grazman

Ronnie bags six for, and the Vics still in with a show to get another 4 points and really stretch the gap. - Mc Donald Should be included soon in the one day squad - though I'm not sure why he wasn't to start with. With the wheels really falling off the cart for us, I think it's a chance to go back to the drawing board and start afresh.

Hope being the operative word. I suspect that even if we make the top four our draw won't improve significantly, because regardless of what the AFL might say, the draw has nothing to do with performance and every thing to do with ratings. As for our sponsor, Cameron's just ironing out the last few tin-tacks....

You think with his latest brain explosion on radio (what the hell was he on when he did this interview - definitely under the influence of something) that it's career over for Roy. I won't be sorry to see him go - 18 months ago maybe, now he's a liability in terms of his batting (doesn't value his wicket) and a walking headline off it. I still think the best option for South Africa is to bat Haddin at six and Johnson at 7 in the tests. Hauritz if he plays is a more than capable no 8. that still leaves space for three other bowlers. McDonald may tour, but his batting is suspect and Watson is unlikely to play a regular part in the future such is the nature of his fragile body.

Thanks for taking the time to post Flashdance. How was Riv - was he just doing light work or is there a suggestion he may have had a recurrance of his injury?

Really why is that? wheres the team called Perth or Canberra or Hobart or Darwin? The AFL isn't about equity it's a business and it's mission is to make a profit. This isn't sport any more - it's entertainment. Sport is fair, sport the rules are written down and agreed to by all sides, This is about bums on seats and money in the hand. It's an absolutely faulty assumption to believe that we're required - being the oldest club means nothing. The AFL needs 18 teams for it's new blueprint, but it doesn't care if we're based in Melbourne or not - all they care about is the money and atm our failure to garner a sponsor for a season that kicks off in less than four weeks time isn't making a compelling argument for survival in fact I'd say it mounts a pretty strong argument for the opposition.

I think it's wrong to assume this doesn't happen in every other club. Collingwood aren't any different - they actually sacked their cheersquad not so long ago. Naturally everyone that feels strongly aligned to something like a footy club will have opinions, sometimes those opinions differ. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. Vigorous debate (easily distinguished by not resorting to personal insults and emotive responses) helps inform and persuade. It isn't necessarily a sign that the culture is unhealthy, its a reflection that people don't agree. There's rarely any 'right' solutions to complex problems.

there's a second qualifying statement in the first sentence. So in simple terms I don't give a fat rat's clacker about the clubs politics UNLESS it means we can't field a side because we're broke!

The off-field stuff holds no interest for me what-so-ever, unless it means we can't field a side and that's where it's getting to. It's unfair to blame this administration for our economic circumstances, it's unfair to blame the last one or the one before that, Ian Ridley saw the writing on the wall. Most of our Core support is now six feet under and growing. Even a string of premierships won't address the issue in the short term. We have to find better revenue streams, and perhaps look at alternative models. I don't care if we're owned by some Indian Telecommunications company and I don't care if I don't get a vote at the AGM, I do care about a team wearing red and blue running out every second week onto the MCG. Call them factions, call them Fred, call them whatever you like, but different people have different ideas about how best to run the club, it's no different at Melbourne to any other football club. The idea of "unity" is a bit mystifying to me. I understand it in a football sense - getting behind the team, supporting, encouraging, but I don't understand it in a business sense. Do you continue to support an administration if you know they aren't doing the job they're supposed to? Should I be holding my breath for "the tin-tacks to be ironed out" in the next week or so? I care that the bloke who stated a number of times he didn't want the job and then took it, still hasn't delivered on one of his key responsibilities.

