Axis of Bob

Well done Jack - they're now 2/16. Also, none of the commentators said anything, but I am almost 100% sure that the the opener hit the ball with the first lbw. There was a clear deflection, two noises and the batsman went off holding is bat at the toe end. They barely looked at that when doing the replay, which was the only reason it wasn't given in the first place. Wouldn't have minded the ICC to have included hot spot in the UDRS for the World Cup. Canada would probably be 1 for.

Clarke was unlucky that he got one that didn't bounce and chopped it on. White's was a brain fade. The best news was the form of Ponting. Looked a bit average early but really started looking good for most of his innings. Will be a tough World Cup if they keep producing bunsen burners like that one, though. India were able to play about 10 spinners because of the 11 bat/11 bowl format of the practice matches, so they could play 3 specialist spinners + Yuvraj Singh. They only bowled 9 overs of pace (combining for 1 for 55 at over 6 an over).

Yeah, except that: 1- the girl is Miranda Kerr, 2- she hasn't said that she's breaking up with you, nor has she given any indication of it, 3- she's already committed to having sex with you for the rest of the season, 4- she's given no indication that she won't continue to have sex with you for the rest of your life, 5- your next girlfriend is unlikely to be Miranda Kerr, and 6- it's Miranda Kerr. So you'd break up with Miranda Kerr just because you got paranoid and confronted her about accusing her of cheating on you without any evidence, simply because some jealous guy from West Sydney started a rumour that she's cheating on you. So I assume that you're real name isn't Orlando Bloom.

Don't worry Nash, I'll be there with you.

I'd laugh pretty hard if Clarke won ODI player of the year. He has averaged over 50 in the past 12 months, so he's a chance.

I would say that Johnson went in because Yardy had come on to bowl and had 1 for 9 in his 3rd over. It only would have been right handers coming in to face the left arm spinner would turned the ball away, so by bringing in Johnson he was able to turn that left arm spinner into a weakness for England rather than a strength. Especially during the Power Play, since Johnson is notoriously harsh on left arm finger spinners with his power to mid wicket. It didn't necessarily pan out that way, but Johnson was there to hit Yardy. Plus Clarke knew that his strength didn't lie in the Power Play overs when he first gets in, so he sent in a hitter. Why not White, Smith or Hussey? Probably because the experiment was for 5 overs, rather than 40 overs. He did't expect Johnson to still be there later when Clarke would be better off knocking the ball around, and he'd rather have his best power batsmen available for the last 10 overs when the foot really needed to go down. I doubt the Johnson decision was inteded for any more than the next 5 overs. Any more than that would have been a bonus.

Really good innings from Clarke. Shows that you don't need to be a massive power hitter to chase down big scores in one day cricket. He was just so intelligent the way he went about the chase - scoring off nearly every ball and then pushing hard for twos. He ran the Poms ragged in the same way that Bevan used to. Just goes to show that you need to give your best players time when they aren't playing well. Clarke is a class batsman who has shown he is good enough over several years. He's still only 29 and has many years of good cricket left in him. Interesting to note that Clarke is the 3rd highest run scorer in this ODI series (behind Trott and Watson). Even when he's out of form, he's still one of the best (if not the best) batsmen in Australia. Hopefully now the cringeworthy media witch hunt can end and we can concentrate the World Cup.

Alert, but not alarmed.

