titan_uranus

Clearly the selectors haven't gone with Shield form. The three leading run scorers in the Shield so far are Marcus North, Cameron White and Phil Hughes. In terms of averages, there are 15 batsmen averaging 50 or more, none of which are Marsh or Doolan. I would have thought Chris Rogers is a great example of why age should not be a determinative factor in selecting batsmen, in a sport where you can still bat at Test level well into your 30s. North is 34, but Rogers was 35 when he was brought back. White is only 30. Age shouldn't be keeping our form batsmen out of the side. Nor should previously being dropped (clearly didn't stop them picking Marsh, so shouldn't have stopped them picking North/White/Hughes/Khawaja). I suspect Marsh has been picked because they feel he'll run into form in the ODI series (he played a great innings on Sunday, to be fair to him), but as I said, Bailey is a great example of how ODI form can mean nothing in Test cricket. Doolan is in because he's been thereabouts for a while, not necessarily because he's in super form right now. I don't agree with either selection, I'd have taken Hughes and one of North and White (both of whom can bowl useful spin to lessen the load on our bowlers and prevent us having to stuff our batting line-up up by using Faulkner at 7 and Haddin at 6). What are you on about? Bailey was clearly substandard, I'm not sure how you want to go about denying that. My point was that we picked a player based primarily off ODI form and he ended up struggling at Test level, which isn't that surprising given he's not a dominant First Class player.

Squad for SA has been announced, and contrary to today's reports, there's no Phil Hughes. Whilst Bailey has been dropped, the replacements are Doolan and Shaun Marsh, which is very surprising and a little silly I'd have thought. They seem to have gone with Marsh based on his limited overs form, which as usual is great. But that's what they did with Bailey, picking him because of the India ODIs, and we know how that turned out. I suppose Doolan will get the nod and bat at 3, to put Watson where he belongs at 6. He gets things wrong so often. I remember him getting another selection issue wrong in the lead-up to the Ashes.

A lot of love for the Niners this week. I can't see it happening. We're playing well, and I don't think Seattle are at the best right now, but if there's any game to get Seattle playing their best, it's a home game against us. And I'm still not sure Kaepernick is good enough to get it done at Seattle. As for the AFC game, I'm going to give it to home-field advantage, but it could go either way. New England 30 Denver 33 San Francisco 17 Seattle 20

Actually, looks like we're both wrong: http://www.footballzebras.com/2014/01/14/10138/ NFL rules are so complex, but apparently the referee was correct to not call the 12 in the huddle penalty. I think.

The 12 men in the huddle non-call was terrible. It looked like the ref was looking right at the huddle at the time to see the 12th man run out! Definitely got lucky there.

Can anyone explain was Colston was trying to do with that play for New Orleans? Surely he should have stepped out of bounds and given them one more play? In the end though the better team won. Same goes for SF-Carolina, I think. Carolina's defence was pretty good all day but gave up some pretty needless penalties, whilst Cam got worse as the game went on. We're in pretty decent form right now, but I can't see us beating Seattle in Seattle. As for the AFC, New England's running game is a force to be reckoned with. Brady was actually rather average vs Indy, but it didn't matter with Blount, Ridley and Vereen tearing it up on the ground. Very potent offence (imagine what it would be with Gronk too).

Not entirely true WJ. If we win, and the Saints win, then we'll host New Orleans in the Championship Game as we'll be the higher seed (5 vs 6). Of course, for a Wild Card that's the only way to host a game, but it's still possible. Chances aren't all that remote either. As Macca said, of late Wild Card teams have done pretty well. Since the 2005 playoffs, number 6 seeds are 5-2 when playing the number 1 seed. I don't think New Orleans will win, but it's not out of the question!

New Orleans 17 Seattle 27 Indianapolis 24 New England 31 San Francisco 20 Carolina 17 San Diego 24 Denver 27 Confident enough picking Seattle. No confidence in SF or Denver. Not sure about the Patriots, but they should win.

Oh right misread you, sorry. It's not that common that a team sitting at 2 rests starters anyway, it's usually the case that if they slip up they risk losing their first-round bye. So I'm not sure there is a problem with teams easing up (it seems to be rare overall anyway, unless the team is coached by Andy Reid). I'm sure fans would get used to it, as I'm sure AFL fans would get used to a 9th or 10th team in our finals eventually. It's not so much the history that bothers me, it's the fact that the playoffs need to remain special and hard to make, and the more teams we let in, the less that becomes. More likely to get weak teams in the playoffs if you expand it. As in, my position would be that I'd rather good teams miss out than bad teams get in. Gives those unlucky good sides more motivation the following year, more burning passion. Keeps the competition for spots strong too.

I'm not sure how it creates a greater incentive to win the division - winning a division already guarantees you a home playoff in Week 1. Adding another playoff team doesn't change that. In fact, it diminishes the need to win the division because one extra team now makes it as a wild card. I personally think everything's fine with the playoffs as they are (though I see merit in seeding based on record as opposed to making the wild cards 5 and 6 no matter what). But as CFH said, money talks.

