deanox

I had similar thoughts. He definitely isn't Rioli, but he had those evasive attributes. When you watch him play at AFL it makes you wonder why he was taken so late. Surely that evasiveness and quick thinking was evident last year?

Ok I really don't get this. He is a new draftee on an initial two year contract. He has shown a lot of promise over his first pre season and in the first five rings of the season he has looked like he has potential. Why the need to give him a 4 year deal? What benefit is there for Melbourne? Is he threatening to leave? Do other clubs want to take him? I appreciate the show of faith on our behalf but I'm not sure why it is needed.

You are kidding aren't you? He is a beautiful kick and some handpasses yesterday were very smart directly or in front of a running player who didn't have to miss a step. Yes he floundered a couple of times but that isn't his disposal. If there isn't an option, he can't create one: he can't kick to a lead of no one is leading, he can't kick to advantage of we are outnumbered. If he looks up and there is only oposition players forward it makes sense that he will back pedal to retain possession rather than blaze away because that is the type of player he is. If a teammate doesn't shepherd and give him space he will be under pressure. Displaying good disposal is reliant on a bunch of other factors, but that doesn't change the inherent quality of his disposal. When the team plays better footy and gets in better positions and runs harder, you will see what good disposal is.

I was thinking assistant coach

i was quite impressed with mcdonalds bowling actually. i thought he contributed to us getting wickets by keeping the pressure so tight at one end (ie about 25 overs for 30 odd runs). he kept things tight and on the spot, wobbled them around just a little to make him hard to play which built the pressure nicely. i am not saying he will be the first choice for that 4th bowling spot normally, but i imagine that if we had a spinner playing today he would have leaked runs like a sieve (ie kreja or hauritz). maybe mcgain is different, but he seems to be a 'wicket taker' not a tight bowler. thats where warne was different in that he could do both. including the spinner could increase our wicket taking ability, but it could also diminish our ability to tie down the batsmen, releasing some of the pressure on them.

re clarkes fitness, i understand the concern, how krejza was bowling well, and there was probably no need for him to bowl. i am surprised white didnt get another go either, i thought he bowled alright day one, but probably for the same reason clarke didnt. am wondering if clarke in slip could have been as much about getting hayden a rest from concentrating as it was for clarkes injury, but probably not. RE white, i think his selection could well help us win this because we bat down to 8. we really need to score as close to 600 as possible (300-350 today would put us around 500, but i think we want to bat into day 4 if we can and post a lead of about 150-200) so that we can then try and bowl them out without having to worry about needing 3 sessions to make the runs on the last day. we don't want to have to bat a second time, unless we are only chasing 50 or so, and even then we probably dont want to be doing that because time will be an issue.

cric info stats? lol cant believe hayden, what a waste, he was looking good too. i think the fact that he went for so many runs justified him not having a spot up til now. the reason he was successful is because he kept attacking and tossing it up. honestly, i think clark or kattich could have done similar, but they quickly went into trying to contain batsmen when they got hit. what i have found the most interesting through this series is the way that india have batted. they have lost wickets through arrogant and lazy shots when they looked like being on top, but the most interesting thing has been the old 'where theres one, theres two'. india have dominated for large periods of time and it is as if everyone but the two batting have switched right off, causing a couple of wickets to fall at a time. contrast that with australias innings in the 3rd test, where everyone made a few runs and contributed...india have often had lots of contributors, but have sometimes even lost the two set batsmen at the same time. very odd...

I'm not sure about that. In my opinion the pitch has played alright, a litle up and down occassionally, and it has spun. I don't think the fast bowlers will threaten, and it will come down to Mishra and Harbajan for the indians. sehwag will probably get a good trundle as well. actually its not a surprise that harbajan has opened the bowling, and that khan has gone for a few runs the first over. It will be interesting to see if we try similar tactics of trying to hit an indian spinner out of the attack. it will not surprise me if hayden makes a hundred this innings. i havnt watched him bat today, but he is due.

he didnt bowl poorly at any stage. it appears the indians were intent on hitting him out of the attack. now that we have them three for we relaly need to push hard and try and have them 5-6 down by the end of the day. if thats the case we are a chance, but if they are 3 for 300 we probably wont win.

i hope they name him to play. i really do. and i hope the ICC comes down hard on them, and makes them forfiet the test leaving the series as a 1-1 draw. world cricket needs someone to step in and take a hard line. harbajan should not have got off last year, the BCCI thinks it owns the world, and too much power rests with them, and the other sub continental nations they support.

that doesnt surprise me at all. thats about 5% of our members, proably not a bad uptake considering most of the donations are probably from cold calling or response to a mail out. think 1 in 20. i had this argument with a few people here before debt demolition month, who all seemed to think that their ideas were the best, who were 'guaranteeing' that people would be falling over themselves to donate in the 10-50% range (of members) and it has been shown here that that is not the case. we have done a fantastic effort to get this much raised. people dont have money to throw around to football clubs when petrol prices, groceries etc are the way they are. you can only harass people so much and so many times and get so much money. but a big congrats to everyone who has donated, and big encouragement to everyone who hasnt donated to get on board before the end of the month.

that is actually how i read it as well. i thought i heard that because he was an unproven CEO in terms of footy etc (dont kid yourself, aus open ran for 2 weeks of the year), and because of how we were burnt with the pay out of harris, that the board did not put him on a contract. ie you are working for this much per week etc for no fixed term. i could be wrong, but thats how i read it.