Axis of Bob

These are my thoughts. I heard that he tests well for speed (sub 3 secs) and agility, but haven't heard anything about his endurance. On early impressions, I'm not keen on Brayshaw simply because he's more of a constant motion accumulator rather than a power runner.

Looking at last year's draft, we selected the following players: - Salem - JKH - Hunt Looking at those we drafted, the ability to get on the outside and do damage was very important. Rookies - Harmes - King - Jetta - Georgiou plus we added Tyson, Cross and Riley. Through the rookie draft and trades we picked up players opportunistically, like experienced hard bodies and role players. Interestingly, our first rookie pick was also a midfielder with pace. I think that there was a clear long term plan with our drafting which addresses a key need that will only get more important - speed. I would be surprised if this wasn't a theme in this year's drafting as well.

Last night's stage was compelling viewing. Wet weather, cobbles and riders taking risks to take time off each other when vulnerable. The crashes were caused as much by the aggressive riding than anything else. The conditions were slippery, but they were going flat chat, which wasn't what the conditions called for. High risk, high reward. Nibali rode fantastically, especially to stay at the front and away from the danger of the middle of the peloton in those conditions. It really opened the tour up.

I only saw the televised games, so take this with large quantities of salt ... Is there a chance that Ahern could challenge as the first midfielder picked? He certainly seems to have a huge amount of upside and a bit of x-factor. Fast, uses it well and his hands just seem insanely clean in all situations. One of those players who has the tools but just doesn't produce the high numbers yet. Here's footage.

I'm sorry that you didn't understand what I was saying. My tactic of quoting you and then responding to that specific quote may have been more subtle than I expected. I'm also not entirely sure who you are still arguing with, since we've already established that we both agree that there needs to be a balance in recruiting.

To be fair, KP really is.

You: "For mine its about improving the playing list..bettering the best 22 not collecting kids for a rainy day." This is the direct quote I responded to. I then told you that it's about a balance between improving the best 22 and also picking kids for the future. You then agreed with me that balance is something we should be trying to achieve. I don't see where I said we shouldn't downtrade our early picks.

I've only seen the televised games this year, so I really have very little idea about what's happening. That said, it seems like the first group of players all still have some pretty big flaws that mean that none are a stand out choice. St Kilda seem to like McCartin (probably for the reasons you mentioned, as they are going to be looking for a go-to forward to replace Riewoldt). I like Durdin, despite his lack of output in the games I saw, although probably more as a rebounding key defender. As for the midfielders, there wasn't really a midfielder that stood up and showed why they were better than everyone else. You mentioned Petracca and Brayshaw leave me a little underwhelmed with his lack of explosiveness (which we need). I think we'll do well to trade down as the players we'd be more interested in are likely to be available at 10+, which seems to be where most of the skilled runners appear to be.

My point is that everything is a balance. It isn't about only recruiting for now nor is it about only recruiting for the future. It's about a balance.

Like what St Kilda did?

I was thinking the other way, as in that they would gain an early pick. They'll keep picking up their older players on the cheap, IMO.

It wouldn't surprise me if GWS traded a player for an early pick. They had a bunch of draft picks in one draft, so trading one for an early pick spreads their age profile across a few more years.

The best thing about Dom Tyson's hair is that it is attached to Dom Tyson.

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2014-05-28/eyecatchers-round-one Round 1 Eye Catchers. Includes a tiny bit of vision of Billy Stretch towards the end.

At this early stage, goodoil, would you be inclined to trade an early pick for speed or would you take the tall and grab the class from elsewhere?

The Trott stuff is interesting. I thought that Vaughan was being harsh .... until I saw the interview. I saw some of the stuff he said and thought "isn't that just being out of form?" Stuff like not seeing the ball. Like all cricketers, I've gone through periods of feast and famine. When you are in form you see the ball early and are confident in your ability to play it. When you are out of form sometimes you barely pick up the ball at all and suddenly every ball is a hand grenade. But he spoke about everything as a focus on numbers. He tried to fob off questions about being afraid of Johnson, which he clearly was, and instead talked about his average in an ODI series several years ago. It was the talk of someone trying to maintain the illusion in his head that he is the best .... rather than accept that he had been worked out. He was always a very proud cricketer - some would argue too proud - and now his crafted internal world was falling down as he tried not to accept his fate. Like a dictator claiming he is in power after being ousted in a coup, Trott exiled himself to live another day. He said he's not depressed, he's burnt out. It's going to take a lot to convince the public now that he needed to leave. It was a strange interview.

