Unusual AFL Club Guernseys

The Adelaide Crows have released their away jumper for 2013 and I will admit that it will have to see it on the field before I can say that I like it. However a work colleague mentioned the www.footyjumpers.com website that shows all the various jumpers worn by each of the VFL/AFL clubs. Therefore this entry shows the more unusual choices made by clubs over the years.

The footyjumpers.com website was kind enough to include all of Port Adelaide’s previous jumpers on their website and I guess if they call themselves “One Club” then they should be included. So they get a guernsey in the article so to speak.

This is the Port Adelaide 1877-1882 version, a pink lace-up guernsey no less. This was changed from light blue and white hoops. Personally I think the players would have preferred the old guernsey instead.

Next is the 1883-1901 guernsey for Port Adelaide which is only marginally better with magenta replacing the pink and the inclusion of blue stripes. This was the last guernsey before the black, white (and teal for the Power) versions that we know (and in most cases hate) today.

  

The question I have about this is: How do you convince the players of a club with a tradition such as Port Adelaide, playing a tough man’s game that is Australian Rules football to wear Pink or Magenta every week ?

How about Richmond’s c1895-1901 guernsey instead, admittedly it’s a little hard to describe apart from the obvious black and gold hoops. However I’m sure I saw this on henchmen in a Batman episode from the 1960’s or 1970’s, perhaps they were inspired by Richmond's effort.

Below is the Fitzroy jumper from 1893-1896 where they wore Maroon canvas jumpers, with chamois reinforcing. It suggests to me that Fitzroy were doomed from the outset after wearing this guernsey. However it still took around 100 years for Fitzroy to cease operations.

Of course there is Footscray’s effort from 1887 to 1889 which could also pass for a night shirt. I guess convincing the player to wear this every week would be much easier compared to the early Port Adelaide guernseys. However I might consider joining a new club if this was presented to me.

Or perhaps the Hawthorn pre-season guernsey in 1995 that was only worn once in a game against Sydney. Quite rightly too I may add, it almost looks more like a West Coast Eagles guernsey with a hint of brown rather than a Hawthorn guernsey.

Here is the Saints guernsey from 1915-1918, the Saints originally had Red, Black and White as their current colours but changed the White to Yellow to avoid a clash with the colours Germany used in WW1. Ironically the current flag for Germany is Yellow, Red and Black. St Kilda reverted to their original colours after the war and they still use them today. However in my opinion the WW1 version is much better than the 2001-02 away guernsey shown further below.

I guess the one thing that could be said about the 2001-02 St Kilda guernsey is that you could never be excused for not spotting a player further up the field. But depending on the opposition side you were playing it could really limit the colours available for the umpires to wear. Although maybe a brighter version of the 1877-1882 Port Adelaide jumper will suffice.

Are the NAPLAN tests achieving the desired outcome?

 



image: www.fangornfarm.com

Reading an article about the NAPLAN tests in "The Age" this morning had started me thinking about the impact that standardised tests such as these have on the school system and on the education of children. Admittedly some of this may be a stretch at first, but hopefully I can bring it together to show an alternative viewpoint. The link to the article is included below:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/naplan-tests-take-heavy-toll-20121125-2a1n6.html

If you have never heard of the NAPLAN tests, these tests assess the literacy and numeracy skills of students in years 3, 5, 7 and 9, have been conducted across Australia since 2008.

At its most basic level the basis for tests such as the NAPLAN arises from the need to classify and name things in society. For instance the fact that I am born in a country called Australia makes me Australian when in fact we are all human. This is not to say that I am not proud to be Australian, it merely illustrates the point.

The arguments put forward about the NAPLAN tests will often be based on the need to determine which of our schools require more funding than others to narrow the gap between schools that are at the end of the spectrum compared to those at the upper end.

However if you are a parent whose child attends a school that is “underperforming” per se, then there is a large incentive to change the child’s schools in order to receive the best education possible. It is a part of human nature to provide for our offspring and this is what makes the private school sector attractive as parents believe that they are investing in their child’s future by sending them to a private school.

Invariably the numbers attending an “underperforming” school fall and less funding is provided to that school because of the low enrolments. But this does not solve the problem; it merely shifts the burden to the more “popular” schools.

