Rhino Richards

SNAP. Too easy by half. You are the only detraction here HT. I did say it was a good poll. Move on

White never played body on body. He did not have a clue where to move in the forward line and was not a noted or accurate kick for goal over the course of his career. At least he could ruck and was a very good ruckman until the rules changed in 2005. PJ's kicking for goal and around the ground is nothing special. Too many people confuse his good kicking style without considering the end result which is often accompanied by questionable decision making. Maybe PJ could become a 200cm rover?

My understanding is that he had always had that teflon perspective and his rise to fame only added fuel to the fire. His long litany of embarrassing and unacceptable behavioural events in public and private destroyed any chance he had of ever being Australian captain. Its a pity. He was a great bowler with an enterprising cricket brain. It gave him longevity in the game where just one of his embarrassing gaffes would have sunk the careers of lesser mortals.

Good Poll. Alot more informative than a simple yes no choice to a question biased to the author's desired outcome.

There is no doubt Warne sees himself in that light too.Through the difficult times in his life, drug taking, teammate sledging, accepting bribes, serial womaniser and cheating that Warne has this surreal ability to brush these issues off as something thats neither here nor there when all the world realises its different and has serious implications about judgement and good character. Its a quality that has allowed him to endure personally the strain of public life in his own unique way. In another way it shows he repeatedly does not understand the fundamental responsibilities and accountabilities he has to people in his cricket life and his private life. Deep down he is a simple bogan from the burbs who just does not get it. He is respected and revered as a cricketer but not on the same level as a person. There is a number of skills Warne has on the field that dont translate off it...one of them is character. FWIW, Warne is the best bowler I have ever seen and the demonstration of his rare skills to world cricket came at a price.

Agree that he had brilliant cricket mind and was a great bowler but.... Not a leader's bootlace who was a loner with litle rapport with teammates and few if any real friends in cricket. And after Tubby and S Waugh were both made Australian of the Year it is hard to think that a serial pants man, a smoker, a pathological liar and a convicted drug taker was ever going to be the high profile and high prestige captain of Australia. Unfortunately brilliance in some areas was countered by an perpetually embarrassing personal profile that makes Wayne Carey look like a Saint.

Blah Blah Blah. He won the Test at Melbourne so how could it possibly be a mistake? The follow on and the amazing freakish comeback by the Indians in a record stand does not negate the argument about batting first and is irrelevant to the the discussion. However for all of Waugh's alleged greatness, the decision cost us that series in India. Nobody is criticising SR Waugh. They just recognise he was a captain with a great team (one of the greatest ever at his disposal). Was he a great captain? Gien the side he had it hard to tell. He rarely had the pressure on him (ex India) during his captaincy. And for the record Warne made four captains look better than they were....Border, Taylor, Waugh and Ponting. Great players do that. Just spare us the meldramatic crap.

Agree. Can we get back to the semantics of or the importance of integrity argument? Fire away.

S.R. Waugh had McGrath, Gillespie and Warne at his disposal in the fourth innings and then he had Hayden, Langer, Ponting and Gilly ably supported by M Waugh and Martin. I like Steve Waugh but honestly it was easy to Captain a side with 4 all time greats in it ably supported by another four very good players. And a quick scan of Cricinfo shows that SR Waugh as captain of the Test team won the toss in the 2nd Test at Melbourne in 2000/2001 and bowled. http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63965.html Who would have thunk it? HT is right. "The crux of my post is, in Test Matches (5 day format) you analyse the pitch first and look/consider at the pitch & weather conditions. Including forecasts. It helps determine results." Winning the toss and deciding correctly does have a huge bearing on a Test. While the majority of time the winner does bat it is not a golden rule and it is feasible to bowl given certain circumstances and conditions.

Not necessarily. Valenti was promoted by his supporters as an AFL ready to go 23 yo midfielder (better than McLean according to some ) and should be playing for MFC now. I have always held that MFC did not rate Valenti because he has few of the skills required in AFL to overcome his deficiencies. When we are screaming out for quality midfielders, it was clear that Valenti was not seen as one of them as MFC were prepared to draft as low as 60 in the ND and still not consider Valenti for elevation. Spencer is a project player who needs significant development. Injuries have probably forced him to the front line earlier than would otherwise have been. While he is raw, at 19 he gives more hope in the ruck than PJ and Meesen and I think Bob's assessment of him is right. The AFL have only just introduce the rule for the 3 year rookie. If they had not, I think MFC would have elevated Spencer. At this point, he is definitely worth persevering with. In addition we should also be looking at other ruck options.

I trust you are not judging B'desh on the effort against sub club X1 from Zimbabwe. They are a third rate country that was given first class status a generation before it should have. Zimbabwe cricket mirrors the country itself. An appalling tragedy being destroyed by Mugabe and his goons.

I said I dont think its a given that you bat first every time in a ODI. How much is the pitch going to deteriorate over 8 hours when it has been specifically made for a run feast? And there is only 4 hours in duration difference between a 20/20 and a 50 over game so if it doesnt matter for a 20/20 then the it should hardly matter for a ODI. And the main issue with the pre Test series games is not so much the 20/20 (and its not good) but the lack of quality opposition games. Without looking at the fixture there was British Lions 3 dayer and a game against a watered down county side. It affects the start of a series but is no excuse for the player's peformance over the whole of the series. Exactly

Agree These are questions an MFC supporter may contemplate regardless of the Ball situation. What you decide in any option is hardly going to impact the Ball decision. Source?