Well, going by your 5 consecutive matches of failures (ie, scores < 20) Michael Clarke would never have been dropped from the one day team. Not a single time. In Tests he would not have been dropped either. Hussey would not have been dropped from Tests (although he'd have gone close a few times, with a few well placed scores between 20 and 30!). You'd have dropped Hussey from ODIs in March 2007 as the only time. Ponting would have been dropped from Tests in 2001 half way through the Ashes. He had 10 scores under 20 in a row. Curiously, he then finished off the series by scoring 144, 72 and then 62. This is our best batsman for some time, and currently 3rd on the overall Test run scorers list. You'd have dropped him from the ODI team in February 2009, June 2008 and October 2006. So, overall, the total ratio of matches per 'WYL dropping' for each of the batsman would be: Mike Hussey (Test average 51, ODI average 52): 210 matches per dropping Ricky Ponting (Test average 54, ODI average 43): 126 matches per dropping Michael Clarke (Test average 46, ODI average 43): never dropped in 254 matches Any further requests? Also, Clarke won't get to play 4 day cricket if he plays club cricket. He'll get one 2 day match a week (possibly just a one dayer or T20). If he stays in the side then he'll get a 4 matches in the next 2 weeks! Just because you use throwaway labels like 'marketeers' to try to personalise your arguments, it doesn't stop your arguments being awful. Each action has a consequence. A one day series that is basically a World Cup tune up is the perfect time for Clarke to try to find some form. I do get it: You don't like Clarke. Probably based on some misguided notion that because he isn't Allan Border he that he doesn't deserve to be captain. Well times are changing and you'd better get used to it otherwise you'll be a very frustrated grumpy old man.

You may not be trying to convert anyone, but you are trying to receive support for your views or some other motivation. Otherwise you wouldn't be posting them on an anonymous internet forum. You want M Hussey to earn his spot back. I'm pretty sure that he has already earned his spot. But your scathing comments about the selectors, who you stated made an error by naming him for the World Cup squad because he would not be fit in time, look foolish in retrospect and continue a pattern of yours for spouting off without considering any evidence than may be present. It ruins every argument you ever make (regardless of whether or not you happen to stumble across the right answer by the 1000 monkey approach). Another example of this is your thought on Michael Clarke. You want him to have gone back to state cricket to play some long innings. How many long innings is he going to play when the states are playing in the Big Bash? Cause and effect. Everything affects something else, but that's too complex for your thinking. Besides, Clarke has captained bloody well so far. Your 5 consecutive match rule is also idiotic. Nothing is as simple as you want to make it and dropping a quality player now due to form would be insane. Why? So he can play Big Bash. A month before the World Cup? He'll play more one day cricket to return to form if he stays with Australia. Form is only ever an innings away, so we should give our best players the opportunity to get that form before the World Cup - not playing state level Twenty20!! Besides, Clarke has only 'failed' (assuming 36 is a failure) in his last 3 matches. Before that he made 50* from 51 balls. Before that two scores in the 20s and before that 111* (in India) and 99*. Your 5 consecutive match rule (using <40 as a failure, since Clarke's 36 does is a 'failure') would have seen Mike Hussey dropped from Tests in October last year (a month before his Ashes series), in January the year before and in June 2008. He'd have been dropped from ODIs in June last year and March 2007. His overall record in ODIs is an average of 52, and 51 in Tests. You'd have dropped Ricky Ponting from the ODI side in June 2010, January 2010, February 2009, June 2008, February 2008, October 2006, February 2005, September 2004, January 2004, August 2003, March 2002, August 1999, April 1999 and November 1996. That's 14 times you would have dropped him in his 352 game career. Do you agree with dropping one of Australia's greatest ever batsmen 14 times in his ODI career? One that has netted us 3 consecutive world Cups? In that same time you would have dropped Clarke 5 times in his 185 ODI career. Extrapolating, you'd have dropped Clarke once every 37 games and Ponting once every 25 games. Does that sit comfortably with you?

