Rhino Richards

You do talk some absolute crap for the sake of taking an opposing view. Asif set the game going and Hussey changed it and arguably won it. Hussey's knock changed the game regardless of how many times he was dropped. Siddle was only the foil. Of course his innings was gutsy and gritty. Its was not polished but it does not reduce its impact.The gems keep adding up WYL. What false sense of security?? We have got problems a plenty. In the last 5 years when havent we had around 3 players in their mid 30s? Keep them coming WYL. Its a rich vein of form you are in.

For someone who has never doubted Ponting as a batsman, you have all the hallmarks of someone who does. Ponting is good enough to understand the changing of the season and adapt his batting to the needs of the situation. Many of the top batsman modify their game in their final years. S Waugh and Tendulkar are good examples. And if he is going to be found out at No 3 by England who is going to do it??? In your own view you dont rate Broad or Anderson. You forget that Roach, Asif and Aamer (at times) were world class. England certainly dont have any pushing 150kmh. We know exactly how good this side is. Its better than the WI and Pakistan but its not the intimidating side it was. I think we will have a very close contest with England and tie the series. Australia has lapses during a Test but it knows how to eek a win out of a tough situation. It does not lay down easily. You need to look beyond the results in the paper. Hussey and North did little to convince indeed. Hussey may have been lucky to have to been dropped but his gritty and gutsy innings anchored the win. Of course he should have been man of the match. Who else could have got it? Another of your gems there WYL .

Ponting is still better than most other cricketers at 3. He carried an injury through most of the Test but he will have to evolve his game at 35. He still went onto make his century count. He is hardly a worry. Your attitude toward him may be so. I thought we learnt heaps about the team and the way its plays. Watson stepping up, North and Hussey. Its a worry if you watch six tests and you cant draw anything from them. We had clear evidence about where Hauritz is out. Unless teams are giong to go the slog, Hauritz, nor any of his teammates have the individual class to run through a batting line up. Hauritz is the best option we have atm. I dont think he is a match winner and I dont think he is potent enough. Solid team teams will keep him out. Class teams will cut him to pieces. We are along way from the days of having McGrath,Warne and Gillespie at their peak

Fair enough but you have highlighted some compelling reasons why we will struggle. I agree about the openers. I think Watson and Katich have been good in Australia and deserve their chance. Watson's reverse swing complements the other fast bowlers. Katich...dunno about him. Why hasn't he bowled earlier..injury..confidence. We3 need wrist spin. If Hauritz wickets flatter him what of Katich?? Katich had on easy street with kamakaze batmen with no hope of winning. Our middle order has real holes at 4 and 6. I am worried that 2 test against NZ and Pakistan (in England) wont help solve it. There's the rub. I dont think we have a capable enough 4th innings bowler...England will not prostitute their wickets as willingly as the Pakistanis. Then so will Bollinger. I dont mind either bowler. I want the one that gets the most wickets. Problem is that there were times that Siddle look straight up and down throughout the summer.

Cheers Andy for your efforts and kind service. By moving to a new host, do we lose the rich (and not so rich) posting history of Demonland like we did when we moved from Aimoo?

Says nothing why Ponting going for zero would have been better for Australia in the LT. Another of your ridiculous gems WYL.

Why?

FWIW, I thought both WI and Pakistan would be easy beats this summer. I was pleasantly surprised by the WI and there some hope for the future there. Not so Pakistan who have deep problems on and off the field. Besides the first day or so in Sydney, Australia played both sides on pitches that were absolute belters. Australian benefited from and capitalised on mental lapses from both sides (in the case of Pakistan..huge ones!). Both sides played to form although many of the WI's really stepped up. Its clear that when we play the Ashes next Summer, we will face an English team that will not [censored] their wickets easily nor give away an advantage when they are in front. They are unlikely to have any real weak links in their team that will give Australia an easy opening in a match. The Australian team are young and still inexperienced in cricket terms and have shown the following characteristics: 1. They no longer have a true match winner with either bat or ball. Gone are the days when any of Hayden, Ponting, Gilly, McGrath or Warne would change a game. Ponting is a class act but at 35 off his best (He is still Australia's premier bat nonetheless). Johnson takes wickets in spasms but we have no bowler that can rip through a batting line up. We require 5 bowlers bowling well to chip in with 1,2 or 3 wickets here or there. 2. Ponting has had to work harder marshalling his bowlers to make the break and was at most times superior to Yousuf and had the wood on Gayle. However Gayle impressed at times. 3. We found an opening pair in Watson and Katich. We have question marks at 4 (Hussey) and 6 (North). Ponting despite his injury will still be effective at 3. He just wont be intimidating as in past years. 4. Watson may be the all rounder we have been looking for (pray his body holds up). His batting has been great at opening and his ability to reverse swing important at critical times. 5. Dont let the figures fool you, Hauritz is pedestrian as a spinner. He will never have it as easy as he had this summer and was the chief beneficiary of some truly suicidal batting. At no time did he look like he would rip through a side. But I cant think of someone better. But the question mark remains on him and the selectors are wise to explore all options at this point. Its a pretty bare cupboard. 6. The pace attack is workmanlike and honest. Johnston can hurt in a couple of overs and is a genuine wicket taker but is hot and cold. Bollinger bowled well. Siddle lacks a killer delivery and is a little straight up and down. Hilfy back would add a good blend. While much can happen to both sides in 12 months, at this point I think Australia could draw the the series in Australia for the Ashes but not win the coveted urn.

