An opinion I have is that Andrew Hilditch’s mind has been abducted and replaced with a modified Atari.
This modified atari brain reads the papers, follows Warne’s twitter feed and writes a name that Greg Chappell types into him.
My opinion has many so called pieces of evidence, but my favourites are the spinners like Beau Casson, Nathan Hauritz, and Michael Beer.
Beau Casson was picked even though a look at him when riding your unicycle as he drove past in a car would tell you he didn’t have the mental stength to place test cricket.
Nathan Hauritz was picked when the New South Wales selectors didn’t believe he was good enough for them. He was then dropped when he finally believed he was good enough (before an Ashes losing test), brought back to suceed (for him) and then was dropped for a poor left arm version of himself, and has now been brought back because every other spinner in the country seems to have had their go.
Michael Beer was picked because Warne said he was good, Hilditch had no idea where he was from or anything about him at all. I could get six blokes from any cricket club and put them in a line up with Michael Beer and he’d need two chances to pick him out of the line up.
Hilditch could be a real functioning human being who occasionally says something that makes no sense to back up his latest mistake. He may not even make mistakes, perhaps there are no mistakes, and everything is just part of a larger interrelationship matrix that keeps the world hurtling to some sort of a disappointing conclusion. See how opinions open things up. What is a mistake, can you make them, is Hilditch made of them, etc.
Today Hilditch has picked Hauritz, again, and said this, “his one-day record in India is excellent”.
Excellent is Hilditch’s opinion. Nothing more. The man was asked a question and came up with an answer. Excellent isn’t concrete, it’s just an adjective used to explain why Nathan Hauritz has been brought back randomly again.
Just like Hilditch can rubbish my opinion on him having a modified atari making his decisions (mistakes), I can rubbish his opinion of using the word excellent when discussing Hauritz’s Indian one day form.
In seven one dayers in India Hauritz has taken four wickets at 70. He has an economy of 4.56.
It’s not terrible, saying this is excellent is better than saying Andrew Hilditch’s recent selections have been excellent, it just isn’t excellent. It could be described as ok, mediocre, not bad, far from exciting or meh. Excellent is a ways away from all of these.
Peter English‘s opinion is “To call Hauritz’s India record “excellent” shows how little knowledge the chairman has of his subjects.”
Surely if Andrew Hilditch was a human who was in charge of selection he would know the players records well enough that if when asked he wouldn’t call a decidedly average record excellent.
So he must have a modified atari for a brain. It’s only an opinion, but it makes more sense than anything Hilditch has done in a long time, in my opinion.