The pitches in India for the World Cup are likely to be flat batting paradises. Teams should score lots of runs if history is any guide to the pitches. On these pitches then you need something different from the norm to be able to keep batsmen in check. Simply sending out more fast medium bang 'em in type bowlers is just not going to cut it a lot of the time. So Tait is a gamble on his ability to be dangerous on flat pitches. If he bowls badly then he'll still go for a run a ball like everyone else. But if he bowls well then the opposition is right up against the wall. He's probably not the sort of bowler you want on a slow, seaming pitch because that role could be better performed by the likes of Bollinger, Watson and Hastings, but if you're bowling on a 300+ wicket then Tait would be almost the first bowler picked. I think Clarke is better down the order. But he's just having a really poor trot at the moment because he's out of form. There's no doubt that he'll get back to making runs at some point and when he does he's one of our best. If we are going to win the World Cup then we need Ponting and Clarke in the team and making runs, because they're the cream. If they don't fire then we won't win the tournament, whether they're in the team or out of it. Also, I think Clarke's captaincy so far this ODI series has been absolutely top shelf - now he just needs to make some runs. WYL, the reason why nobody rates your arguments is because (among other things) you are frightfully inconsistent in your rambling and use absolutely no substantive evidence whatsoever. Nobody is compelled to your view because you offer nothing compelling - just emotive rambling and poorly thought out opinions. It's the same in every forum, be it cricket, football, or tiddlywinks. Also you are lucky that the two weeks deleted your views on the selectors naming Mike Hussey. It would have been interesting viewing now that Hussey looks like recovering for the World Cup!!

I'm sorry WYL but you are just making stuff up now that seems like it could be right. It's not. The first of those half centuries was in the first innings in Adelaide. The lower order collapsed around him after a partnership with Mike Hussey, and Haddin was out going for the slog as the last man out with Doug Bollinger at the other end. How was he supposed to convert that into 100? Dougie was going to hang around and make a gritty 30 odd to help Haddin to his century as part of an 80 run partnership for the 10th wicket, was he? The other 50 he made was in the first innings in Perth, where he came in at 5 for 69. You might be able to argue that he could have gone on, but also bear in mind that Prior amassed scores of 10 and 12. Incidentally, 53 would have been top score for England across both innings of that test. People are getting sucked in by the way the series has ended. Prior was poor until his last two innings (and he was given a reprieve early in Melbourne courtesy of a no ball referral), while Haddin had been exceptional. But people only remember what is most recent in their heads. Over the course of the series, Haddin was better. I found that the biggest problem Australia had was simply moving the ball. The England quicks moved the ball, while we (for the most part) did not. There two occasions where we moved the ball noticeably: First innings in Perth and on the 3th day in Melbourne (reverse). No surprise that we bowled England out for under 100 in Perth and took about 5/60 in Melbourne. Johnson very rarely moves it, Siddle is generally up and down and Hilfenhaus was less than threatening this series. Why don't we move it? I don't know, and I doubt that us mug punters could know. But we need to find ways to take wickets on flat pitches.

Yeah, Prior's stats in this series with the gloves show the worthlessness of catching stats for keepers. I reckon if I took the gloves for England then I'd have at least double the catches of Haddin for the series. Does that make me a better keeper, or even having a better series with the gloves? The last test series that Kamran Akmal played was against England last year in England. He had 17 catches from 3 games while Matt Prior had 12 catches and a stumping from 4 games. Who would you say had the better series as a keeper? Then note that the reason Kamran only played 3 tests was because he was dropped in the other test for ..... you guessed it ..... poor keeping. (Cricinfo article) Keeping stats are useless.

Haddin has had a better series than Prior. Prior has come in on flat tracks and made cheap runs in the last two tests, but has been ordinary until then. Haddin has been one of Australia's few winners, while Prior has played some pretty easy innings. Also, the idea that the number of catches constitutes a measure for a keeper's performance with the gloves complete crap. I don't think that Haddin is a great gloveman (neither is Prior, really), but the catching numbers are complete crap and mean nothing. Over the course of the series, Haddin has been presented with 9 chances while Prior has been presented with 24. Statistics, in themselves, mean nothing. It's the context that gives them meaning.

Interesting watching the Indian openers batting in South Africa. Sehwag out to an awful shot and Gambhir was dropped off an equally bad shot. With the ball moving around a bit they have been unable to leave the ball. Kallis was unbelievable. Especially yesterday when the pitch was really doing a lot. He and Amla turned the game with their partnership, before Amla threw it away. I am often surprised when Kallis isn't mentioned in the same breath as Tendulkar, Ponting and Lara. Nowhere near as exciting to watch him bat, but he is of the utmost quality.