Therefore schools that have “underperformed” in previous NAPLAN tests have the incentive to raise their average score by any means possible. Unfortunately there are anecdotes that suggest schools have requested some students remain home on NAPLAN test day. This sends the wrong message to the child and shatters the child’s confidence. It also heightens the divide between the “haves” and the “have-nots”, in a society that is dominated by status (real or perceived) this is very important.

But what is often forgotten is the ability of the child at each point in their life. To draw a parallel with sport, just as some sports participants are late developers there are some children that are late starters from an education viewpoint. But the short-sightedness of some may in fact stall a child’s development for years to come.

The article provided several statistics that provided results which were unsurprising. But for me, there were two statistics that really stood out: 73% of teachers Australia wide taught to the test and 69% of teachers Australia wide spent less time on subjects not covered by the NAPLAN test. This shows that everything is geared to ensuring the best results are achieved in the test and not by providing a well rounded education especially at the primary school level.

The more disturbing thought is that the main focus of our primary school teachers is on passing the test rather than actually teaching our children. Unfortunately this type of teaching also occurs at the Year 12 (or Matriculation level) where the aim is to maximise the students TER (or equivalent) score as they enter the cut-throat world of achieving a University place. However the main difference here is that the students themselves have decided their subjects to study in that year. The student is often taught enough to pass the exam, (and often uses rote learning to achieve it) but the student may not necessarily have a full understanding of the subject. Once these students reach university they often need to learn the skill on how to structure an argument based on independent thought.

So my thoughts are these: In trying to determine a system where we can compare literacy and numeracy skills for primary school children, have we designed a system that may provide false results because teachers focus their teaching towards passing the tests rather than developing (or ascertaining) the individual child’s understanding and skills in these areas?

Secondly, Should the Government consider removing the NAPLAN testing for Year 3 and Year 5 children (8 and 10 year olds) and test children in Year 6 along with Year 7 and Year 9 students instead?

Does Fremantle have an incentive to “tank” in the last minor round of the 2012 AFL season?

To tank or not to tank ? - that is the question facing Fremantle

For those of you not familiar with the Tanking term, Tanking occurs when a team deliberately loses a match to advance their cause. In the AFL there is often speculation that a lowly ranked team will “tank” matches to secure a first round draft pick in the AFL National draft. The incentive here is secure the services of a highly talented player in order to win more matches in the future.

What if the tanking scenario could be applied to the AFL finals race? The teams playing the 2012 AFL finals series are set but the finishing position of every team in the “Top 8” is not. Based of the Round 23 schedule released by the AFL, Fremantle may have the choice of underperforming in their match in order to secure a final in Perth against the West Coast. This would be a game that Fremantle would consider themselves with more than a fair chance of winning.

The most likely alternative for Fremantle is a trip to Melbourne to play a final. Given the travel involved and their poor record when travelling, the logical option for Fremantle is to perform below standard (or even lose against Melbourne) if this results in a Perth derby.

The final ladder positions will be determined by two games, Hawthorn vs West Coast and Geelong vs Sydney. The winner of the Hawthorn vs West Coast will impact the results of at least 3 other games: Geelong vs Sydney, Essendon vs Collingwood and Fremantle vs Melbourne.

If Hawthorn win, then Collingwood have an incentive to beat Essendon for a Top 4 spot and with West Coast likely to be in fifth position Fremantle have the incentive to underperform against Melbourne in order to play the West Coast in a Perth derby. It should be noted here that Hawthorn have a big incentive to win as this will secure top spot and a home final.

If West Coast win and secure a Top 4 spot, then Adelaide and Sydney will be encouraged to win their games against Gold Coast and Geelong (respectively) to secure Top 2 spots and home games in the first week. Fremantle would look at the GWS vs North Melbourne and Geelong vs Syndey games to see if they wanted to play either Collingwood or Geelong the following week.

For Fremantle, the extra incentive (or disincentive) will arise from the GWS vs North Melbourne match. This game is scheduled to start on Saturday at 4:40pm and Fremantle will know the final result during their game against Melbourne. A big win by North Melbourne (which looks likely) would provide little incentive for Fremantle to play well.

So this weekend it looks like Fremantle will be hoping that Hawthorn win, followed by a convincing win by North Melbourne, then they can “tank” their game against Melbourne so they can play against West Coast in a Perth derby.