Billy, under the rookie rules, MFC dont have to elevate him in his 3rd year. So the fact they have not elevated him does not infer statement you imply He is 19 and a project player. He is worth persevering with. Jamar aside, even at this stage he is super competitive and physical at ruck contests and does provide physical support for smaller players in congested situations. For his size he has good mobility and while his kicking style is awkward, its not that bad. IMO he offers far more potential as a ruckman that PJ and Meesen who cannot ruck. PJ and Meesen's contract expires at the end of 2010, Billy if you are a far better player than a judge of talent then give the Club a call.

Its another celebration of the malaise that is international cricket managed by the ICC. To think a game involving either or both teams is accredited as a first class match is the embarrassment

The conditions cancel each other out because the moisture in the air also causes moisture on the ball which destroys the laquer on the ball. The conditions vary between countries but there is not the same "bat first" mentality in ODI as there is in Tests. Katich has sealed one of the opening positions and come out of the Ashes OK. Hughes is young but a wonderful talent with a couple of tchnique problems. They should have taken an extra batsman to the Ashes and piffed McDonald. I am no fan of Hussey's but given the injuries to Clarke and Ferguson and co and the lack of ready replacements, it only highlights the Australian predicament Wrong again. The Ashes side we took to England was arguably the weakest and most inexperienced side to tour in the past 50 years. The bowling attack was green and relying on a bowler who is brilliant but terribly inconsistent. Hughes replaced Hayden but was man of the series leading into the Ashes. Go figure. What could have been possibly done? Give specifics not bloated theories. The era of Warne shadowed the fact that aside from McGill there wasn't a competent spin bowler with the talent to cut it at Test level. Post Warne only established the truth of the situation. 35 years wasted....

Its an issue in 5 day cricket where the state of the wicket can change over that period and ideally in most cases batting first gives you the ability to get best use of the wicket. Its not so much issue an issue in one day forms of cricket. Titan has covered it. Is that as invaluable as your media experience? I dont see what relevance your stated involvement in cricket has to the discussion. It does not lend any further credibility to your comments. How often is the pitch the difference between one side and another in one day cricket? Not facking ever. There is a huge difference between batting last in a Test match and a one day game. Ever considered that in 35 years? Geez, how could the selectors and Ponting not dug replacements for the greatest spinner ever, one of the best quicks and arguably the greatest keeper batsmen ever? Geez it should be a sinch... 35 years would have least taught you that Warne is a freak and a once in a couple of lifetimes bowler. They would never have replaced one of those greats let alone 3 greats in a short period of time and possibly ever. No. On one hand you whinge about no planning over Warne, Gilly and McGrath (include Langer as well) then you complain that Hayden played too long. Given the holes left by the absence of 3 and 4 greats the rebuild was a massive task anyway. This coupled with injuries and demise of Lee and McGill only made the planning more fraught. The retention of Hayden was necessary at the time to bolster the batting Hayden was batting capably up to six months before he retired. When he was cut that brought in Phil Hughes. It won them the unwinnable series. Well done selectors Great another whinge without an alternative. And I cant think of a captain who is not "stiff" when his bowling attack is unproven, unreliable and at times not up to it.

Agreed. And against Carlton, MFC were hardly to trying to impede the supply of the ball from MFC's forward line through the centre to Fev. Analysis by reading the results in the paper.

You dont "punt" pick 18 on a ruckman particularly when there appear few if any that are quality. As for trading for a ruckman, how many have been actually traded that would come to MFC on reasonable $$$$? The existing ruckman at this club are contracted and are either moderate with injury problems (Jamar) , not good enough and injured (Meesen), simply not good enough (PJ) and Spencer (young raw and promising). At the end of 2010, they will all be uncontracted. At this point Meesen and PJ would go. Jamar aside none of the ruckman have trade value and we must unfortunately continue with a ruck group that is generally ordinary. Its because our midfield is 3rd world. Th problem with conceding the ruck hit out is that it gives the opposition repeated first use of the ball. Now why did Colliingwood draft Jolly and Sydney draft Mumford on big $$$.....Hmmmm The irony is that Spencer offers more in the ruck contests than Meesen and PJ put together. Quite possible that we may take 4 mids with our first 4 picks and it will have nothing to do with the PSD. We take the four best assessed players available at our pick time. Taking Bradshaw at PSD 1 will not impact that choice. B'shaw has a 2 year window of playing given his body. If Ball does not agree to come to MFC in the PSD then why oh why would we take him at pick 11? Nightmare. Unless B'shaw changes the city he wants to live in then the same applies.

I agree. I just created a theoretic step. We just hold onto him next year. You missed that game at Sandy when Newton inexplicably........ Otherwise I agree he will be with us next year.

He does not do either with any real proficiency.

If the player consents to going on the rookie list as a possible option to being paid out of his existing contract, he could be put on the rookie list.

I think it is possible given that the rules re rookies and AFL experience. Provided the player agrees then it can be done with Newton or any other experienced player who we do not think will get game time in 2010. We would still be liable for his contracted salary but then the player would not be "list clogging". For example (not necessarily real life but..) rookie Newton and re contract one of Batram, Cheney or TMac who would have otherwise been cut.

The poll, Rusty, the poll... The discussion is fine but semantical at best. Well done Rusty. That was the point of my claim that the poll was fruitless exercise. Agreed. Just proved my points and you dont get it. *Yawn* Totally agree

Maybe he did say it but that was when Ball had perceived control to his preferred destination Collingwood. The scenarios and options are slightly different to force a re think.