It's funny how everyone is saying that we need to pick players in form. It sounds stupid, but I would say that this is the last thing we should be thinking about when selecting a test team at the moment. At the moment we are looking to discover future players rather than fill gaps. We need to select and play the players who have the talent to be long term cricketers in the test team. Selecting players who are in good form is great when you are a really good team and you just need to fill in gaps around your stars. You can select whichever 3rd pace bowler is in the best form when your other 3 bowlers are McGrath, Gillespie and Warne. Or you can select the number 6 batsman who in best form to fill in the gaps. But at the moment selecting the best form player is going to take us from being a crap team to being a slightly less crap team which is still crap. And when that player eventually loses form then we are left with absolutely nothing. Marcus North was the form player when he came into the side a few years ago. He was there because we had a weakness at 6 and quality batsmen at 3, 4 and 5. The selectors thought that he could help us win some important series, but once he lost form then we are left with nothing. However if we put Steve Smith at 6, or Hughes opening, then what happens if they lose form? We end up with a player who now has the experience to help become a quality long term player. Much like putting games of experience into kids in an AFL team when you're rebuilding, you need to invest the international experience in the players that are going to be able to bring you success. If the selectors think that Smith, Hughes and Beer will be among our best players in 4 years then I vote getting the games into them to accelerate their development. Similarly, Clarke's 4 runs means nothing in the long term. He is a long term player who is in poor form at the moment. But he has undoubted class and will eventually get back to his best.

Clarke's Twenty20 batting form has absolutely nothing to do with his suitability for the Australian test captaincy. Nothing at all. When he bats in a test match then the relevance of his ability to slog sixes is slightly less than infinitely small. Also, you are being grossly unfair saying that Clarke 'threw away his wicket on the last ball of the day trying a ridiculous shot'. He was turning a ball to leg, like he does comfortably so many times, and he got one that spun sharply on him. He didn't throw his wicket away and his shot certainly wasn't 'ridiculous'. He averages nearly 50 with the bat over an extended period of test cricket. He's clearly a good enough batsman, but is in a lean patch of form. So what is the real reason you don't think he should be captain? Cameron White could pssibly be a better captain, or then again he may not. But nobody in their right mind would think that he is a test calibre batsman - certainly at the moment. He averages just 42 in first class cricket batting at 5 and 6 behind the likes of Hodge and Hussey. The reason Victoria has been so good has been on the back of their more experienced players and the weakness of the other states at the moment. Hussey is a good first class batsman, Hodge too. With White and Rogers in the side, plus a genuine all rounder in McDonald, there is a side that has a solid core of players that is much better than other weak states. Add to them they have a solid core of experienced bowlers who are very good state cricketers, even if they have limited prospects above that - McKay, Nannes, Wright, Hastings, Harwood etc. Mind you, if Victoria played against a full strength NSW team team then they'd get smashed. Watson, Clarke, Haddin, Katich, Khawaja, Smith, Hughes, Jaques, Lee, Hauritz, Clark, Bollinger, Copeland ..... they'd get killed. The state with the best players hasn't been winning the shield because they've had to field their B-team as their best players have been playing for Australia. Victoria has a couple of top class internation prospects on the books. However they are currently under 21 years of age: Pattinson and Keath. These are the types of player that Victoria needs to promote, rather than search for trophies by filling the gaps with imports like Wright and Rogers.