It would be reasonable to assume that the AFL would prefer every that teams played each game on their merits and to the best of their ability, but in this scenario a finals team can manipulate results by underperforming.

What characteristics make a “real” man?

Latte – would you drink this, maybe not if you’re a “real” man??

One always speaks about these things in caution, as there is always some naysayer out there who will finding something wrong with this type of article. I can hear them now, “Oh, it’s demeaning to men, or coffee drinkers or balding men”. Well, as a bald man that drinks coffee, I’m not offended. So, let’s take the lighter side of this one, especially as this is really meant to be tongue in cheek.

How many of the “real” man characteristics below do you have?

Real Men don’t wear Pink – the reason why is obvious, Pink is a girl’s colour. But in marketing Blue is generally used for marketing Boys products, similarly Pink is generally used for Girls products. The answer lies in advertising.

Real Men don’t drink latte – a little trickier but had you ever heard a labourer ask for a skinny, soy latte. I think not, real men drink black coffee, the stronger the better and no sugar allowed!!

That leads to the next one – Real Men don’t drink Decaf – what were they thinking when they created Decaf, it isn’t coffee without the caffeine … and if you refer to the point above the stronger the coffee the better, so strong, skinny, soy lattes don’t count.

Real Men don’t drink Light Beer – actually you are better off drinking full strength beer as some of the ingredients to make the beer “light” can have adverse effects (apart from the obvious!!) on the human body.

Real Men like their liquor strong – unfortunately yours truly fails this one, but back in the day the upscale from beer on a night out was a “neat” single malt scotch, although straight tequila and /or vodka are amongst the preferred drinks of real men.

Real Men don’t do comb-overs – that’s right if you’re going bald either cut your hair really short or shave your head, it’s more fashionable and practical. Plus the ladies probably like it, although I would need confirmation on that one!!

Real Men eat meat – and lots of it!!! One of the best meals for a real man is meat lover’s pizza and beer. It provides enough sustenance for a big night out especially as they’re drinking full strength beer and potentially hard liquor by night’s end.

Real Men have a working knowledge of sport – real men understand that sport is organised warfare without the bullets. They should be able to grasp the concept of whatever sport that is on TV and be able to explain the rules if needed. Ideally they will have a team they support in every code but there will only ever be one team that they barrack for that rises above all others and nothing will get in the way of a real man and that team!!

… and finally Real men don’t cry – unless you spill his Farmers Union Iced Coffee !!

So lads, how did you stack up against the list? And ladies how many “real” men do you know?

The Rambling Couch Sitter’s AFL Supporter Awards

image from www.foxsports.com.au

Now that I have been living in Melbourne for the last few years, I thought it prudent to provide an analysis from a personal perspective on supporters from some of the AFL clubs.

The “Hanging Shit on Your Own Team” award – Carlton: All supporters are guilty of this but Carlton supporters walk around with an arrogant air about them and think their club is the best thing since sliced bread. However when the going is tough they will hang shit on their players like no other supporters..... that is except for Juddy of course.

The “Feral Supporters” award – Richmond: I bet you were all thinking Collingwood, but no from personal experience Richmond supporters are the most feral. They scream, swear and bully like a big club’s supporters would and worst of all think the whole world is against them. Not only that I got a big send off for leaving before the end of a game from someone who could barely put two intelligent words together. Collingwood was a close second.

The “Most Dedicated Supporters” award – Hawthorn: The Hawks have a great supporter base that watch the footy week in and week out. The brown and gold is always abundant at the MCG and they are passionate. Mind you it is not difficult to see why when you have players like Buddy Franklin, Rioli and Mitchell in the side.

The “Juvenile Delinquent” award – St Kilda: The Saints supporters will happily “boo” opposition shots at goal and remind you of your clubs off-field indiscretions. The memory often fails the Saints supporters and their jibes often come back to haunt them. They really should remember the line that “Children should be seen and not heard” especially given off-field events of recent years.

The “Scarcity” award – North Melbourne: The Kangaroos have a reasonably modest supporter base to begin with and when your side is not going well some supporters will drop off. But it is rare for North Melbourne to get more than 20,000 people when hosting an interstate club.

