with this team. Albert Einstein said that the "definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". So selectors. Do something different. Roll the dice. We'll thank you for it when we win the World Cup.
I'm not just talking about the current World Cup. England just don't make big, surprise decisions. The lack of any young, exciting batsmen who've played well at county level in this England ODI side (perhaps excluding Morgan) who've played in the last few years is testament to the fact that they don't like to mess around with the status quo. Prime example - Steve Davies; a player who could be a fantastic attacking wicket-keeper but was unproven, was dropped to make way for Matt Prior, a man who wouldn't be such a gamble, but wouldn't pay off spectacularly as much as Davies could.
If we look at this game (v Bangladesh), England had some big decisions to make. England needed a new opener and a new fast bowler, and could mix the spin-bowling options about. I touted Swann to open - a school of thought that was gathering pace. Opening with Swann would be a gamble, but it could pay off spectacularly. South Africa and a few other nations have had success with three spinners, and there were rumours that England could go that way. However, instead of bringing in Tredwell, England bizarrely brought in Collingwood, a man who is horribly out of form with the bat but is part of the establishment, and as such, is worth playing as he can be "relied upon".
England's scared selections annoyed me. This was a genuine chance to do something bold and exciting, yet the team that was put out was a cowardly choice. Prior, who has failed many times as an opener, was promoted, just because it was the least risky thing for the selectors to do. And Collingwood coming in (and batting at number eight) suggests that they knew Yardy needed to go, but were too scared to pick the mercurial James Tredwell. It seems that the selectors would prefer England to fail miserably (as they have done many times) with a stable eleven, than to roll the dice and risk being attacked for making bad decisions.
Well here's my message to the selectors. Don't be scared. Don't be scared to open with Swann, play Tredwell, or finally put Collingwood out of his misery. Don't be scared to call up Adil Rashid, Jimmy Adams, James Hildreth or even Samit Patel. England may win this game v Bangladesh with Collingwood at 8 and Prior opening, but it's a formula that has been proven to not work against the bigger teams. England will not win this World Cup with this team. Albert Einstein said that the "definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". So selectors. Do something different. Roll the dice. We'll thank you for it when we win the World Cup.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)