Michael Clarke gets a shocking run of it from the punters on the sidelines. Why do people not want him as captain? Remember this is someone who, over his career, averages 48 with the bat. Talk that he shouldn't be captain because he is having bad series is idiotic. It is obvious that he is a class player who is just having a bad run of form and, that being the case, he is clearly a long term member of the Australian test set up. Since he is a long term player, the only question is whether or not he'd be a good captain. I think his work captaining the ODIs and T20s has been pretty good. Certainly there is nothing that he has done that has made me think that he's not the right person to captain the test side after Ponting. So, I ask again, why do you not want him to be captain? Who is the alternative? Why is the alternative better than Clarke? And don't get me started on the idiocy of people claiming NSW bias. I dare not even suggest that the next batsman who makes it into the Australian set up is an immensely talented 19 year old by the name of Nic Maddinson. Watson (NSW ex Qld ex Tas ex Qld) Hughes (NSW) Ponting (Tas) Clarke (NSW) Hussey (WA) Haddin (NSW) Johnson (WA ex Qld) Harris (Qld ex SA) Siddle (Vic) Hilfenhaus (Tas) Beer (WA ex Vic) 4 players out of 12? And that includes Watson, who was initially selected for Aus when playing for Tassie, and then for Queensland. 33% of players in the 12 for Melbourne. NSW contains 32% of all people in Australia (just over 7 million). One could argue, by the numbers, that they are under-represented!! I am a Victorian, but NSW is producing the best cricketers in the country (especially young cricketers).