The “Sick and Sorry” award – Melbourne: Such is the state of the Melbourne Football Club, its supporters are basically resigned to see their club range from “Woeful to Mediocre” and the strain is starting to show. Melbourne supporters are often resigned to defeat before the game has started.

The “We are the Competition” award – Collingwood: Not sure how many times I have heard the line from a Collingwood supporter “If it wasn’t for us, there would be no AFL” or the like. What rot, it speaks of arrogance and most of all there is not enough recent success to qualify the statement. Unfortunately it will only get worse if they win another flag in the next year or two.

The “Most Relieved Supporters” award – Adelaide: After losing 14 straight games in Melbourne, the Crows finally broke their losing run with a big win over Carlton. Ironically Carlton was the last team that Adelaide beat in Melbourne. Fremantle were a close second here.

So there you have it, congratulations to the winners and if your team did not win an award, there is always next year J

Has the tattoo become a symbol of acceptance in society?

Collingwood's Dane Swan with some of his tattoos
Photo: www.3aw.com.au

Walking down the street on any given day around Australia, you will see many people sporting a tattoo. The sizes and designs vary, but it seems that to be socially accepted you almost need to have one. Yes they are an individual’s choice. However in a society where instant gratification is becoming the norm, it appears perplexing that most people would choose to express themselves in such a permanent way.

Part of the reasoning behind this entry is that I have been in conversations with people in the recent past that have ridiculed my choice not to have a tattoo. But more importantly have laughed at my preference that my partner not have one (or if she does have one … not to get anymore). From my perspective, it appears that I cannot be critical of this cultural change but people with a tattoo can criticise my choice not to have one. This is slightly paradoxical given that people who choose to have a tattoo make such a choice.

There are certain races where the tattoo is a status symbol and has deep meaning and the Maori immediately come to mind. This type of cultural reasoning is logical, but in Australia a cultural change towards having tattoos has gradually been occurring over the last five to ten years. So why has this change been occurring?

Is it the influence of sport on our society? Just consider this, how many AFL or NRL players can you think of that do not have a tattoo. Or to take it further, let’s include Cricketers and Swimmers as well. (Admittedly I am looking at this from a predominantly Australian viewpoint, but we could include sports such as soccer as well). Not too many…I would have thought. Some of these tattoos celebrate an achievement or have some significance which is fair enough.

Such is the fascination about tattoos in Australian Society, an article by Jim Tucker on Australian Diver Melissa Wu in the Herald Sun on May 30, quotes the following: “Wu has her Olympic rings tattoo boldly at the top of her right thigh with a heart-shaped twist on the five interlocking rings.”

I understand Melissa’s choice to have the tattoo, but what relevance does this have to the article in question? None, the article is basically about the coming of age of an elite young sportsperson who has a better understanding of what is required to be competitive at the highest level in her chosen sport. The fact she has a tattoo on her right thigh should not matter.

Or is it simply a “keeping up with the Joneses” mentality? If so, has our society been manipulated so much by the media or have we become so listless that we need to identify so greatly with our sport stars or do we have this overwhelming need to “fit” in. Most of my heroes are Sports Stars and I easily identify with their tenacity and determination, but I have enough nous to distinguish between sports and reality.

Personally, I think it is an element of both sport and the desire to fit into society. The “Dumbing” down of Australian Society by the media is a worrying trend that transcends over many aspects of Australian culture. So the message that certain elements in the media are espousing could be summarised as “If you want to be successful like our sports stars and be accepted within society you need to have a tattoo”. To be honest I am not sure that is the correct message to promote!!

How can we attract the best state league teams to participate in the Foxtel Cup?

http://www.neafl.com.au/

The idea of a competition enabling the best teams from the various state leagues to play each other is always appealing to the Rambling Couch Sitter. Especially given that the AFL has now become too professional and has been built around vested Victorian interests. Unfortunately, Australian Rules will never be able to adopt the Divisional model of the English FA simply because the potential travel distance is too great for a suburban club. Also the lack of population and money available in Australia make it difficult for a state league club to rise through the ranks to compete in the AFL.

