titan_uranus

That's probably the case Macca, that Doolan was meant to be in before Marsh was. I don't agree with it, though Marsh did himself no favours with his pair (6 ducks from his last 11 innings, what an unbelievable record). I'd have kept Marsh before Doolan, but so be it. I'm with you, Siddle dropped that pace a while back. I don't buy that as a fair reason. Harris should have gone before Sids IMO. Fantastic from Clarke (and Smith, too). Raining now though, with our score on 7/494. When play resumes after tea, Clarke may decide to declare and start bowling. We need 20 wickets in just over 3 days, we can't bat forever. If we bat on, surely they just hit out for a bit (Harris and Pattinson can both smoke the ball decently enough, and of course Clarke's still there).

I've been overseas for a month, which put me in the South African time-zone, allowing me to follow this series whilst awake (win), but taking me away from regular internet, preventing me from discussing it on Demonland (loss). FWIW, thought we were superb in the first Test, batting well to negate their (admittedly sub-par) bowling and then bowling pretty well. Second Test was to be expected, at some stage they were going to get it right and someone other than AB was always going to make runs. Selection-wise I didn't think we made the right choices for this Test. Watson had to come in, we lacked the fifth bowling option in Port Elizabeth, but IMO it should have been Doolan to go, not Marsh. To put such a huge level of faith into Marsh to bring him into the side for the first Test, and for him to make a fantastic 100, but then to be dropped one bad Test later, makes no sense to me. Why invest so heavily in him only to ditch him at his first failure? It's insane that a century-maker and borderline man-of-the-match in one Test can be dropped merely two innings later. As for his pair, though his first innings dismissal was awful, he got beaten in the second innings by a pretty damn good ball. He also wasn't the only batsman to fail, and it's not like Doolan's 5 off 40-odd was any better than Marsh's duck. The worse decision, and the one much more likely to impact the side, though, was dropping Siddle for Pattinson. For one, that's not like-for-like. Siddle and Bird are more similar, and Pattinson is more like Harris. If they wanted to bring in Pattinson, Harris should have been dropped (he's not bowling well at the moment anyway, he's wasting the new ball). If they wanted to drop Siddle, they should have brought in Bird. Now we have three new ball bowlers, and no longer-spell old ball bowler. Siddle wasn't taking a lot of wickets but he was still bowling well enough to hold up an end. Pattinson hasn't played first class cricket since Lord's, this Test is not the place to be re-starting his career. I'm genuinely worried about taking 20 wickets with this attack. Fantastic batting by Warner, Clarke and Smith, with Watson looking good so far and potentially helping us speed up towards 500. But the real test is going to come when we need to get Amla, du Plessis, de Villiers and Duminy out, twice. You'd do well to cease posting your views about Clarke. They are nonsensical at best, and downright insulting at worst.

Also, in a handy coincidence, NFC West plays AFC West in the 2014 season, which means a Superbowl re-match is going to occur in the regular season (as well bringing five playoff teams together to match up against one another).

Sigh. We gave it a pretty damn good shake, but sometimes it just doesn't happen. So many line-ball things we could talk about (the INT, the Bowman non-catch, Iupati getting injured, home-field advantage), but in the end we just didn't play well enough, and that's that. Three consecutive NFC Championship games for one Superbowl appearance and no rings is a little difficult to take (same record as the Patriots, funnily enough), but at the same time it's the kind of success we'd all give our left arm for here at Melbourne, so in that respect it's hard to complain. Some good points have been made re the 49ers. For mine, Kaepernick is still young and hasn't learnt enough yet to make the most of what should be a better offence than it is. Crabtree, Davis, Boldin, with Manningham in the wings, is a good receiving core, Gore still rushed well this year, whilst our O-line is one of the best. We also don't give up too many points on defence with a fantastic pass rush (though I'd like to see some improvements to the secondary). The nucleus of a great team is there, but in a tough division we'll need improvement from Kaepernick to take the next step I think. Either that or an ability to avoid Seattle in the playoffs. As for the Superbowl, it should be a great match. Instinct always says back the better defence over the better offence, but the way Peyton played against New England, no secondary can stop him. Seattle needs coverage on four receivers, but they're one down in their Legion of Boom (Browner), and Maxwell's a weaker corner I think. Sherman has to stop Demaryius Thomas and someone has to cut Decker down. Wow, didn't realise. Neat!

No, the selectors didn't drop him because they didn't need to. We were winning without him making runs. Compare him with Rob Quiney last year. Quiney was outstanding in the field, even provided a bowling option (which Bailey doesn't), but after we'd failed to win in both Brisbane and Adelaide, he was dropped for Perth as we tried to get a win. If we'd been losing in the Ashes, Bailey most likely wouldn't have played five Tests. Conversely, maybe if we'd won those two Tests against South Africa Quiney might have gotten a third short at it. By 'different opponent', what we are really saying is 'actual Test-quality bowling'. Bailey wasn't making runs against England's second-rate bowlers. He clearly stands less chance of making runs against South Africa's.

Two good knocks - I rate his 44 against South Africa in the 47-all-out Test. But your point stands - his form in that Indian series was incredibly awful. That Pakistan match was incredible! Pakistan chased 302 in two sessions! Great win for them (and another victory for positive, aggressive cricket, in the face of Sri Lanka's negative defensive batting (scoring at something like 1.5 runs per over in the morning) and bowling (Herath bowling over the wicket outside leg stump).

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.