I disagree. Junior has been a model of consistency both on and off the field. It's doubtful that there's a player that's more respected at the club by his own or by opposition players. I'd rather see just the three captains (captain, vice and deputy vice) and have the other players strive to work towards those positions through their actions on and off the field. Large leadership groups while acknowledging a wider base are probably guilty of diminishing the status of the roles. I have absolutely no doubt that Brock McLean will be captain of the club, but not this year and not until he's earnt it. That's the way it should be - it shouldn't be handed out as some sort of 'encouragement' award. As for the team for the NAB cup, you've selected a very strong line up - Regardless of who I would personally chose I'd make a few points. 1. DB last year (and it seems to be a trend at most clubs) had a policy of rotating the best players through the NAB/Challege cup matches. I doubt we'll see a full onball contingent playing in the one match. 2. DB last year spoke clearly about the need to reward players who performed on the track with opportunities, that would obviously mean lesser lights rather than established players. It's too hard to tell from the training reports who would expect to be in the mix, but I imagine the club would be looking at the likes of Cheney, Spencer, McNamara and Meesen to play games to assess their potential and for the likes of Petterd, Grimes, Maric and Newton to be given specific responsibilities. 3. I doubt many of our first year rookies will be rushed. Bennell, Jetta and Bail will be in the frame because they're more advanced than the others. There'll be the inevitable supporter expectations to see Watts, Blease, Strauss and Jurrah play, but their bodies need development and at this early stage it's better to leave them on ice.

Absolutely. Belly's too suspect the closer he gets to goals. He's got good pace, he's strong and importantly he's very disciplined. There's a question over his ability to read the play though and that might be the knock on him playing regularly as a run with player, but I've argued for a while it's worth a trial at least.

It's a very good point Old. Poor Mark cops a fair pasting. We have a number of unknown quantities in Meesen or Spencer. As Phoenix stated, mobile talls with good skills like PJ might become the norm for rucks in the future, but ATM he doesn't provide much of a ruck contest and that's the challenge for him. Jamar is a good ruckman, he doesn't do much else, but he does at least provide an even ruck contest. If the trend of having fast boundary throw in's continues though, I can see PJ and perhaps even a Stef Martin being used more and more around the ground.

It would be a major departure to their usual preseason routine. I'll have to check the records, but I don't think they've ever won a preseason game under Roos.

I agree Mo. Captains usually have a say to a certain extent as to who plays in the side and who doesn't. Symonds at least strikes me as a Ponting selection. After being banished he came back in on reputation and not form, he's injured and has never shown the application to be regarded as a genuine test batsman. I really can't understand the rationale behind selecting an allrounder for the sake of having an allrounder when our dominance has been fixed around seven batsmen and four bowlers. I wonder how bad Michael Clark's back is - surely he's good for 6-8 overs for an innings? Listening to Shane Warne in the last test and watching Ricky Ponting's captaincy for a while, I think the two are chalk and cheese. Warney for all his faults has a great tactical mind, and would have made a superb captain. Ricky is just devoid of any creativity or spark. He backs his troops, but is completely dyslexic when it comes to the writing on the wall. Perhaps that's a little unfair, because this current South African team is going to be deservedly the number one team for a while. They're very good - not great, but a lot better than us. The real challenge isn't trying to gain respectability in the next test or trying to be competitive in South Africa, it's trying to build a side that can defend the Ashes, and in that regard the next four tests are vital, the results are meaningless. If I were a betting man, I think there'd be pretty good odds for the selectors continuing their conservative line, they'll replace the injured Lee with Hilfenhaus. Watson being injured complicates the matter, because he would have replaced Symonds. In Sydney I'd say they'll opt for Cameron White which would be the wrong decision in my book. Hayden will stay if he's retiring otherwise he's gone and Phil Hughes comes in. For me though the problem has been two fold, firstly it's the batsman that aren't making enough runs and this is compounded by sides like South Africa that aren't intimidated about chasing down reasonable second innings totals, and we can't buy a wicket when we need one. Number four is problematic, Hussey is as out of form as Hayden IMO. I'd swap him and Clark and if he doesn't make runs soon, then you need to consider either Brad Hodge or David Hussey. I'd move Haddin to six, his forms pretty good and Johnson and Hauritz are both pretty much all-rounders when it comes to the blade anyway. (In fact I'm happy to go on record as saying I think Johnson is probably a better batsman than he is a bowler). There's a lot not to like about that in terms of 'balance' but neither Symonds or Watson ever gave us enough with the bat to justify their selection ahead of a specialist batsman IMO. White gives you nothing in the bowling stakes and while I'd normally favour playing six specialist batsmen, we have real problems trying to find an attack capable of taking 20 wickets in a test (both in India and against South Africa) Siddle remains (though I'm not sold and in time I think he'll make way for Clark), Hilfenhaus comes in, it's a no-brainer, he swings the ball and takes wickets. The last position in problematic. I'm not interested in short term solutions and it doesn't worry me if we lose the series 3-0 or 2-1. Playing Kreja would seem logical on a turning pitch, but the real question for me is whether he's going to be the man that helps us retain the Ashes. Both logic and my gut-feel tell me no. He's the best long term spin prospect for mine, but he needs time. ATM he bleeds runs and isn't a real threat. Which is why I'd go with Doug Bollinger. Like Hilfy he moves the ball in the air, and even though his last season of County cricket was poor, he could be the difference. All we can do is suck it and see, like I said if we lose the next four test matches, but find a combination that can defend the Ashes then that's all that matters.

