Axis of Bob

I think it's also important to note that the conditions in India are unique. These are strange pitches for Australian batsmen and bowlers, and the style of bowler India has is ideally suited to the conditions. If you look at the spinners that India has (that are successful) you will note that they are spinners that would not do well in Australia (or most pitches). Indian spinners are accurate and bowl mainly sidespin. In Australia these balls just go straight because there's no purchase in the pitch, and Indian spinners have very little success in Oz. Aussie spinners have to bowl with lots of overspin to get the bounce, which is dangerous on our pitches (like Lyon, but also mainly leggies). But the lack of speed and bounce in India means that these balls spinner slowly and predictably. Indian spinners, with their darty, accurate sidespinning deliveries, can get good variation with fairly pedestrian deliveries. They don't need many revs (as seen by Jadeja) to turn the ball. Too many revs can mean being ineffective because you know every ball will turn. What does this mean? Our batsmen have seen very little of this bowling, and have had to respect it even less. Our bowlers aren't used to being played so easily. But, most of all, I don't see this as being detrimental to our Ashes preparation at all. It's irrelevant. The game will be won and lost with pace and the ability to deal with it. India means nothing. Also, India is going to do well at home with these pitches, but it will ruin them overseas because they will have the same problems we have had in India. The difference is that there's only really one place in the world that has conditions just like India.

Egan had a navicular fracture which he tried to come back from early .... and didn't.

It seems like there's been something like this brewing for a while. Obviously there is a feeling that the culture in the team just isn't good enough and they needed to do something to show that. I don't have a problem with it. It's like Ross Lyon dropping Dal Santo and Milne in his first season for not following defensive instructions. Arthur is telling them that playing for Australia is a step up in commitment from Shield. It's also not a bad time to do it, given that the series is pretty much lost already. I agree that the team is in trouble if this action is required to correct the problem. Coaches don't pull out that card unless it's really needed.

This reeks of starting with the conclusion and then trying to find the evidence afterwards. It's like an argument for a 6000 year old earth. If you were at the game then you must have been facing the wrong way.

Awwwww .... Shucks. Thanks Finks.

Watts did some good things yesterday. He is calm and composed and generally wins more 50/50s than he loses. He's been very good in that role and I can certainly see him continue to play well as a rebounding defender this year. We don't have many players in our defence with his sort of composure and distribution under pressure, so it makes him avery important player for us. I though Terlich was good, although I think he's a better attacker than defender at the moment. He's good with the footy and calm, but he needs to find the balance between his offence and defence. Jamar was good, as he should have been. I think, despite Sellar's excellent form, that Pederson is the better player for us in his role. He's a better runner and that's required pushing up the ground in the role they'll play. Pederson did some very good things that created opportunities for us, even if they didn't get on the stats sheet. He's a big, mobile body. Hopefully he is good enough in the ruck to play the role, although he broke even with the other back up rucks in Kosi and Blake. Sellar is a taller, stronger option, but I don't think that this is the role we need with Dawes and Clark to return. Our defensive system is much better this year. You can tell that they are better drilled now and fitter, but we it isn't yet natural enough for us to do it without thought. In the second quarter we let them get the ball over the back and they go some very easy goals. Other than that we were probably the better side. We do need, however, just that extra bit of class in teh midfield to be able to turn our half chances into easy chances, and our good play into goals. Just lacked that hint of crispness when it counted. St Kilda had some very classy midfielders that consistently took the chances to create that came to them.

Tappy has a lot to like. I feel that the key will be whether he can run well enough for AFL. If he does enough work to run in an AFL style, then he can make it. If he can't.......

My background is in road/traffic engineering, so I am well aware of the astronomical road toll in many (most) part of Asia. In fact I saw a fatality while I was there. There are many reasons for that, but the level of courtesy shown (generally) towards other road users was much higher.

Roads were designed for people. Roads were designed for a horse and cart. Cyclists pay tax. They pay for the road. Car registration isn't the sole source finance for transportation. A lot of that money would go into driver licensing, education etc. So if cyclists pay to use the roads, why aren't they allowed to use it? Because it's ever so slightly less convenient for a motorist that overtakes them? If there is more acceptance from everyone on the road then it will be safer for everyone and everyone will be happier.