Or if she had allowed someone access to the keys.......... Hmmm On a better topic, Punter gets a ton and the owner of the Top Gear Toy is getting close. 3/226 of 61 overs. Pitch is a belter. We need to bowl well to get 20 wickets.

I was being sarcastic over the Melb test when he squibbed the final overs on day 1 of a Test match. His alleged fiancee *cough* can look after the Aston Martin. Its not good having a bingle around such a fine car.

Shouldn't Hauritz come in before Clarke to protrect him from the new ball?

Conflicting logic. We could not trade him post the Sewell event (FWIW I wonder in all truth how close that deal was). He could not crack a game in an ordinary defence at MFC. Now why? He was delisted and not one of the other 15 clubs sort him through the PSD. Now why? Answer: He was bog ordinary and not good enough. He eventually found his standard in the SANFL. Underrated...nah. Correctly assessed albeit that it took too long for MFC to work it out. I hated it when Alves, Wells and Hardeman left. Neitz, Ox and other senior players were finished. However the Ox's 2nd knee injury against the Swans meant we would never see the Ox of old again. Tingay was a shot duck phyiscally after 1998. Powell was riddled with OP and played his best at MFC in 2000. There was no way I would have given him 3 years. He was pedestrian St K. Farmer was a nasty difficult and inconsistent player at Freo. Whish we got something for him. Another who played his best footy at MFC. Thompson's departure hurt given his impact in 2004

The perspective is that if we waited until the end of next year when Bailey's contract is up then I believe we would have to offer him a new contract on potentially new terms one of which would be a minimum of 2 years. At that point now if we offered only one year IMO it reflects a lack of confidence in the Board and potentially risks the continued development of our talent basis in the quest of 2 year outcomes. By acting now and giving him a one year extension to the existing contract allows Bailey to continue to develop the side with the confidence having two years to do so without risk of short term or media induced outcomes. MFC have a better window to judge Bailey as he move through the development stage and gives confidence to Bailey to continue on the proper path he has taken to date NB. You're excused thinking that there was a change. Fine form Axis of Bob!!!!

And he had a great list at his disposal too. Comments like yours pay on heed to the circumstances surrounding the outcomes. Glad we agree on the one year. While seemingly obvious to the outside supporter the decisions to retire/delist marque players of the past decade are not easy. They have been handle professionally, seamlessly and in the best interest of the Club. He has ensured there has been a due and proper process to this. FWIW, Johnson was a difficult decision and could have been retained. In respect of McLean, the Club went on the front foot and got a top pick for him. Its not just the outcome, its the process undertaken to achieve it. GIve him one year and give yourself the chance to see if Bailey is as capable a finishing coach ans he is a development coach. FWIW, I think Axis of Bob nails it here.

Sensible thinking by MFC. Reasons are in this thread. http://forums.demonland.com/index.php?show...;hl=Dean+Bailey

Until some of the much vaulted talent blooms we still do have a weakness there. However there are some promising signs.

However I agree with the 3 yrs or so for development

Agree. Watts was always going to be developed over a couple of years. This is his first pre season and he has much growing and development to do as a footballer. I would not be surprised if he play less than 14 games this year and in a variety of positions too to learn the trade.

Thanks Steamin for the summary. Very interesting. DB is right when he says "You win the midfield and you win the game". I have no doubt 2008 must have been a huge frustration skills wise.

*BUMP* MFC article on Watts disposition. http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsart...91/default.aspx

I could never work out the logical connection between a conservative muslim country and Carlton. Maybe a Borneo Booze cruise anyone?

Thanks to all for your reports. Agree. But the observations are still good at this time of year. I think this is a point to easily overlooked. Two years ago we could not even train on an oval with goal posts and the gym was a rat infested building 40 minutes away. Its a pity Casey is where it is...so far away. Look forward to your report Jack.

If some of the MFC talent become stars we wont be able to afford his current rates and hopefully have better options than him in a few years. I wonder how long he has effective in the AFL given the OP he carries.

The players you quote were either elite or close to elite in other parts of their games. Lack of pace is a crucial flaw in your game and typically such players you mentioned (Wartson, Ling, West and Mitchell) were very good players but were aided by having skilled quicker players around them. Brock has none of the skills at the level that the others have. And when you play Jones and Valenti in the same side as well, the midfield looked like molasses. I agree with Axis of Bob's assessment of Brock. I think the move would be good for both parties. Fact eh? Hmmmm.

Only if she can bat at 6. Not playing for NSW will work against her chances somewhat.