The Foxtel Cup aimed to alleviate these issues by inviting the best clubs around Australia to play against each other in curtain raisers to AFL games, thereby granting much needed exposure for these clubs. The Cup is a 16 team knockout-based competition with three teams participating from each of the SANFL, VFL and WAFL, two teams from Tasmania and Queensland and one from NT, NSW and the ACT.

The competition itself is not without controversy as when the original invites went out the Top 5 SANFL clubs issued a joint statement on 15/12/2010 declining to participate “citing lack of prize money; sponsorship conflicts, salary cap implications, schedule concerns and removing the focus from their SANFL premiership ambitions”.

The response from these clubs is not entirely unexpected; even if it disappoints yours truly because I don’t get to see my beloved Norwood Redlegs play in this competition. It also devalues the Foxtel Cup because the winner of the Cup has not been able to compete against the best non-AFL clubs in Australia.

The main reason for the stance by the SANFL clubs is that the SANFL is generally considered the next best competition behind the AFL and the Thomas Seymour Hill Cup is very highly sought after by each club. Before the Adelaide Football Club entered the AFL, the total season attendance per capita for the SANFL was better than its VFL/AFL counterpart which adds some weight to this argument.

How do we ensure that the best teams from each league participate in the cup each year? It is a little tricky because the idea of exposing these clubs to a wider audience is very appealing. The answer may be to have weekends during the regular season that are dedicated to the Foxtel Cup, thereby allowing these matches to proceed with little disruption to the various state league competitions. There only needs to be three of these weekends in any given season.

In order to promote the Cup as the competition between the best club sides outside of the AFL, I would suggest that the grand final be played as a curtain raiser to the AFL Grand Final. This does mean that the SANFL will need to bring forward their season by two weeks as their Grand Final is normally played the week after the AFL Grand Final. This removes the obstacle of the SANFL clubs being more focussed on the T.S. Hill Cup. (By the way, this should rightfully be the focus of the SANFL Clubs!!)

Then there is the prize money aspect, I would suggest $100,000 for the winner, $50,000 for the runners-up and $25,000 for each of the losing semi-finalists. Add in the glory/incentive of playing in front of up 100,000 people, thereby providing much needed exposure for both finalists and there may be a chance to promote the game significantly at the grass roots level. But more importantly, the winner can justifiably say that they are currently the best non-AFL club in Australia.

Does the AFL influence Match Review Panel decisions to promote its agenda?

Source: www.adelaidenow.com.au

Once again an AFL tribunal decision has been based on what damage was done to the player and not the intent of the tackle. The incident I refer to is the Taylor Walker tackle on Harry Taylor during the Adelaide vs. Geelong game on the weekend.

Let’s consider this: both Harry Taylor and Taylor Walker are around the same size, so the strength needed to tackle the other is quite large. To put it another way Stephen Milne would have a problem trying to tackle either player given he is of smaller stature. When a player is instructed to tackle by his coaches, the instruction would be to stop the player disposing the ball legally and hence win the free kick for “holding the ball”. If the tackle is not hard enough the player is likely to be dragged to the bench for failing to obey instructions.

The intent is not to hurt the player but to win possession through obtaining a free kick.

Now the AFL will argue that this is a “sling” tackle. A sling tackle involves lifting the player off the ground and then throwing them to the ground (usually head first) in the tackle motion. This is often used in Rugby League and is quite dangerous. But the tackle from Walker on the weekend did not lift Harry Taylor far off the ground and both players fell to the ground in the tackle.

On the AFL website the determination of the number of matches was: “Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the Geelong Football Club, the incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), medium impact (two points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of five activation points, resulting in a classification of a level two offence, drawing 225 demerit points and a two-match sanction. He has a bad record of 93.75 demerit points, increasing the penalty to 318.75 points and a two-match sanction. An early plea reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to 239.06 points and a two-match sanction”.

The tackle itself from Taylor Walker was not high, but the contact of Harry Taylor’s head to the ground was. However that contact is covered by the medium impact charge. Thus at least two points can be removed from the charge. This reduces the penalty to 228.75 points and an early plea reduces the penalty by a further 25% to 171.56 points and a one-match suspension with 71.56 carry-over points.

In two other similar incidents on the weekend the AFL Match Review Panel (MRP) deemed the following.

