I've been watching motor sport for 40 years....and have an interest in the history of it going back even further than that, and what really comes home about this crash is that if you saw this 20 years ago......it would have most likely ended in tragedy. The question I have is whether the huge advances in cockpit safety in recent years has lead to a slightly gung ho attitude to racing among the younger driver these days. Most of whom have not grown up in the same dangerous motor racing environment as those drivers from past eras.
Quite frankly, if drivers such as Verstappen, Vettel etc behaved as they currently do on track back in the 60s & 70s....the other drivers would have made sure they never drove again, as they would be a danger to all.
Yes, I had the very same debate with a mate just last week when Verstappen jobbed Ocon.
Verstappen is a moron, but Ocon is probably a goose as well, yet what right does Verstappen or any driver have to ask for another driver not to race them! If you are slow you are slow not matter where you are on the track, in the rankings or in tactics. If you are good enough pass, if not be passed!
FYI, I posted the above because after viewing the crash I am reminded of a young lad I know who had been driving carts since he was in primary school and has recently progressed into the higher formulas as a teenager. He's very good probably in the top half-dozen in country. And as you know at that "colt level", I know no other better asexual term to use to describe it, there are only a few cars and very few spots available. It's big money for mum and dads to fund their child without sponsorship or opportunity from some organisation.
At the moment the way funding is going in motorsport there is clear advantage to being in a particular team, and to be a particular gender, with only a few spots available all the best drivers want to be there. But he's missed out and they have put a young lass in a seat who is not considered to be anywhere close to competitive with the other drivers, but it's the right thing for the team to do from the perspective of commercial and government sponsorship, and in publicity perception. If they give it out on merit, the team gets accused of becoming a boys club, and they get the inappropriate label from the various groups. On ranking the young lass isn't in the top 30 let alone the top 3 or 4, in fact because of the limited numbers that participate she is ranked in the bottom 15%, but they have chosen to pro-actively discriminate on her behalf almost to avoid trouble. Does it really need to be on race day though, in such a dangerous sport?
Where is the common sense in all this?
The activists will rally, they will claim the lass won't get better if not given the opportunity. But in reality she has been racing against her peers(male or female) for many years already, is ranked against them without discrimination based on results, and isn't high in the rankings at all! What she has is very politically active support and no fear of using it!
Does that make her a target, even worse than lacking ability was that young lass in Macau targeted?
How lucky is this kid, the others drivers, spectators and staff of the Formula 3 event. It's an engineering miracle that people were not killed. I'm glad she is out of surgery and looks likely to recover, hard to believe she is tweeting from the hospital bed.
But my nature makes me prone to pose the unpopular questions, and I can't help but pose this question despite not knowing what went wrong.
Is this what equality quotas get you when anti-discrimination laws become extreme, did this kid deserve to be out there?
Did she have enough of the basic skills to deal with a car problem at 280kph, or was she just there because of her gender and an allocated spot?
If there are quotas in this sport, how is that fair on other drivers, officials and spectators, how is it fair on her when she could lose her life? The equality argument will be it's her life to lose, but she has no right to possibly take others with her!
I'm interested in the thoughts of others, because outside of this specific incident it's an issue being discussed across several sports and life in general.
Speaking of Aussie icons... wish we could sneak Norman Gunston into a White House media session with Trump. There must be a way to have Norman interview/question Trump... who wouldn't want to see that!
I'm pegging it would take Trump at least 18 hours to formulate a tweet in response!
John Clarke would have been another good one to get hold of the Donald!
But alas, I think it would be all wasted on the yanks! Have you ever seen the shock and confusion when an Irish politician explains the PR-STV election system to a US republican? It's like coaching an opera singer in Klingon!
Can any of them claim high ground on getting things done?
From what I can tell, the Clintons will move heaven and earth if their wallets get thicker, maybe even start a war!
While Trump isn't even that motivated to make an effort and prefers to just claim credit for stuff done by others! He's an opportunistic feeder like an old gator, if something passes close enough he'll take a bite if it not too much trouble!
But I can see more Shutdowns coming to the USA, and I'm sure Trump will blame the Democrats and the Democrats will blame Trump.
The little people will be hurt from both sides whether they vote GOP or Democrat!
I’m afraid that’s just too much information Baggers (searching for vomit emoticon).
One of two American comedians on the wireless this morning mentioned that the POTUS is a narcissistic sociopath; watching himself in the mirror while he ruins the world
The mirror is the only way he'll see his penis, which is what I think Stormy Daniels was getting at, it grows in the shade!
Apparently the average Shield cricketer is on $300K
That's like saying the AFL averages is now $340K.
Most do not earn that much, many only play a fraction of the available games, yet to get a game they have to train, travel and work as hard as someone who plays every game.
For a job that takes then all over the country working pretty much 7 days a week for at least half of the year it's not as glamorous as many think.
That is why IPL is so attractive, if they are any good at T20 they can earn a years wage in one game! BCCI know this, they know playing IPL disrupts the Test careers, so they took steps to make sure their own Test players were not as heavily affected. Other countries were slow to catch on!
Smith made AFR's rich list and punter is supposedly worth 100 million. Test cricket pays plenty of you're good enough.
Twenty twenty is for also rans.
This is confusing income from off-field enterprises with wages from cricket.
You'll always get the odd player who has substantial business interests, what we need are blokes who focus on test cricket as cricketers.
But this is nothing new ProfE, as you know at just about any level except 1st class the T20 and other short form teams are usually quite different to the usual 1st Eleven. Even in small suburban clubs this is normal. But in recent years it's been one team fits all for Australia, mostly because it's the short form of the game that earns the test players the big money.
According to Gideon Haigh, one of the problems is that Shield cricketers are being paid far too much and there is little incentive for them to push for Test selection, particularly if there's IPL money on offer.
Being paid too much in IPL and Big Bash, not in domestic and test cricket.
You're exactly right mate, and most of their ODI side won't ever play a Test either.
That should be Starc's fate, but the problem is we don't pay enough for Test cricketers and they want limited overs money!
India put everyone to the sword because the BCCI is so rich, they basically pay their best players to regularly stand out of limited overs matches. Poms are starting to follow suit.
Until we get serious about it, and stop the half/half bullcrap, we won't recover in the cricket rankings. Limited overs is not a short form of Test Cricket, it's a whole different game!
The current English model is to play a heap of lusty hitting all rounder types and few specialist bowlers.
Yep the Poms play the numbers game, lots of reliable noodlers bowling option balls here and there, and the batting pressure off the top order because they bat deep.
There is a direct correlation between slowed run rates and bowling changes.
If you can get a bunch of blokes who can reliably bowl 1 or 2 over spells, not needing 2 or 3 overs just to get going, you put the brakes on batmen as they never really get 100% settled. The only problem it adds is that on a bad day you do have an issue getting through your overs.
Yeah he’s a genius We just went for 75 in the last 5 overs
The bowlers were poo, Starc even came out and stated his spell was the worst of his career, but not really I think.
Which is the point I've been making about the likes of Starc and Coulter-Nile, as ODI and T20 bowlers they suck big time! To be a successful limited overs bowler you need extreme control over every delivery, these blokes can't even put them on the pitch reliably!
Once you have one or two bolwers letting the batsmen off the hook, the job for the bowlers at the other ned becomes impossible, the pressure doesn't build and they play freely. In ODI and T20 games Starc is just another Levi Casboult, the bloke the opposition is waiting for before they take control!