Yesterday would have to go down as one of Australia's worst days in a test of the last twenty years. I blame not only the selectors, but in some measure Ponting as well who obviously has some degree of influence. I love him as a batsman, but as a captain he's about as imaginative as the vegetarian alternative at a steak house. The problem obviously is in picking players that are basically not fit and not in form. Nothing has been done to enhance Brett Lee's career or Australia's chances of winning by hoping he'd last in this test and magically find form. Andrew Symonds was a gamble, both because of his knee and that he bats like a millionaire, the only way he'll ever make a big score is if the opposition keep grassing the chances that he regularly provides. Watson unfortunately doesn't make runs and is always injured anyway. I'd rather pick an in-form batsman. Michael Hussey, along with Gilly is one of my favourite cricketers of all time, but his rich vein of form has run out, we need him firing for the Ashes, which means he needs to make runs, which means he needs to be dropped. As for Hayden, It's all well and good for him to want to make a decision at the end of the series as to his future, but the future for Australia is now, he either intends to go on (in which case he's gone unless he makes runs today) or he wants to retire (in which case he gets a farewell test).

Unfortunately I'm holidaying in QLD at the moment and there's no channel 9 reception where I'm staying... bummer. I think Brett Lee's in trouble. He's taken 300 test wickets, but his best is only 5 for... (though granted for 200 of those wickets he had some handy competition at the other end) He just hasn't seemed to trouble batsmen for a while. I'm not a huge rap for Johnson, I like that he can bowl long spells at a consistently high pace, I just hate the negative tactics of continually bowling a foot outside off stump to a 7/2 field. That said most of his wickets yesterday were achieved by getting the batsmen to play (though Kallis like half of all Johnson's victims will be kicking themselves for playing something they would normally leave alone). Gavin Robertson made a good point about Kreja yesterday, he's a very attacking offspinner - which is a rarity in Australia, and I like his attitude, but he has to learn how to dry up the runs. Hayden won't or shouldn't be dropped. His heroics speak for themselves - he's an Australian cricketing legend. He's deserved the chance to fall on his sword. Anyone that reckons Michael Bevan should have had more test opportunities is kidding themselves... the guy couldn't play a short ball to save himself.

How many of those Grand Finals in the 80s and 90s would Geelong have won with Williams in the midfield with Bairstow and Couch and with Ablett, Brownless and Stoneham up forward?

Just to add some points on two players here. Firstly Greg Williams. Played for Carlton reserves where they were unimpressed by his lack of pace, returned to the country and then tried again when he again was rejected by the Blues. Went to Geelong where he quickly established himself as firsts player - won the award for best first year player and was promptly thrown a bucket load of cash by Dr Eddleston and the Swans (see Gerard Healy) The Cats did not want him to go, but couldn't match the offer. He was recognised then as being the best handballer in the business - Geelong absolutely did not cut him for being too slow, they wanted to keep him. Carlton then of course adopted their usual practice of buying back what they couldn't develop after the Swans nosedived. Shaun Hart was only ever an average footballer when he started. He was small and not fast, but I wouldn't have said he was slow either. He persevered and he was able to cement a spot in a good lineup. He was solid and consistent, and I think it's fair to say benefitted from having the likes of Voss, Lappin, Aker and Black to ease the pressure, Marcus Ashcroft was another beneficiary. Two players whose reputations may not have been so favourable if they'd played in a lesser side. I think any talk of Valenti being even in the same league as say Hart or Ashcroft is far too premature, probably the best example in our side is Junior. He is the same sort of solid contributor who would easily have established himself as part of a premiership midfield in another team, but because he plays for us is completely underrated by the rest of the football world. We simply don't have any players near the 'class' of a Diesel Williams in being able to dominate a midfield and make things happen. I hope given a couple of injury free years Brock McLean might, but all will be revealed in the fullness of time.

