Rhino Richards

I have already said he would be judged on the SA series.

We would have stacks of injuries for that outcome to happen and we could book an early ticket for the first two picks in the draft. No thanks.

I think that is about right.

DB has gone public emphatically saying that we are not chasing Cousins. I would have thought that kills it. Six months ago Stynes sacked a CEO because he went chasing players without foottball department approval. And you are suggesting that Stynes may make a call on Cousins over his Coach? Sure thing.

Exactly. There are a few more too you could add too. Its a fair call by the Ox. If he had more settled disposition between the ears Jeff Farmer could really have been elite. He blew it and finish as nasty filthy selfish player who had little of the respect that built up in his early years.

I think think you will find that is the argument your so called "Lee bashers" are making. No one doubted his effort or character. However in Test cricket you are judged on results. Its cruel at the top. Its good he got back his rhythm. He must maintain it as a fit and firing Lee will be important for Ashes 09. He needs to back up one good Test with a good series against SA. By the way your personal connection blinds a more objective analysis of his position and his career. He has been a great servant of Australian cricket but his career has been marked by a number of significant highs and lows.

Not really. In two instances they did with Yze and Robbo. But they corrected that in the mid year. The other issues were about right. A quarter of the list know alot more about leadership and what makes a leader and made sound decisions.

No. Aside from McLean I thought it stood out like the proverbial. ATM, Jones is shouldering too much of the burden in our midfield particularly with McLean. As a 20yo he will be part of the midfield rotation but I worry about his disposal and thinking under pressure.

Agree Old. We need to bolster a very ordinary midfield.

Hotgod, 75% of the list had played with Green for a year or more. Surely they would have assessed Green as a leader or not. And if so their votes should have got him a leadership berth if they deemed him a leader. They did not. It actually was a good lesson for Green. Rivers has not played for almost 2 years yet he was voted onto the leadership. Now what the difference between Rivers and Green. Leadership qualities. The players voted mid year and amended the leadership group. Green will be a good VC. Brock McLean for mine.

I am not sure what the immaturity of the list has to do with as most of the players would have been deemed adults elsewhere in society. And I dont take number of games or years service. Some players go through their whole career without any clue about leadership The football department have laid the set criteria by the players are to vote. By voting for the leaders under the set criteria, the players have a responsibility and accountability to support their leader who in turn have that same responsibility and accountability to lead. The selection are subject to peer review at the half year where those that dont lead are excluded and arising leaders are brought. Very transparent. And from the voting done by the players I dont think they got it much different to what the football department. However, it worth noting that at the half year the players had the chance to review the decisions made at the start of the year it is interesting the leadership list changed when it was clear who was leading and who was not.

The issue with Brad Green was that under the new player voting system Green was not voted into and not out of the leadership group. It had nothing to do with his injury. It had more to do with how other players perceived him at the Club as a leader. He is a wonderful bloke but tends to be quiet amongst the players and does not demonstrate the leadership they thought was required. Its a pity because there have been a number of times on the field where Green has lead the way with the hard contest. And just because he might have been injured does not mean he was not visible amongst the players. Then again, the fact they put Yze and Robbo into the leadership team suggested to me that they should have Green there instead.

While I believe it is possible we could have a tough year in 2009, I would be very concerned if we were in the bag for a PP in 2010.

Unless the GC want to become the Brisbane Bears of the 21st century, why would the GC want middle aged NQRs from a bottom side? I would have thought this year might have sobered some naive minds about the strength of trade week. Seemingly not. If, and only if, GC decide to trade any of their picks then they are going to be very selective and commercially challenging on who they chase. At this point I cant see one MFC player who would stand out as a likely trump for GC that would attract a top pick.

When examining the NZ batting line up, Kerry O'Keeffe suggested that Sundries bat at 4 as it always gets to double figures and is normally unbeaten.

No7 is a bit harsh. How about 5? I like McCullum but I dont think his game is tight enough for spots 1 to 4. And that is recognising that existing NZ options dont have it either. i dont want to unnecessarily want to sacrifice him higher. FWIW I am happy with Taylor who is 24 at No 4. He is a capable batsman if he can develop the application required. I dont argue with points 2 and 3 and I note we agree on the opening issue.