Absolute hero. Any who deny his toughness, both physically and mentally, should be judged as the fools they are. Michael Clarke is a magnificent batsman and an outstanding captain both tactically and leading by example. This may be the only time I ever say this, but I can't wait to see what deeluded says now.

He shouldn't really need to. He's toughed it out for years with a bad back to become one of the best batsmen and captains in the world. People are going to hate him because he has made them look stupid. That is their problem, not his.

Interesting cricket at the moment, because the aggressive cricket seems to be a definite plan. I'm just trying to work out why. Maybe it's because they feel that the bounce and pace of the pitch will get batsmen out sooner or later. Maybe it's because they want to knock England off their line and length, allowing more scoring opportunities of a fast scoring ground. Maybe it's a mental thing where they want to dominate England. Maybe they are just nervous about the pace and bounce in the pitch. My guess is that it's a combination of the first and second. The bounce will get you if you keep the ball in the right spots, so they are using attack to get the ball out of the right spots. Either way, it's thrilling cricket and Smith is playing beautifully. Really mature.

Drop Swann for Perth? Hmmm, Swann is not great there because his slightly undercut spin ends up just being a skiddy off cutter. Would I drop him? If they continue with Stokes then there's a spot for him, but if Stokes is replaced by a batsman then I'd replace Swann with Bresnan. I doubt they'll drop Swann, but rather play the 3 quicks plus an all-rounder and Swann. I'd bring in Finn or Rankin in place of Panesar. England need to change the momentum of the series and a conservative approach with Tremlett is going to be shuffling deck chairs. They need raw pace and bounce to actually challenge the opposition. Their current attack is honest, but not challenging. If they can't change the moment with their bowlers then it'll be 3-0. The interesting question for Australia will be Nathan Lyon. Do we pick an out and out quick, a spinner or go half n half with Faulkner or Henriques.

Bowling spin in Australia (and South Africa) is very different to bowling spin anywhere else. Overspin is much more important because of the bounce. And the hardness of the pitches means that a ball that has only sidespin won't get much purchase on the pitch. Most spinners across the world get wickets by threatening the stumps (either with the stock ball or its variation). But the bounce and hardness of the pitches means that the variation and the stock ball are pretty much the same. It makes it very difficult to get wickets because there is no deception. By using overspin you can create deception through flight. Then you can exploit the misjudgment in length with the extra bounce to get catches around the wicket and catches from attacking shots. Look at how effective Lyon is when people attack him, but his lack of variation makes it hard for him to bowl out defensive batsmen on wearing wickets. Conversely, there are a number of excellent spinners (predominantly finger spinners) who struggle a lot in Australia. Swann, Harbhajan, Ajmal, Panesar, Herath, Ashwin ..... All of them attack the stumps, and rely on the pitch to grip and turn a ball that would otherwise drift on. Swann struggled here last time when he was at peak form and Australia were utterly awful. He averaged 40 with the ball. I thought he'd be better in Adelaide, but his turning ball doesn't do enough to let his sliding variation be effective.

Just because seat belts haven't reduced the road toll to zero doesn't mean that they don't work. It's the same with DRS.

Porte had a phenomenal ride. He was much stronger than Froome and also did all the work for him up both climbs. Froome had a bad day, but Porte was every bit as strong as Quintana and Rodriguez, which is a great sign for him.

He probably hit it, but could you overturn the umpire's decision based on the evidence? It's not about the balance of probability, hence why Hawk-eye has an 'umpire's call' option. However, I've seen worse. It's a shame that such a great game ends like that, because it takes away from the match itself.

Could you say, conclusively, that he hit it? It's a bad way to end a great match.