OK. Here we go. I'd just like to preface my judgements with what I think is important to winning a premiership. I am a big believer that you build a premiership from the back, that forward lines can be set up in any number of ways and that most games are won and lost in the midfield. I place a lot of importance on teams having deep quality midfields. I'm prepared to be flexible with different combinations of players, but I want to be able to see defensible logic behind these setups. I rate flexibility, especially in defence. I don't particularly rate ruckmen. With that in mind, my 5-4-3-2-1 were: 1st - Deestroy All 2nd - High Tower 3rd - E25 4th - Deez Nutz 5th - Ox 5 Breakdown: Deestroy All Half back has some great run, with Malceski and Deledio. Merrett is solid enough and Scarlett is a star who provides a great deal of flexibility. Brown can play taller than he looks and Selwood would be good as a shut down small, but the defence still lacks a real third tall defender. I would have preferred Scarlett as a third tall or the selection of a real third tall defender. Another worry is the number of non-rebounding defenders. The rebounders are good (Deledio, Malceski and Scarlett) but Merrett, Brown and Selwood are a pretty defensive lot. I worry that there are some ordinary kicks coming out of there. The midfield has a great balance, with Boak and Judd being the extractors, while Dal Santo, Bateman and Vince are very good outside them. Hille I don't really rate as an out and out ruckman (rather someone who does his best work pushing forward as a ruckman) and, since there is no second ruckman picked, I see this as an issue. What does strike me is the lack of depth in the midfield. Sure, there are 5 really good players - but they're it. The forward line seems to be a very poor balance. Hall, Hansen and Dawes a good enough players by themselves, but having all three is overkill. With three genuine talls (none of whom are really the type that push up the ground), I feel they would be competing for the same balls. Of course then you have Motlop and Petterd, who are both marking medium forwards (who also play close to goal) and are likely to need space to play, which they will not get due to the three key forwards in the forward line. Ballantyne is a good selection for the ultra big forward line because he's a genuine crumber. If you look at each section in isolation - backs, midfielders and forwards - then it looks a good team. But it looks like they have been selected in isolation. When I game gets played then I would think the side would lack the run. The side would have been so much better without Motlop/Petterd and Dawes, to be replaced by extra midfielders. It looks like a midfield that runs and carries kicking to a congested forward line built for a midfield full of scrappers. High Tower I thought selecting Frawley with pick 1 was a mistake. Frawley is exceptional, but there are other players that could have improved his team more. That said, I liked this defence more than any of the others. Why? Because I thought that it had the best mix of players and best structure. Many teams missed out with getting genuine stoppers, and I thought that Carlile and Gwilt were good choices for balance. Bock and Frawley give really good flexibility with their mix of defence and attack and Frawley can play many roles. Mackie and Gibbs are quality attacking defenders, with Gibbs also pushing into the middle. Well balanced. I think that the forward line has a nice balance, with Pavlich being a quality performer as a number one forward and White able to play as a ruck/forward. I don't think he's a star, but White provides a good role. Other than that, the forwards are all runners. Dangerfield is a strong players who is very capable overhead and can play as a marking medium forward. Banfield is the true crumbing/pressure/defensive forward. Burgoyne and Sidebottom provide good midfield rotations which ranks highly. The midfield with Cooney, Swallow, Watson, Scully, Cotchin, Burgoyne, Dangerfield and Sidebottom is deep, but may just lack that true top level star power that I like in the midfield. You'd be hoping for big seasons of improvement from Scully and Cotchin. Swallow and Watson are good players, but lack penetration and Cooney is the only player that has proven to cut teams apart (other than Burgoyne, who has injury concerns). I like the structure but it's just some of the players, midfield especially, that underwhelm me. E25 Very young team. The side is largely unproven with Cunnington, Toy, Martin and Hartlett not having shown large amounts at AFL level. Maybe you can carry one for a premiership team, but I find it hard to carry three or four - nearly a quarter of the side. Key defenders are solid, yet unspectacular. I worry about the balance between the players and who plays on a genuine monster forward. Reid does well on running types, but can still get rag dolled. Ryder is athletic but can't defend and Morris is a great stopper but undersized (with Lake playing on monsters). There's no genuine shut down small defender and an enormous amount of the rebounding burden will have to fall upon Gram, who is inconsistent and lacks class. Midfield is good, with Goodes being really important to provide the line breaking. The rest are just good hard workers. Without Goodes I'd have concerns. I like the small forwards, with Sylvia being a good selection providing flexibility by pushing into the midfield, as does Rioli. Johnson too provides X factor up forward. The talls are uninspiring up forward, with Clark being unproven as a forward and Kennedy lacking class (although a lion hearted worker). Overall I think the side covers most bases, with small forwards being an obvious strength. This may be a good side in 3 years time, but at the moment it just misses a bit, especially with the defensive mix, defensive runners and all around class. Deez Nutz The defence just has to get the ball to ground. The runners are good and Waite and Gilbert are good attacking defenders. It feels like the Bulldogs of a few years ago. Hurley would have to be able to play as a genuine tall defensive defender. But I just don't know what to do about Rance - that's an awful selection. The forward line is simply misguided. If you are going to play a small forward line without a key forward then you simply need to have smalls that can mark the ball. You were the one that needed Motlop on Petterd rather than Deestroy All, and he needed Hitchcock or Wonaeamirri. Hitchcock and Wonna can't mark - they are true crumbers. But if there are no talls to compete then why do you need crumbers? Ablett