Axis of Bob

Would you think that Tom Lonergan would be able to push Scarlett off the number 1 forward? Zac Dawson pushing Sam Fisher off? The idea is that we let our most damaging defender play where he can be most damaging. Frawley can stop any forward but a lot of those players, especially as the game changes to more long bombs forward, can be stopped by big, yet slightly less talented players. Sam Fisher is a good player who zones off well and takes a lot of marks as the extra man up, but he can only take those marks because Dawson is wrestling the key forward and keeping him on the ground. Why waste Frawley on a job that Sellar can do? Tom Lonergan averaged less that 10 disposals per game last year. Scarlett was an All Australian playing as a rebounding, helping defender. Why? Because he has speed, strength, game sense and poise. He uses this to open up the play. When he was forced to play on Buddy, Geelong lost the 2008 Grand Final, even though he shut Buddy out from the game. Geelong lost more than Hawthorn did by sacrificing Scarlett's run from defence. Put another way, you'd have to think that Chriss Judd would be one of best negating small defenders around. He is quick, really strong, a great size and wins a lot of contests. Imagine putting him in a back pocket on Alex Fasolo .... he'd smash him. But would you? Not in a million years, because his value to the team is much higher as a midfielder and there are other players on the team that should be able to takeFasolo. This is what Frawley does. Sellar taking the number one forward does not mean that Frawley is being shifted down the totem. It is actually recognition that he should be higher. It means that Frawley uses his speed, power and skills to break lines coming from defence and turn the ball over from the opposition kicks, rather than just wrestling and punching the ball away from the opposition. He's too good a player for that. Sellar is no world beater, but what we hope he can do is the same thing that other 'no world beaters' can do, like Zac Dawson or Tom Lonergan. It's a role that requires a few attributes (size, strength, athleticism) but also allows for players that aren't particularly offensively talented to be effective. Hopefully Sellar can take that role and improve our team by getting our more talented players into more valuable roles.

My theory is that Haddin will keep going, regardless, until Paine is fit. Paine is the best keeper in the country and the Australian keeping job is his. It would be very difficult to put Wade in for a series knowing that Paine is going to come straight into the side, regardless of how Wade performs. It's easier for Haddin to keep going rather than face the sticky situation of having to drop a performing player when Wade makes runs against a poor attack on featherbed West Indian pitches.

A truly wise man knows himself to be a fool.

Cowan batted very well. But they batted really well as a partnership. The Indian bowlers bowled absolute rubbish to them but it was, in part, caused by the batsmen. Warner put away everything, so the bowlers started changing their plans to him and, as a flow on, Cowan. They stopped bowling a good line and length and waiting for a mistake. That's how Australia has dealt with Sehwag, by just hitting good areas and waiting for him to edge or get himself out. It was like watching park bowlers bowling to a slogger. He may smash one or two of the good length balls on off stump, but he's just as likely to nick, miss or sky one. And they kept on with it to Cowan, who just put away the trash when it came. And I think we're seeing the good Starc today and yesterday. When he has rhythm and, hence, consistency he is a really dangerous bowler. He just needs to develop more Jekyll and less Hyde.

Long and direct was always going to be effective. Run and carry was always going to be effective. Defensive flooding was going to ruin the game with its effectiveness. But coaches found ways to counter these plans. Nothing is forever. The only constant is change.

You can't win bowling first. I don't know where I read it, but it must be true.

It appears that it was the Twenty20 pitch from earlier in the week that they were on .... for 7 minutes! I see nothing wrong in celebrating a job well done (ie, the preparation of a test pitch) by 'christening' the square with an end of work beer. It's their grand final and they have put in a lot of hard work. It's a case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. And if you read Indian newspapers, the quality is very poor. Even worse than the Hun as far as sensationalism goes.

If it is a tradition of many years then I have no problem with it. They will have walked over it countless times in the lead up to the game as they prepared it, and it should currently be hard enough that it would not be damaged in the least by normal shoes. If it is hard and fast then what is going to happen if ground staff stand on it? If Cameron Sutherland was one of those involved, do you think he'd let anything happen to the pitch (ie, his livelihood)? Storm in a teacup, as far as I'm concerned. However, it give India another excuse for poor performance. I have never seen a team that has more excuses for failure than India. They are more interested in saving face than they are in fixing their mess. Interesting the difference between Australia and India after poor performance. After the Ashes we said "We are crap, so how do we fix it?", while India has offered endless excuses why they aren't as crap as they really are. It's an interesting cultural difference.

