Nine's Jeff Browne escalates last summer's imbroglio over player rotation:
Nine wants say in selection
''people at home want to see the best players playing and we urge Cricket Australia to pick the best players every time … we've go...
Nine's Jeff Browne escalates last summer's imbroglio over player rotation:
Nine wants say in selection
''people at home want to see the best players playing and we urge Cricket Australia to pick the best players every time … we've got to have the best players on the paddock to rate''
''I think we've got a better understanding on that. Last year that balance was skewed too much in favour of resting some players so from now on there will be a lot more discussion between CA and the broadcaster about that.''
''We don't mind paying if we can get some value for it.''
I maintain what I wrote in January: it would be staggering if CA had allowed Nine to influence team selection, informally or otherwise. Nevertheless, while Stakeholders Sutherland's riposte begins robustly it trails away with its "common goal" equivocation. No mention of the "despicable" he brandished after Cow Corner Warner snotted Dudley Root:
''Cricket has a long-standing and successful relationship with the Nine Network but team selections and scheduling are matters for Cricket Australia.''
''The national selection panel selects the Australian teams. With the volume of international cricket being played, it will continue to be necessary for us to manage player workloads appropriately. We'll continue to consult with our broadcasters on scheduling issues.''
''It's something we have always done. We have a common goal with our broadcast partners to maximise the number of fans watching and enjoying cricket. We'll consider all ideas and then make the appropriate decisions.''
CA has bought into a whole heap of fiasco if it has entered into any kind of agreement with Nine to allow the valued broadcast partner to influence team selection. But even the mere impression CA and Nine may have entered into such an agreement, or that Nine is driving selection is just as damaging. Maybe that's Browne's gambit: ratchet up pressure on CA to ditch rotations. (Of a more general nature: just how much does public posturing influence official decision making?)