Axis of Bob

It doesn’t matter about the other countries because the punishment handed out will be done in the best interests of the Australia as a sporting nation. It may well be that other countries accept cheating from their sporting teams but, culturally, Australians don’t. Check out what happens after every sledging episode, with people arguing for and against, especially with those who have played being mostly for it in the right context. And what happens with ‘spirit of the game’ things, like walking. These are wishy washy things that are not specifically illegal, so it comes down to gamesmanship. Even whacking players in Grand Finals, which is exploiting the rules. Then check out what happens when Essendon is done for drugs .... year long suspension and almost everyone (except Essendon supporters) say “good riddance, drug cheats”. And in this episode it has been universal condemnation and an appetite for a fair and substantial punishment. This is different in other countries, where the deliberately cheating is not viewed as badly as in Australia. But they may also view things like sledging much worse than us. There are cultural differences between the playing nations, which is why the ICC is so weak on ball tampering. We are a country of laws and the rule of law is held much higher here than almost anywhere. So pushing the boundaries within the law is often accepted, but deliberately breaking the law is not. They need proper suspensions to show the public that the team still represents the values of Australians because, as of a few days ago, they do not.

Agreed. Melksham and Petracca did it when we played well last year, but we need to find players who can do it consistently. I suspect that was the thinking behind drafting Spargo and Fritsch last year.

We lost 10 times last year. We won the inside 50 count in 6 of those. Of those, 4 times it was very close and twice we won by 11 (against Geelong and North). But 23 times is a smashing and clearly a statistical outlier. We lost today because we let them score too easily when they went forward (especially early) and we struggled to carry the ball from the midfield to give our forwards clean looks. But I also think our game style will see us win a lot of inside 50 counts.

I'm not going to read the last 14 pages because ..... well I'm sure you know! It was an interesting game of completely contrasting styles. We played a hard nosed contested style of footy, while Geelong played very uncontested footy. It shows that there is more than one way to skin a cat (not pun intended). They held possession and then counterattacked through the corridor, often successfully. This meant that they had a lot of easy goals and one on one opportunities, while we often scrambled the ball forward and held it in with pressure. Our game plan requires us to put pressure on and make the opposition's possessions messy. When that drops off we don't give our defenders much of a chance. I think our game style will be successful against good teams. I think we were clearly the better team today. But in the times where Geelong had the ascendancy, we allowed them to score too heavily. I'm still bullish about the season, even though we lost a winnable game.

Warner's runs are totally irrelevant. If he's there to "shut up and make runs" then he shouldn't be VC. That's CA's mess. The players and coaches need a strong blueprint for what the team should look like (culturally), provide support to the players to change and put in place people in key positions who live those values already. It's not a short term fix.

It's the risk CA has taken in giving a relatively young Smith, an ultra-competitive and single minded player, captaincy without providing the support around him on the field to temper him. Instead they have made Warner vice-captain, who is older, hot-tempered and prove to overstepping the mark under pressure. Smith is being guided towards this end of his personality rather than counterbalanced with a calm, rational leader. I can see how this happens in that team. The conversations are about reverse swing, SA's success with it, linked to Faf's history of tampering and how they need to do it to make it a level playing field. If they keep agreeing with each other then eventually it seems acceptable. But with a wise, calm, older and respected head on the team that conversation gets shut off before it gets anywhere near that point. If a young Michael Clarke (purely as a hypothetical) starts down that path then Hussey and Gilchrist quickly tell him to pull his head it, and the train of thought ends there. I'm sure Smith could well have been a fine captain, but there's nobody in the team to tell him to stand up to him when required. The only senior players are Warner and SMarsh. Warner will egg him on and Marsh has never been a leader. As a result, Smith has had too much say, whether he's been right or wrong, and has never been able to learn how to lead properly. While Smith is ultimately responsible for the ball tampering, Cricket Australia has failed him badly. I hope that this sad day can be used as a catalyst for genuine culture change within the team for the betterment of Australian cricket.

Lever took the mark because OMac kept Brown on the ground. It's a preseason game .... I'd rather defenders err on the side of protecting the flyer!

It's a different game. A basketball can be thrown the full distance, a soccer ball kicked, an ice hockey puck hit, etc, etc. It doesn't make them bad games, but none of them are AFL. AFLX is about fast transitions, less congestion and higher scoring. It isn't about a dour defensive struggle. I'm sure purists ( especially prop forwards!) hate Rugby 7s, with the lack of scrums, tight defence, rucks, mauls and kicking penalties .... but a whole bunch of other people love it. It isn't AFL; it's a different game. A game for a different audience.