It isn't illegal to wear a motorcycle helmet into a petrol station. The only people requiring you to do so are the owners of petrol stations. Stuie, if you have such a problem with a thread then please pass on your concerns to a mod. Otherwise, please stop ruining a thread (even more) just because you don't like Range Rover.

Seems unlikely. Also, there are places where identity is required. Like here: https://www.passports.gov.au/web/requirements/photos.aspx

Could you wear a balaclava on a cold day? Sunglasses and a scarf? A motorcycle helmet?

Wow. I hope the mods will allow me to straddle the Code of Conduct boundary when I say: You are a simpleton ..... errr ... I mean your post is similar to a post that would be written by a simpleton. Your views are idiotic.

Why wouldn't you accept this? If someone came out wearing a kilt, then would you allow that? What if they wore a beret?

I have returned recently from a month riding in Thailand and Cambodia. Despite the crazy traffic there, I felt much safer there on a bike than I do in Australia. There is a much greater acceptance in SE Asia of bikes as a legitimate road user. Nobody sticks to lanes, or even drives down the correct side of the road, but everyone recognises that everyone else has as much right to use the road as anyone else. That doesn't happen in Australia. Road users have a sense of entitlement such as 'we pay for the roads, so bikes should get off it'. Firstly, that's wrong, and secondly, who cares? The roads are public property and should be used by anyone who lawfully does so. There is an anger which I don't understand. I'm not a lycra clad road warrior, but I ride my bike every day to work and have now sold my car. All I want is to be able to ride my bike safely from point A to point B without someone trying to run me off the road just because they have a problem with me existing. I can deal with people swearing at me for no other reason other than that I'm using the same road as them (thus forcing them to drop their speed from 60 km/h to 25 km/h for 5 seconds), but I can't deal with people trying to make my trip less safe. Why should I have to suffer extra risk just because some idiot suffers feelings of inadequacy? Biffen, I don't ride down Beach Rd, but I can see why those who ride for sport would. It's a great view, the road is flat, long and there's a big gap between traffic lights. Cyclists are entitled, legally, to ride two abreast. Besides, it's a multi lane road so there should be no issue with it. Why do you have an issue with it?

The situation is definitely horrible. The son is a very innocent party that is caught up in the middle of an awful situation through no fault of his own.

They are. As a by product, gay people also benefit. That what my post was explaining. The punctuation was free.

If their number 1 belief is that god will send a gay person to hell, then how could that person feel that it was misguided?

Maybe they think they are doing what's best for their son, because they think that they need to make him choose not to be gay (in the strongest way possible) otherwise their god will send him to hell. I think it's nearly impossible to call someone a horrible person based on so little information. I'm very forgiving of someone who makes a bad decision for the right reasons, far more than someone who does the right thing for the wrong reasons.

The AFL's job is to do what's best for all of the clubs and the game itself. What is good for the AFL is to make everyone feel included. Hence they take a lead in many social issue to increase the size of the AFL community. If you want to see how this action has worked, and how inaction hasn't worked, then have a look at Rugby League.

The thing about Trengove is that he has always been a very physical player. As a junior he played as a physically dominant player who would throw others around. In AFL he hasn't been able to do that because he's been a kid. But that's not his style. As he gets bigger he'll be better able to play the style of game that he naturally plays. Very similar to what happened with Hayes, who has been getting better and better as he's matured. Trengove is no speed demon, but he'll be a really good player once he is physically able to play his natural game.

I didn't join the email list and I didn't care too much for the reports (sorry Jack and GOTO, but I already saw the match so the match report wasn't as interesting), but I absolutely used to hang out for the Sandringham match reports from Barry since I was too young to drive and couldn't get to the VFL matches. I also don't feel so old now (although I know that I'm ever so slightly older than you!!). Thanks.

Depending on how you want to define it, I can count 8. Good effort!

I saw it, but I thought it was a scuffle designed to take Bail out of the play while Dunn's team cleared the footy. I didn't even register it as an incident of note.