“Contact between Richmond's Robin Nahas and the Sydney Swans' Nick Smith from the third quarter of Saturday's match was assessed. Smith has his head down after picking up the ball when he is tackled by Nahas. Nahas applies a tackle, without making high contact, and takes Smith to ground with the forward momentum of the Sydney player. Smith's head makes contact with the ground but it was the view of the panel that Nahas did not use excessive force or drive his opponent into the ground. No further action was taken.”

“Contact between Essendon's Nathan Lovett-Murray and West Coast's Matthew Priddis from the first quarter of Saturday's match was assessed. Priddis has collected the ball and is tackled by Lovett-Murray. Lovett-Murray takes Priddis to ground and it was the view of the panel the Essendon player did not sling or drive Priddis into the ground with excessive force with his tackle, and that the pair fell to the ground together. No further action was taken.”

In the Nahas case, given that Nahas is a small forward it is unlikely that he would have the strength to excessively drive someone to the ground. In the Lovett-Murray case the Essendon player did not sling the player, but both players fell to the ground in the act of tackling. So the force of the tackle was great enough to make both players fall to the ground… Just like Walker and Taylor !!

The assessment on each case is subjective in nature and consideration is given to the impact of the alleged infringement on the recipient player. But there is always going to be more damage if a larger stature player allegedly infringes on a smaller player based on power to weight ratio at time of impact.

I think there is an inconsistency between the Lovett-Murray case and the Walker case, so let’s look at it from another angle. Taylor Walker is currently leading the Coleman Medal and Adelaide play finals contenders Carlton and Collingwood in the next two weeks. Removing a goal scoring player from Adelaide’s team would provide more chance of winning to Carlton and Collingwood. The AFL needs both Carlton and Collingwood to play finals to maintain interest and a healthy profit base.

It is probable that both these teams would beat Adelaide, but the AFL wants to provide them with a greater chance and the MRP can manipulate the subjective assessments of the charge accordingly.

Similarly, both Nahas and Lovett-Murray would normally be in the starting line-ups for their teams. Richmond and Essendon play in the Dreamtime clash which the AFL uses as one of its showpiece games each year and would want both sides to have the best possible line-ups available for the clash. Therefore, in applying the subjective measures that apply to video reviews the MRP could easily manipulate their findings to satisfy the agenda of the AFL.

Sound a bit of a stretch … Well the precedent was set when Barry Hall was allowed to play in a Grand Final after blatantly punching another player in the stomach during a Preliminary Final. Hall should have received a one match penalty (at least) for the offence, but because a Grand Final might be missed and there was some public outcry, the AFL decided not to penalise Hall.

In reality the Walker case is not worth a three match penalty, in fact at a stretch a one match penalty is probably more appropriate, but there was no intent to harm Taylor so I would debate that any penalty above a free kick is overkill. The tribunal should be deciding penalties on intent rather than “damage” to the other player. Furthermore, the MRP should be independent of the AFL and not subject to being manipulated by the AFL to achieve its agenda.

Have Labor and more importantly Treasurer Wayne Swan lost the plot?

The title is probably a little harsh, but my mate Wayne Swan is not really inspiring any confidence in me and to be honest I’m not sure the other mob are any better. Mind you the idea of Malcolm Turnbull as Treasurer (should the Coalition get power) is somewhat appealing as at least he knows how to run a business.

The issue for the Labor Party is that is has: One, used the wrong tools to massage the economy; Two, lied to the Australian public about introducing a Carbon Tax, Three, gone to extreme lengths to control the House of Representatives and lost the trust of the Australian Public as a result.

However with the release of the 2012-13 Budget, I thought I would address point one above as my knowledge extends to this domain and others can deal with the political impacts. Economics is based on the distribution of Supply and Demand and without going into excessive detail on economic theory, there are different schools of thought that exist. (Similar to religion if one was to draw a parallel, i.e. every religion believes there is a higher authority/entity but the difference lies in the detail.)

In a nutshell, Wayne Swan comes across as a Keynesian Economist, although like all politicians is influenced by the electorate. Wikipedia basically describes Keynesian Economists as:

“Advocates of Keynesian economics argue that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes which require active policy responses by the public sector, particularly monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government to stabilize output over the business cycle.

Keynesian economics advocates a mixed economy — predominantly private sector, but with a significant role of government and public sector.”