You're looking at it through the lens of a dyed in the wool AFL fanatic. The game isn't AFL, nor is it trying to be. It also isn't trying to win you over as a fan, either. It's a game that's easy to play, understand and run for spectators who aren't traditional AFL followers. It's an easy entry point for new markets. It's like a more forgiving version of AFL 9s, where the big barrier is the skill needed to keep the ball off the ground. If you've never played before then AFLX is much easier to start playing and watching.

I love the idea that coaches have 'favourites'. Why do you think that they are the coaches' favourites? Usually it's for the same reasons that they get picked..

I think there are two reasons: 1- They are being ranked in relation to their peers, but their peers will develop more in their final year (or the latter half of it). As a result, any development of the injured player is invisible to recruiters, while the uninjured players continue to improve. So the recruiters need to extrapolate any potential development to be able to rank them equally with their peers. This represents a risk, especially for a player like Spargo who may have developed earlier than others. 2- It may actually be a really nasty injury that could affect the player. Burton was, Stringer was, Lever could have been (see Menzel). I agree that shoulders are unlikely to, but there are others. Will they be the same player again? Probably, but it is a genuine risk when you have invested a top 20 pick and a lot of money. I think the first is more relevant to Spargo. When you are 17, a year of development is a lot. So he may have been an earlier ranked player with his peers before he was injured, but the rest are now better players than Spargo was before he was injured. The risk is in the unknown.

...... you have a terrible, terrible memory. First of all, Cam Hunter was 6 foot 1, while Spargo is 5'8. Hunter was very light for his height, unlike Spargo, who is a nuggety player. Hunter was a high flying aerialist with psychotic courage, while Spargo is a fall of the ball player. Hunter was a bad kick, while Spargo is an excellent kick. Hunter was a flanker who played above his height (but lacked 'little man skills'), while Spargo is a midfielder or small forward. Hunter was drafted based on size and athleticism without form, while Spargo is a footballer who has been dominant at junior levels. Hunter was a massive smokey who only played APS, while Spargo has been well known for many years playing at TAC and carnival level. But you played footy in the same team as him ..... like my brother. You may have been in the same team 15 years ago, but you are either terribly forgetful or a terrible judge of players. Spargo and Hunter are completely different types of footballer, both in playing style and how they were drafted. As I said before, I would struggle to find a worse comparison.

I could not think of a worse comparison. You obviously didn't watch Cam Hunter play at all.

Pace and competitiveness. It's definitely a theme.

Without knowing the players, I'm most interested in the type of player we pick up and those that others pick up. I feel like it's instructive about the future of the game and what our club is trying to do in relation to it.

We've only drafted 2 players since that draft: Hannan and Johnston!

Just from the highlights, I like the idea of Brent Daniels. Very small, but seems to play the game with a lot of pace and wind his own ball. There are spots open in our side for fast and competitive smalls who can create opportunities. But I know nothing about the draftees, I just thought I'd put something out there before the draft so that I could pretend that I was smart if it worked.

That would actually be more than we paid. You are advocating paying more for Lever so that we don't pay overs.

I wouldn't pick Dustin Martin because the last Melbourne player with the initials 'DM' was Dave McGlashan in 1982 ..... 'nuff said!

I keep hearing "Two first round picks", and it frustrates me because that is a skewed reading of the trade. The trade was (simplified) 2 first round picks for Lever and a second round pick. Effectively it was giving a first round pick next year and downgrading our first pick this year. Or like trading our first round pick next year for 2 second rounders this year. It is actually almost the same deal as giving up a first and second round pick outright.

I think you want toughness and skill. But the toughness or, more to the point, competitiveness, is a non-negotiable. Every player needs it. You just need to find competitive players that have skill too. Having skilled players that don't compete is no good.

I'd liken it more to a school 'asking a student to leave'. They both agree and then the school writes a nice letter of recommendation for the student. But, despite the coy public chats, the reason is obvious to both parties.

Possibly infinite, depending on how accidentally forfeited picks (eg, calling it an ineligible player) are treated.

Our club currently has Jake Lever and doesn't have Jack Watts. I think that is extremely good.

The club will definitely care about your email. They will probably take it into account when making future decisions.