is wasted at FF, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and pretending he's playing midfield. There are so many things wrong with this team. So many things. Alex Rance. A forward line without even one proper key forward. No proper gorilla defender. It's a midget squad! But the midfield is Ablett, Swan, Mitchell, Chapman, Cross, Wells, O'Keefe and Chapman. The question is, how many games could you possibly lose with that midfield? Ox 5 Now this is the balance of squad that I've been wanting to see. Between Tarrant, Taylor and Thomson they have most options covered. I'd like if one of them was more attacking, but I'm OK with it. Gibson is a very good zoning player, and Winderlich and Enright are good rebounders, with Enright also being able to shut down good small forwards. The forward line is very good with a great mix. Nick pushes up the ground and Jack stays close to home. There's crumbing power, X-factor and a midfielder in Higgins. It has a really good balance to it. The problem lies in between those two excellent areas. Kerr is good, but is no longer the premium midfielder he was. Black is still good, Barlow is solid and Rischitelli is too. But it really does lack a star midfielder in there somewhere. Warnock is a bit light on compared to the other rucks selected. If there was even one star midfielder selected in this side then I think it would be my first choice easily. All premiership teams tend to have at least one star midfielder, but I just can't see one here. As it is, I just wonder if it has the power out of the middle to feed their forwards. Of the others: Trengove - Question marks over Glass nowadays weighed down the defence. I don't really rate ruckmen, although Tippett was an excellent selection. There was no shut down small defender and, in general, it looked top heavy in defence. I think the forward line looks good for type, and would be a very good one if Patrick was any good. But he was a mature age rookie selection (effectively) who is completely untested and very raw, so a lot of marks get lost for that. The side is solid, but it really does lack star power aside from J Brown and Sandilands (and I don't rate rucks that highly). It looks like a really good consistent middle of the road side, but I think no premiership hope. eth38 - Great defence .... if you were playing Deez Nutz. Unfortunately it lacks flexibility against those with strong key forwards. A lot of run from defence with Harbrow, Gilbee and Drummond, which I think is really important. I didn't mark the defence down as much as I'm sure others will. Midfield is good enough, with Hodge and Hayes being proven big game performers. Not huge depth, but OK. Forward line is a problem. Nobody really running through the midfield from the forward line (perhaps Fyfe) and I don't rate Byrnes, Gray and Walker as premiership players (at the moment). Overall I just don't think the team had depth and I don't think it had the flexibility needed to win a flag. Roger Mellie - Solid enough team. The defence has a nice mix, although it does really lack a gorilla defender. Fisher, Chaplin and Rivers are all CHB types but none are really body on body key defenders and could be exposed by genuine key forwards. I do like Newman in the team ad he can shut down and provide drive - good choice. Rich and Krakouer are solid attacking defenders. The forwards have a good mix, with marking smalls, crumbers, high half forwards and a couple of talls. Pods and Roughy are very similar though and I'm not sure they'd work well together. Didak, Le Cras, Murphy and Betts are dangerous though. The midfield did leave me a bit underwhelmed. I think Selwood is a really good player but I just don't find him to be the gamebreaker that everyone else does at the moment. There's a big drop off after Mundy too. I really don't think the midfield is powerful enough to win a flag and I don't think the team distiguishes itself enough from the rest. Good middle of the road team. The master - The structure of the team is quite good. It lacks a third tall defender and Grima is of suspect quality, but the small defenders offer a really good amount of flexibility. Up forward you have Buddy ..... and that's about it. It has a really good structure to it, with different types of key forward, a resting midfielder and a couple of mid sized forwards who can mark. The midfield has Thompson and Kennedy plus a lot of outsiders. But it's definitely thin for quality. It seems like you've gone for the structure rather than best player. It's certainly a good structure to your team (lack of third tall excepted) but it seems to be at the expense of player quality. Range Rover - Lake is good at full back, but having Goddard at CHB and not third tall leaves it completely stuffed in defence. Waters, Ibbotson, Salopek and Jackson are good players, but the structure is all wrong because of the lack of a second key defender. Up forward there is a good structure. Unfortunately there is a culture stain in Fevola, a player who hasn't shown anything in Gumbleton and a fruit cake in Brennan. Green is good and offers flexibility with his ability to go into the midfield and be dangerous up forward. But, most of all, the midfield just lacks quality. Bartel, Murphy, Davey .... Jordan Lewis? Anyway, I just thought that there were a few too many flaws in the side that couldn't really be covered up. Overall: My assessment of the teams is that they all had flaws in them, but that is really what happens with all teams. The question was how easily can these flaws be covered. The reason why Deestroy All finished highest (and I toyed with all permutations of the first 3) was because I felt that his teams would be able to cover its own flaws the easiest. The forward line is not balanced very well, but it's possible to work that forward line by pushing Hansen (big engine) and Petterd further up the ground and leaving just two key forwards, an X factor forward and a crumber. Whereas there was no way of being able to counter High Tower's lack of top level star power and E25's huge amount of unproven young players. The further you got down my rankings, then more flaws there were or the greater the flaw. Deez Nutz had a large amount of flexibility simply due to the quality of his midfield. Unfortunately there were so many flaws that it couldn't be considered with the top 3. Ox 5 had a lot of good points and very few flaws in the team. Unfortunately the flaw was really, really big - midfield quality - and simply couldn't be fixed. It's not easy to differentiate between teams when the quality of the teams is, more or less, pretty much the same!