Angry bowlers don't usually do well at Perth. Disciplined bowlers do.

I am too serious ..... AND I take too much acid?!?! It's like arguing with French soldiers in the Holy Grail.

Proof: "Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement." Opinion: "A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." [source: Google] So we have proof, which is based on evidence or logical deduction to establish truth, versus opinion, which could be a view based upon the position of the leaves that were arranged by the magical tea fairy. It's fair to say that opinion and proof are not the same. You show a lot of the former and precious little of the latter.

Inverarity said that Pattinson was going to be rested in Perth anyway. This makes sense when read in conjunction with the previous comments about trying to create a squad of rotating fast bowlers.

Ryan Harris is a very handy replacement. Amazing that, injury aside, he is no longer an automatic inclusion.

That's what they tried to do last year. Unfortunately it then needs to be voted on by the members (ie, countries), and we all know what happens then! ICC voting reflects less what is best for the game and more what is best for the individual cricket boards. On a related note, I am so happy that the VFL clubs had the good sense to hand their power over to an independent body.

You are seeing what you want to see from the comment. It's a non-issue. It's less than a non-issue. It's the issue that non-issues ignore due to a lack of substance. In fact Dravid's grandmother's pet gerbil's strangely coloured turd has laid greater claim to importance than that comment.

I don't see the problem with those comments from Dravid. They are in an impossible position where the overwhelming likelihood is that they will lose the match. They have 8 wickets in hand and 180 overs to bat. They're stuffed. Completely and utterly. So, if the context of the match, he is right. They have nothing to lose. If they lose the match then it will not be a comment on their batting of the next two days, so they are free to bat without the weight of expectation. They can't lose because they can only lose. But if they don't lose ........ India have effectively already lost this match. They are not batting to avoid a loss, they are batting to claim a draw.

Agreed Nasher. It's just a number and he only had one more thing to prove. And he did.

Fabulous innings. To do that after coming in with the team in trouble is massive. He scored so quickly too, which still gives us 2 and a half days to bowl them out. Imagine SRT getting his 100th century in this game. What an anti climax!

Based on past sessions, they usually do most of their heavy fitness work at the very start of the training sessions, so you may well have missed a fair bit of that stuff. Great report too.

Let me summarise: You don't mind being a tool because Pattinson made a few runs in Melbourne. Fair enough. Nasher said it nicely. Note that I didn't have a problem with any of the other posters who didn't want Hilfy because of how they expressed it .... as an opinion. They weren't arrogant enough to believe that they knew best.

Not necessarily. You appear to be wrong at this early stage, but there is still a lot of time for you to be correct on both counts.

Our tail did well in Melbourne. It is still fairly weak if Siddle is batting at number 8 because he is just an honest batsman as a bowler. At least he puts a price on his wicket. That Pattinson appears to be a better batsman than Siddle is great for the balance of the side. He should be someone who averages in the vicinity of 25 over his career, which isn't bad for number 8. For balance you need a number 8 that is capable of making 100 if it all comes together. We had one and now we have one, but I'd be surprised if it was Sidds. I'm happy with that, but I'm also prepared to wait and see how much of an issue it is in the future. I'm happy to make fun of your comments about Hilfenhaus because they were ridiculous. Whether he performed in the Test or not, they were still ridiculous. The idea of saying that the selectors were stupid because of what you remember a year ago versus the selectors watching him play and speaking to batsmen who have faced him etc. etc. is ridiculous. You could have said that you were surprised with his selection based on his previous form, but you had no idea what happened over the last 12 months, so you had no basis to be so vehemently against the selection. If you waited to watch him bowl then you could have had an informed opinion. That was my point.

I think that this is exactly the case. It's why the calls for goal mouth technology are so much stronger in soccer than they are in AFL.

He has now.

Faulkner is a good prospect, but he's not at test level yet. He's just not quite there as a batsman or as a bowler yet, but he's well on his way. Certainly his batting has only started to show some form of production this year. Has a career (and season) average of less than 30 with the bat, which isn't good enough for Tests. But he has improved a lot this year and he'll get there eventually. Christian is averaging about 60 with the bat this year, which is why he's being put up as an option. His bowling is handy, and probably not as good as Faulkner, but his batting is clearly better which is why he's there. Probably a poor man's Watson.