On the back of one innings? McCullum has a wonderful eye and is a beautiful striker of the ball when required for a cameo but I dont think his application and technique are not suited to opening the batting and he is better at No 7. FWIW, Haddin is a similar style and I would not open with Haddin. In fact I dont like the concept of keepers being Test opening batsman. After a hard slog in the field it must be hard to have the necessary application to see off the new ball.

LOL Agree.

I was not calling for Lee to be dropped but he was using up his "Get Out of Jail Free cards". And had his poor form extended across the NZ and SA series then there would have been serious question marks about him for England. The simplest tactic to adopt in batting is occupation of the crease. NZ could not do that. Batsman dont make runs in the pavilion. The stats suggest that NZ could not bat for more than 100 overs even on the best batting wicket in the world, had only three partnerships that exceeded 50 and only 3 batsman that scored more than 50 at any time. Its an appalling peformance. The very least they could do would be to occupy the crease and when you are there the runs will eventually come. The high number of NZ dismissals to catches forward of the wicket highlights the technique and application issues. I was surprised to see many of the NZ batsman were late 20s in age. I would probably ditch Flynn, Fulton and question what future Ryder has at 3 if at all.

I only read the first 12 chapters DD but I thought Bob has your measure easily. I'll still give you A for effort!

...and the supplementary numbers are....??

The problem with NZ batting is technique and more importantly application. Its got nothing to do with strategy. Their batting was not good enough to implement a simple strategy of building an innings What we have learnt is that there is real question marks about the batting order there. But this is not surprising given the impact of retirements of key players like Fleming, Astle etc which has robbed NZ of leadership, experience and character. There was a good article by Peter Roebuck on the malaise in NZ cricket. http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/magazine/c...ory/380440.html I have no problem with the first hour as NZ lost no wickets. 0/42 is a great position to be after the first hour of a Test. New ball, fresh attack, possibly something in the wicket. 2nd innings started on a belter of a pitch and the Australian attack early bowled poorly and the next morning the Australian bowlers in particular Lee found their line and got success where once again technique and application were found wanting. NZ were fv%ked once they were all out for a paltry 270 on a 450+ pitch at Adelaide. You cant dictate anything if you dont put runs on the board. Its got none of what it needs at the moment. Lee is there as a strike bowler. In India he did not strike. He was second fiddle to younger and more inexperienced bowler in Johnson. While many bowlers have struggled there, it did not hide that Lee had a very poor tour. Calendar year records go out the window if you start stringing together bad tests. His recent return to form has certainly given him breathing space to stamp his ticket for the Ashes tour. However, he needs to carry his revitalised form in against the SAs. If he lapses again the questions will come up about him and at 32 I think he realistically has about 2 years left at the top level.

You need to be able to confidently satisfy yourself of both factors not only at the time of signing but throughout his contract. You and 16 other Clubs cant do it. Bailey has said categorically we wont be getting Cousins. End of story. Its a dead debate Its amazing Cousins is seen as a "role model" when 16 clubs dont see it that way and he has almost single handedly destroyed the culture at a premiership club already. BTW, sponsorship has been used as a front by some Clubs for an easy exit by them when there due diligence has revealed potential risks. Sponsorship interests are an influence but they have been a convenient crutch for one Club to back out at the last moment.

Its not the weight of circumstantial evidence but more the weight of the potential legal costs on either or both parties. In a blunt example, if you owe someone $100 you can offer them $90 to cover the situation and say sue me for the rest. If the cost of litigation is more than $10 would you bother. In the MFC, it is clear both parties believe they have a substantive case so any litigation is uncertain in outcome and more than likely expensive. Neither party wanted to go down that fruitless path! Common sense prevails.

Unlike Meesen who only performs poorly on the ground, there is enough circumstantial evidence against Carroll for his off field activities that would make his claim of discrimination/ breach of contract hard to justify. In addition, if he did initiate court action there is no certainty where liability for legal costs fall. So if he is contracted to receive X and is offered Y to terminate the contract then he needs to assess whether the contingent risk of legal fees, hassle, stress, time etc is worth chasing X-Y. In this case, the sensible outcome was taken. X-Y would have to be a considerable amount to justify going down the legal path and end at the day Carroll was on respectable but not uber contract payments.