Who’s responsible for the snubbing of Chadd Sayers? Russian hackers, of course

Dane Eldridge Columnist

By Dane Eldridge, Dane Eldridge is a Roar Expert

 , ,

19 Have your say

    Not only did Russian hackers influence the outcome of the US presidential race, they are now ensuring Chadd Sayers never wins Australian Test selection.

    Conspiracy theories were mildly aroused when the South Australian was overlooked as a plum choice for Adelaide, but after being ignored for the synergetic qualities of the Gabba, it is now perfectly clear what’s at play.

    The Kremlin has grown bored of rigging elections, and instead has moved on to the full annihilation of swing bowling in the Antipodes- starting with Sayers as their unsuspecting Democrat.

    Just like the inexplicable result of the US election, how else can the swing ace’s omission be explained?

    When you crunch the numbers, there is no other reason. This is another decision that has shocked the world and it stinks of a Eurasian cyber-attack.

    The failure of something so fittingly appropriate shows the same information warfare wreaked upon the American people has now infiltrated Australian intelligence, and most notably, our selectors.

    Like Hilary Clinton, Sayers has built an insurmountable case for election. He has solidly campaigned for the last two seasons as a predictable backbone who holds the advantage of not being a tangerine-coated sex-pest.

    His inauguration was seemingly only a matter of time, and that time should’ve been now.

    With his bags of wickets across all constituencies, not to mention his recent tip-top touch as a snake-charmer with the pink ball, he was tailor-made for the last two Tests- at the very least.

    But at the crucial moment, there was a defect in reasoning from selectors caused by an unidentifiable glitch in process. As a result, his trade secrets for Adelaide went to waste and the drenched air of Brisbane begging.

    Forget incumbency of others and the need for a spinner. How is Sayers not the one? How can the facts be so misleading?

    Undoubtedly, the judgements of those with the vote have been distorted by faceless influences, ones transmitting through their servers goaded on the whiff of geopolitical dominance and vodka.

    It can’t be Rod Marsh, so all that leaves is Moscow.

    Unfortunately, Sayers is emblematic of our scary new world. He is a scientifically sound, factually proven and entirely suitable option trying to operate in a post-truth universe where all that matters is ‘good wheels’.

    These are times where practicalities and irrefutable data are no match for the intangibles, where ‘feel’, ‘gut’ and ‘Boof’ trump all.

    And it was all kicked off by the Russians. Wow, they have really done it this time.

    Sure, boosting Trump to the leader of the free world was a pretty awful thing to do, but abandoning Sayers in Shield takes the cake.

    Dane Eldridge
    Dane Eldridge

    Dane was named best and fairest in the 2004 Bathurst mixed indoor cricket competition. With nothing in the game left to achieve, he immediately retired at his peak to a reclusive life ensconced in the velvet of organised contests. Catch the man on Twitter @eld2_0.

    Oldest | Newest | Most Recent

    The Crowd Says (19)

    • December 16th 2016 @ 8:32am
      Matthew H said | December 16th 2016 @ 8:32am | ! Report

      Geez I’d like to see Sayers play for Australia too. Do you think if this series is wrapped up 2-0, or if we fail to bowl well and can’t get a result in game 1 that we might see it this series? I assume if the series is 1-0 there will be no change?

    • December 16th 2016 @ 8:45am
      Basil said | December 16th 2016 @ 8:45am | ! Report

      The only logical explanation. Obviously the Kremlin thought that after Bird’s dominant display of 3/111 in Adelaide and Lyons 1 and only spell of the summer that didn’t suck, Sayers would be an excess to requirements.

    • Roar Guru

      December 16th 2016 @ 8:46am
      Chris Kettlewell said | December 16th 2016 @ 8:46am | ! Report

      I understand Sayers may be a good swing bowler, and I actually would like to see some good swing going on, and I know this is all tongue in cheek, but if you look at Bird and Sayers first class records they are almost identical, so the idea that it’s really strange that Bird might get selected ahead of Sayers, thus prompting such over the top, tongue in cheek articles, doesn’t really stack up. Bird v Sayers effectively is a line ball call, and the selectors have gone with Bird, likely because he’s been a bit unluckily sort of sitting there like the next man in for a while, just missing out a few times and as much as anything they may have felt he deserved to actually get the chance after all that.

      • December 16th 2016 @ 8:54am
        Tom M said | December 16th 2016 @ 8:54am | ! Report

        Chris, look at their respective records with the pink rock. Pink ball cricket is a different game and there is currently one bowler in Australia who seems to have mastered it. Sadly he misses out for what? Because the selectors made a mistake in selecting Meanie over bird in Hobart?

        • Roar Guru

          December 16th 2016 @ 9:04am
          JamesH said | December 16th 2016 @ 9:04am | ! Report

          You probably need to play more than 3-4 pink ball games in order to be a ‘master’ of it, Tom. It’s a pretty small sample size.

          • December 16th 2016 @ 9:31am
            Basil said | December 16th 2016 @ 9:31am | ! Report

            Thats true. Maybe we’ll check again in 3 years to see if he’s mastered it before selecting him?

            • Roar Guru

              December 16th 2016 @ 1:03pm
              Chris Kettlewell said | December 16th 2016 @ 1:03pm | ! Report

              Sayers may have had some good spells with the pink ball, but Sayers v Bird overall shows two very similar records. I would certainly like to see that third pace bowler be someone who swings the ball, so I hope Bird swings it a bit when he gets the ball, and if he doesn’t swing it much and Sayers does, that would almost be enough to get me to pick him. But my basic point is simply that the way selection often works is that Bird has been next in line for a while, he’s done nothing wrong to drop from that position, and the guy people are arguing should be there in place of him has an almost identical overall record, not one that is dramatically better. So it’s not a blatantly obvious call, it’s a judgement call and the selectors have gone a different way than what many people here would like, but that’s not necessarily a bad call.

        • December 16th 2016 @ 9:33am
          Basil said | December 16th 2016 @ 9:33am | ! Report

          Tom you’ve hit the nail on the head. Its like the selectors are trying to make it up for what they deem as earlier selection errors rather than picking the strongest for the now.

    • December 16th 2016 @ 10:49am
      PGJ said | December 16th 2016 @ 10:49am | ! Report

      Bird must have got in with his superior batting

    • December 16th 2016 @ 12:25pm
      Simon said | December 16th 2016 @ 12:25pm | ! Report

      Starc Hazlewood Sayers even just looks a more balanced attack imo. You’ve got the fat left armer who can swing it back in, the tall Glenn McGrath type right armer who can hit a length and move it a bit of the seam, and a right arm version of Wasim Akram in Sayers

      • Roar Guru

        December 16th 2016 @ 12:50pm
        DingoGray said | December 16th 2016 @ 12:50pm | ! Report

        Nothing better than a Fat Left armer!

      • Roar Guru

        December 16th 2016 @ 1:05pm
        Chris Kettlewell said | December 16th 2016 @ 1:05pm | ! Report

        Wasim was super quick. I’ve never heard any suggestions that Sayers is. Is he more an Aussie Jimmy Anderson, or a Terry Alderman type? Must admit I haven’t seen much of his bowling first hand.

    • December 16th 2016 @ 12:50pm
      Mike Dugg said | December 16th 2016 @ 12:50pm | ! Report

      Sayers is even slower than Bird. Could be another Joe Mennie

    Have Your Say

    If not logged in, please enter your name and email before submitting your comment. Please review our comments policy before posting on the Roar.

    , ,