Keynesian economic theory leans towards running budget deficits when the economy is in recession or a downturn and running budget surpluses in times of prosperity. There is another factor of interest on Government Debt which I have not addressed here, but is important in the current economic climate.

Factors providing growth to the economy are Consumption, Government Spending, Investment and Exports (through providing income) and Factors limiting growth are Taxes, Savings and Imports. Generally the multiplier effect of a $1 spent on consumption is not as effective as $1 spent on investment or Government Spending (if the spending is on infrastructure).

This is where I believe that the current government misread the electorate/Australian economy. When the original $900 was given to taxpayers under Kevin Rudd’s government (Swan was Treasurer) the expectation was that the Australian public would spend all of it and kickstart the economy through consumption. However most people either saved this money or paid off credit card debt both of which have negative impacts on economic growth according to Keynesian theory.

This money would have been better spent on infrastructure projects that were needed for the economy and may have resulted in job creation, or kept some companies in business etc, etc.

Similarly taxing the mining companies a greater amount causes problems, as then they charge more for their product which reduces profit margins for supplier industries, who in turn charge more for their products to cover costs, etc. A carbon tax has the same result, although I think the idea of a carbon tax is valid, we need to look at timing of implementation so that the economy does not suffer as a whole.

Changes to the health insurance rebate system may result in more people on the public health system. This may cause waiting lists to grow, which in turn causes problems. The better way would be for the government to encourage people to move into the Private Health system so as to place less strain on the health system.

Lastly, giving money to parents to spend on education needs for their children is targeted incorrectly as the money should be spent on improving education delivery. This will have a much longer impact on education standards and more importantly the nation’s children are better educated.

This last measure appears to be more of a political exercise rather than an economic one. This practice is not new to Australian politics and both major parties have played this game. The more courageous move to make would be to do what is correct for the economy and the nation which may earn the respect of the people !!

So Wayne Swan has really misread (and mislead) the public with the way the 2012-13 Budget is constructed and failed the leadership test when it comes to decision making. But the other side are also yet to prove that they are a better alternative!!

When is the right time for a cricketer to retire?

Rahul Dravid has been bowled in five of six innings in Australia

This question is quite topical at the moment in both the Australian and Indian cricket teams. Both of these teams have champion players that have contributed to most of their team’s success over the past decade and are in the twilight of their careers. There is a school of thought that would suggests that a cricketer should be able to declare their innings (i.e. retire) at a point of their own choosing based on what they have contributed to the game. However this notion should always depend on form and is especially the case in Test cricket.

Test cricket is played over five days and players need to be able to compete at a high level over that time. Every player is representing their country and I’ll often compare Test Cricket to siege warfare given the tactics required and the length of time involved to play the game. (In fact all international sport could be considered warfare without the bullets). Therefore it is very important that the 12 players representing your country are performing at the absolute best of their abilities.

For Australia, Ricky Ponting and Michael Hussey have been outstanding players of their craft and both have recently gone through a rough period with the bat. Both these players (along with Michael Clarke) scored centuries at the SCG against India but fell short in Perth. Although it must be noted that Perth is a cricket pitch that you never feel completely “in” on and that the first 20 is often the toughest 20 to make. So then does the Adelaide test become a form indication for these two players? With the West Indies tour coming up in April, I would suggest that these two need to make runs in Adelaide to prove their worth. The Ashes are only 18 months away and sending young prospects to the West Indies is ideal preparation (followed by an Australian Summer) for an Ashes tour that will be tough.

Another player under scrutiny is Brad Haddin, who appears to be out of form with the bat and is losing some touch with the gloves. Haddin is a confidence player that plays streakily when batting, but some of Haddin’s shot selections have been puzzling to say the least and given his glove work has dropped questions must be asked about his position in the side. Possible replacements are Tim Paine and Matthew Wade, Paine is injured at the moment and Adelaide does present the perfect opportunity for the selectors to try out Wade to see if he is at Test standard.