Great Post DD.

OK time to take a breather. The term "recreational drugs" is not helpful in determining whether something is or isn't performance enhancing. According to the World Anti Doping Agency. Amphetamine Type Substances (including ICE) and cocaine are classified as "performance enhancing" get caught with them in your system at the Olympics and you get banned just like you do with steroids. If people doubt that they could be effective on match day, just go to your local A&E about 2am on any given night to see just how 'effective' these drugs are in fueling people's strength and aggression. Call me a sceptic, but I doubt the sincerity of Ben's claims he's now clean and the AFL's policy as a whole in protecting the image of the game. I don't like Ricky Nixon, but I agree with his accusations about the double (triple) standards that the league seems to have on this issue.

I was pleasantly surprised last night. I was expecting the customary sub-continent collapse after Ponting got out (memo to the Australian dressing room, Sehwag, Laxman and Ponting have all been dismissed trying to cut balls that were too full and pitched on or about off stump - play the percentages), but Katich and Hussey made batting look extremely comfortable last night and there's only the occasional ball that's doing something. There's absolutely nothing in the pitch for the fast bowlers and even the Indian quicks can't get the ball to reverse. If we can get through the first hour without losing another wicket I think we're still some sort of chance to actually build a lead and put the pressure back on the Indians, the key will be how quickly the pitch starts to deteriorate. I can't understand Cam White's selection given the reluctance of Ponting to bowl him, but I fully understand why Clarke (back) and Katich (opener) weren't given the ball, it's too much to expect your batsmen to make runs and take wickets. They're fine for a bit of a chop out, but not for extended spells. Sehwag suffered in the last test from having to bowl too many overs IMO. I admire Ponting's firm resolve as a captian - the Australians never dropped their heads after the first session when it never looked like they were going to take a wicket and he persevered with Kreja. Well done to the kid, what a debut, particularly after getting pasted early and then looking at figures over 200 runs. Hopefully the Indian spinners continue to push the ball through, because the dangerous ones are those that are tossed up and allowed to bounce. I'm bemused by test spinners that are intent on bowling in the 90-95 Kms range, it's not a one day match. Today should be one of the most intriguing day's viewing of the entire series. C'mon Aussie C'mon!

We absolutely must get them out for less than 400. I have a real fear of how we will handle Harbi on this pitch, unfortunately we don't play offspin very well and the pitch is doing enough already to suggest he'll really trouble our middle order. I'm ambivalent about Lee, his best figures in test cricket are five for and he really is the weak link in the pace attack imo. He seems like a genuinely nice bloke, but he's only bowling in the 130s and isn't troubling any of the batsmen at all. He also takes an eternity to bowl his overs and doesn't really move the ball in the air or off the deck. He'll be safe for a while, because even Merv could come out of retirement and take wickets against New Zealand.

I agree. I'm not a fan of offspin in general, because besides the chuckers in the game, most of them bowl far too flat and are worried about saving runs rather than taking wickets. At lest Krazy is giving the ball flight and he's actually bowling well. It's a pity McGain was injured, but the overall selection of the team reflects the steadfast conservatism of the selectors, at least the kid got one test match. Johnson and Lee bowling together is a worry, both are quick, but bleed runs, we need a paceman to keep it tight. Watson has been a pleasant surprise this tour. Thankfully the Indian Cricket Board backed down, cricket is the winner, it doesn't matter that you don't like the umpire's call, when you gotta go, you gotta go!

Cricket's governing bodies are turning the game into a joke, moreso because they consistently fall prey to the almighty dollar. The Indian Cricket Board appear hell bent on taking over world cricket on their terms. There's only one acceptable outcome for this, and that is for the ICC to stand firm and not let Gambhir play after it has suspended him, if they allow India to play then the game is in danger of suffering a schism that will split the cricketing world in two.

From Todays HUN, just in case there were any doubts: He was never going to stay and I'm pretty sure we weren't too fussed about trying to keep him on anything other than our own terms.

First one probably was. IIRC His foot got stuck in a hole in the ground the team were using to train on and his knee popped.