I don't care about how many games we win. If the only thing that you judge the season on is the number of wins then you just don't have a good enough awareness of where we are as a club. Some people need to attribute a really basic metric to measure the success of a season. That's their problem, but it's going to be frustrating through the year when these same people come back here after a loss and bag all and sundry after a close loss, or claim everyone as a superhero after a close win. I want to see signs that we will win a flag. We won't win a flag next year, but I want to see that we can/will. I want to see the development in individual players and I want to see games and patches within games where we look genuinely good. Not just where we scratch out ugly wins here and there like the Kangaroos, but times where we dominate games. We could be unlucky and win 6 games, or be lucky and win 12. Neither matters very much next year, but if we see Scully/Trengove/Watts/Grimes/Jurrah etc start to dominate good players, and the side start to dominate teams (even just for short periods here and there) then I'll be absolutely rapt.

I don't have a problem with the selections. I thought that Hughes for Katich and Smith for North were absolute monties to happen. The Ashes this year are gone. The current crop are clearly not going to win it for us, so there's no point selecting a player like D Hussey or Hauritz as our next spinner. We are better off selecting players who are a chance to help us win the next Ashes. And the one after that. And the one after that. Smith is currently a batsman who is developing his spin bowling game. He has a lot of spin potential, but he's a batting all rounder at the moment. People under rate his batting simply because they pigeon hole him as spin bowler who can bat, when it is currently the other way around. He's being selected as a batsman who happens bowl a bit. In time this may change, but not at the moment. He's being picked for the future - he's 21. And that's the same as Beer and Hughes. Hughes is only 22 years old and averages over 50 in first class and test cricket. He's a future player, even if he's not playing at his best at the moment. The spinner's role is a lottery and there is no spinner around the country at the moment that is good enough to demand a spot in the Australian team based purely on results. But there is a history of spinners being plucked from obscurity based on talent and temperament. Beer hasn't played a heap of first class cricket, but I'm prepared to give him a shot based on talent and temperament. I would have gone for O'Keefe, but that's only because I've seen him bowl - I haven't seen Beer enough to make a real judgement. I am happy that the selectors have selected for the future rather than go for the short term. After the retirement of our stars we have relied far too much on bringing in mature players to top up our top players. But now we lack those top players and the selectors are going to have to back their judgement and look for the next crop of top players. I like the selections.

Freak, firstly I find the anti-Watts crowd to be hilarious. This group consists of those who want to make a bold statement to get attention, and also those who just don't know footy. Secondly, that forward set up is awful. Just awful. There's so much wrong with it. With reduced rotations, you suggest that we are now going to play a high running game that requires zero key position forwards. Awful.

I'm trying to place these kids (based on not having seen them except for highlights packages). Taylor seems like a Warnock type defender. Speed, power, agility and looks to be able to run with the footy. Players like that need pace, but usually need time to develop. McDonald reads to me like Leigh Brown. Strong, hard working, lion hearted tall utility. Wouldn't surprise me if he's being looked at as a mobile second ruckman who can do a job for you anywhere. Howe is a medium/tall forward, but I guess it's his running ability and class that has got him drafted as much as his obvious high marking. It's hard to find what he has. Cook looks to be that tall forward who can compete for the ball when it slows down. Good endurance, good mark but also able to take full advantage of his good work through kicking. Bear in mind that this is based on no information so I'm just theorising, more than anything else. Very interesting draft.

Which AFL club is Sheahan a recruiter for? Besides, Shifter named Cook as one of his top 30 players. He didn't give any order. So how was he wrong? The point is, nobody outside of AFL recruiting knows how highly rated different players are. You simply don't know who is rated highly and are guessing. Let's at least wait to see what Prendergast says.

He may mark like Robbo, but he seems to be good at ground level. And, most importantly, he runs a 14+ beep.