For India, who has had an abysmal Australian tour to say the least, there are probably five players that are in the firing line: Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman, Sehwag and Dhoni. Out of these five players only Tendulkar (38 years old) looks like a batsman in reasonable form. Dravid (39) is out of sorts and his reactions may have slowed just a touch as he has been bowled in five out of his six innings in Australia. Laxman (37) is not moving his feet at the crease, is playing sub-continental shots and is either being bowled of getting caught behind the wicket. Sehwag (33) and Dhoni (30) are simply not taking the time to get themselves “in” (which is a must as a batsman) and have not contributed much to India’s cause over the summer.

In India’s case there are almost 50,000 test runs of experience under scrutiny. With such a generational change the challenge for India is how to manage the player movement. Do they drop players that are out of form in full knowledge that they may never return, thereby promoting youth? Do they stick with these players and hope for one last hurrah from them? It is a difficult choice for the BCCI as the first probably means that results may not go India’s way, but this may be cushioned with India playing their next few series at home. The latter enables the players to leave on their terms, would keep the Indian fans happy and probably generate more revenue for the BCCI (although that is probably not too big an issue).

The motivating factor for retention of any player should always be form, after all the objective is to win the test match. To paraphrase an Ian Chappell quote “A country should pick its best 11 players and then pick its captain”. Considering this statement are all of the Indian players mentioned above currently within India’s best eleven on form. At this stage I would suggest that Dravid, Laxman and Sehwag are probably not and their positions within the team should be heavily scrutinised before the Adelaide Test. As for the Australians, Ponting and Hussey are probably in the best eleven for now but need to be making runs consistently to justify their selection in the team and should be treated no different to all of the other players in the side.

Although most cricketers (and other sports professionals) would like to dictate when they retire, form should always play its part and selectors should have courage to advise a player that his form may not warrant further selection in a team. Most players will know in themselves when it is time, but having the courage to act on their instincts and put the team first is difficult. India and Australia face tough decisions in the near future and it will be interesting to see if either or both nations are able to make those decisions effectively.

Is Australian Culture overly Reliant on the "Beer Drinking Ocker" image?

Previous favourites of The Rambling Couch Sitter. Image from www.beer-pages.com

The Australian psyche is still geared around a fascination around alcohol. Thankfully the message around drinking and driving appears to be hitting the mark as there do appear to be less fatal accidents involving alcohol than 10 years ago.

But what of the issue around it being a social requirement to consume alcohol and in a worrying trend for the under 30’s to consume copious amounts of alcohol with friends on a night out. Admittedly until a year ago the Rambling Couch Sitter had fallen into this category and would find that the hangovers would take longer to recover from as the years passed.

But over the last 12 months yours truly has abstained from alcohol completely and while there are some very personal reasons for this a few observations have emerged over this time.

One, every now and then I went to the local pub and watched sport on FOX (actually, I still do to get out of the house sometimes!!) so with beer in hand it was amazing how many people would come up and start chatting about the sport being shown. This is now a rare event which I attribute to the choice of drink in the hand.

In fact if you are by yourself in a pub, starting a conversation with a non-alcoholic drink is actually quite difficult. More often than not the other person is well on the way to being drunk, so usually incoherent. (or just dribbling shit, whereas before I may have dribbled just as much crap) But once the conversation has started it can be difficult to keep the conversation going as you usually have to repeat yourself or shout etc, etc.

Two, being a single man I have noticed a barrier emerging when chatting to the ladies. They are a little hesitant to chat to someone who is not as drunk as others. This could be because they are afraid of being taken advantage of (which is a fair concern) or a myriad of other things which I cannot even think to imagine given that I am no expert.

Three, and possibly most worrying, is that some people have questioned my sexuality because I am not consuming alcohol. It is as though in a portion of Australian Culture, alcohol is linked to sexuality (i.e. you are heterosexual if you drink alcohol). In a society that is meant to be “advanced” I find this truly amazing. Especially as now we are more multicultural and more accepting of people’s choices in other aspects of life. This attitude is more 1950’s than 21^st Century and probably needs to change for Australia to progress as a society.

Four, you have “mates” that feel it’s their responsibility to convince you to start drinking again. Once again, this is about not respecting the choice I have made. There are a few people that know all of the reasons behind my choice and in the main they respect them. However the remainder know the main driver for the change, yet see it as their mission (should they choose to accept it) to get me back off the wagon.

It will be interesting to see whether attitudes change while I maintain my abstinence from alcohol. However I am not holding my breath waiting for it to happen.