In all sports, I'm not a fan of too many teams making playoffs/finals/etc. The beauty of the AFL finals and NFL playoffs is the specialness and rarity of making them in the first place. The limited number of them then makes each one even more special. Adding in another team to each side, to me, unnecessarily dilutes the playoffs. I think the current system is fine. To allow the 8-8 Steelers to make it, after a pretty mediocre year, to me isn't right. Even if Arizona did go 10-6, I'd rather have a 10-win team miss than an 8-win team make it. Regardless, I think the current set-up of games is good, and I think having two teams on a bye is also good, rather than just one (I don't think there is any good reason to restrict byes to just conference winners, especially when there is rarely just one stand-out team in a conference).

Crazy week 1 of playoffs. KC should never have lost to Indy, despite the injuries. The secondary coverage on TY Hilton was poor all night; he's Indy's only decent long-play receiver and he was continually either open or 1-1. KC needed to double team him and force Luck to play through the lesser receivers. But possibly the game-changing play, though unfair to point out, was Smith getting called (correctly) for intentional grounding on the second-last play of KC's final drive. They were borderline in field goal territory, but Smith couldn't find anyone or get off a legal throw-away. Lost 10 yards on that play and then had to go for the big play to Bowe. Good on the Saints for getting a road win under their belts. Didn't think either team played very well though, pretty poor game. I expect Seattle to smash New Orleans next week (though as a SF fan I'm hoping, again, for the Saints to win, as if they do, a SF win gives us a home NFC Championship game!). The San Diego-Cincy game was pretty good to watch. Chargers played great football, Rivers hardly missing a pass and the running game going strong. You have to give them a decent chance of winning in Denver, given they did it a few weeks ago already. Meanwhile for the Bengals, it's back to square one I think. Not sure Dalton is ever going to do it for them, they need to look elsewhere I think. And as for the 49ers - phew. Close all game, but deserved winners I think. And with the Saints pulling through, we get the far easier game for us at Carolina instead of at Seattle. I'm relatively confident in our chances against a good but postseason-wise inexperienced side. The dream is still alive!

One advantage we will have over South Africa is the relief bowling. They have Steyn and Philander to take the new ball, but Morkel represents their only good back-up bowler. Robin Petersen is mediocre, Imran Tahir is awful, JP Duminy's off-spin is gentle at best. Remember, no Jacques Kallis to keep the pressure on. Johnson and Harris may not be as good as Steyn and Philander, but they'll put up a decent show hopefully, and then Siddle, Watson and Lyon are far better relief bowlers than what South Africa will have.

If I were England I'd stick with Panesar but he's clearly out of favour. The search has to begin for a better spinner than Monty; whether that's Borthwick or whether they need to wait and see who else is available (it's not, for example, Kerrigan) remains to be seen. But the way Cook used him in Melbourne shows that he's really not in favour right now. Pietersen won't be dropped but I just don't see the enjoyment there from him. I'd also run with Bairstow over Prior, though I wouldn't be surprised to see Prior back at some point as England surely start re-jigging things. Wade can't get back in until he learns to keep. His keeping is woeful. Paine gets in on that basis, despite the inferior batting average. Of course, Haddin stays until he decides to retire, which may be 12 months or more from now. In that time plenty can change. But Wade needs to improve his keeping if he wants to get back into the Test side.

Absolutely fantastic stuff from Australia. We didn't play flawless cricket (clearly top order batting is an area we need to improve on), but we played much better than our opponent, we showed heart and fight when it was needed, we were ruthless, we were strong, and we were deserving winners. England are a rabble, confidence shot. They've lost Swann, probably Trott too. Prior's going to find it hard to come back, Pietersen should give it away, Panesar's out of favour, Carberry's not good enough, Cook looks like a ghost. Not great. Luckily they found Stokes who looks fantastic, and Broad was good too, but other than that, the tour could not have been worse. As Michael Vaughan said in commentary at the end, something that should not be forgotten is that England was the favourite to win this series. It's not like a weak side came over here and got thumped (a la 2006/07). This was a team that was supposed to walk all over us. Johnson got Man of the Series, and fair enough, though Haddin was equally deserving. Rogers, Smith and Lyon entrenched their Test spots, Clarke's captaincy was A-grade, and his batting was vital when the series was alive (pretty poor from Perth onwards, but oh well). Harris and Siddle made a fearsome trio with the ball too. Question marks still over Bailey (obviously) and Watson, but much smaller question marks over the team than in recent times.

With no confidence at all: Kansas City 28 Indianapolis 24 New Orleans 21 Philadelphia 28 San Diego 27 Cincinnati 30 San Francisco 28 Green Bay 20

Yeah I saw that, you've taken Mesko, the former Patriots punter. Gone for some experience (and apparently your backup punted for 10 yards on the weekend...ouch). You're definitely the better side, and at home you should win without too much strain. I hope you win, as I think you deserve it after three good years, and you'd do well against New England I reckon.

Wow. Corey Anderson for NZ just hit the fastest ODI century ever, off 36 balls. He finished on 131* off 47. Jesse Ryder made a comparatively pedestrian 104 off 51. New Zealand scored 4/283. In a 21 over game.

I'm with you on most of this. Philly's definitely too hot-cold, but their best is very good. I'm not as certain about Cincy. The home field advantage is huge, given they're one of only three teams to be unbeaten at home in 2013 (along with New England and New Orleans), but the Chargers are a good side. They play their best against the best (e.g. beating Denver, Indy, and KC twice) I reckon. And we all know about Cincy's playoff issues. If the Bengals fall behind early, the psychological pressures, especially this time being in front of their home crowd, could be decisive. I'm also unsure on the Patriots and Panthers. I can't believe New England went 12-4 this year, I really can't. Full credit to Belichick, Brady and the players who stepped up (Vereen, Blount, Edelman) to fill the void. But with no Gronk, Wilfork, Vollmer or Mayo, in the pressure of playoffs I'm not sold on their ability. As for Carolina, their defence is as good as any other's, which will keep them in games, but they have scraped by a few times with low scores. Again, I'm not sure how they'll go in playoff situations.

That's right. Except for you and your pathetic insults, everyone else on here recognises that Haddin is playing fantastic cricket, both with the bat and with the gloves. There have been a few on here over the past few years who have disliked Lyon, but as he's improved, those numbers are dwindling. Biffen is one who still can't see what most others can see. I'd have AB well in front of Haddin, to be fair to both. AB's an incredible cricket. Number 1 ranked batsman in Tests and ODIs. Has averaged 57 or higher every year since 2008 except one, where he averaged 47. And his keeping is flawless. Absolute star. But I'm with you as to the criticism of Lyon and Haddin. The South African tour is going to be huge for this side. We'll either be competitive or we won't. If we are (whether we win, lose or draw the series), that will speak volumes of the steps we've taken, given there are questions over the opposition we're currently facing. If we're not, though, we may not be as developed as we'd like to think. Johnson's going to need to show his bowling works against all batsmen, Lyon's going to get hit hard if he doesn't get his lines and lengths right, and let's not start on how difficult Steyn, Philander and Morkel are going to be for our batsmen. If we come out of that tour with respectability, that is huge.

Lyon wouldn't be dropped if he took wickets? He took 9 wickets in the fourth Test in India, the one immediately preceding his being dropped in England. So you're wrong about that. Sure, he's had his fair share of ineffectual innings. Exactly the same problem every other spinner we've had since Warne/MacGill has had. Agar 'coped'? How ridiculous. His bowling was toothless in the extreme. He hardly spun it, his lengths were generally far too short, and he had little consistency. Don't let his 98 fool you, his bowling was not close to Test quality. You won't back Lyon despite his clear marked improvement this summer. In a series in which Swann and Panesar have shown to be useless, Lyon's been consistent, taken wickets, put the ball in the right spot, and not leaked copious amounts of runs. That puts him well in advance of anyone else Australia has had in the last 6 years. He's much better than Hauritz, Agar or Krejza. Which catches are those? And it is definitely about the ordinary catches. Prior and Bairstow dropped plenty of easy chances. Haddin's not let anything get by him that shouldn't. And as for the tough ones, which you are so keen on judging on, I can't think of any drops off the top of my head. Suffice to say, his keeping has been near perfect. Your biased view is pathetic, and continually calling him a 'backstop' is unfair.

On current form you have to pick the Eagles over the Saints, right? I mean, the Saints are not a post-season quality side out of New Orleans. Their only road wins this year were against Atlanta, Tampa Bay and Chicago, and they lost 5 out of their last 6 road games. Meanwhile Philly's only lost once since October 27 (though that was a disgraceful loss to Minnesota), and haven't scored less than 24 in the process. An Eagles win means the winner of our game has to go to Seattle, so I'm definitely behind the Saints on that one!

Disagree entirely. The result was no good, he can't bowl. His 98 was obviously outstanding and fantastic to watch, but he wasn't there to make runs, and he couldn't take wickets. We were beaten in both Tests he played. As for the whole 'dropping Lyon made him stronger', he'd already been dropped in India earlier in the year. He'd had that treatment.

Yep that's right. So if the Packers win, your opponent will depend on whether Philly or New Orleans wins. If Philly wins, you're off to Seattle, but if New Orleans wins, you'll be the higher seed and so you'll be at Carolina instead. Neither of those games is easy, but I'd take Carolina over Seattle. Gotta beat my 49ers first! (though MFCSS is kicking in, I'm very pessimistic about our chances).

Yeah we do play them well, even in Lambeau. But I'd have taken the prospect of the Eagles or Cowboys instead of the Packers given the choice. Nonetheless, we're in great form, and they struggled to put away a pretty rubbish team in Chicago even with Rodgers and Cobb back. They'll obviously be better for the run, and back at Lambeau they're a different side, but we hopefully will have enough to get by them.