titan_uranus

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.

Apparently Bollinger's been released from the squad. Outside the Ashes XI, the squad of 14 has Faulkner, Coulter-Nile and Alex Doolan. The speculation is Doolan bats at 3 instead of Watson, with Faulkner replacing Bailey to provide the fifth bowler, and Coulter-Nile to play in Harris' spot if he's not ready by Friday. I'd give Bailey the Sydney test, but if Watson isn't able to play, he might have to make way, as we'll need someone to bat at 3 and Clarke, Smith and Bailey aren't capable of that. I'd also be staying away from Pattinson, Starc and Cummins until they have shown they are fit enough to play prolonged periods of Test cricket.

Rubbish, promoting Agar was awful for the team. For once, jazza is right about something. That was a terrible decision.

San Fran just won the game. Not sure how I feel about that. We're off to Lambeau next week.

KC goes for it on fourth down and it's incomplete...San Diego makes the playoffs!!

What a crazy week. SD currently 3 up in OT, but KC pushing into field goal territory. Lose, and Pittsburgh makes the playoffs (wtf). Green Bay goes the length of the field on a 15-play drive converting three fourth downs, to score the game-winning touchdown with 30 seconds left, making the playoffs. Now, with Green Bay winning, if I'm right the winner of SNF will become the third seed. Which means I want my 49ers to lose their currently tied game against Arizona, to be the sixth seed (and hence avoid the Packers. I don't want to go to Lambeau).

Well done Rogers. Fourth innings hundreds are special no matter what the situation of a match is.

Indeed, if we end up winning by one or two wickets, the 40 he put on with Lyon this morning might end up being key.

Fantastic bowling from Lyon and Johnson (plus some awful batting from England). All out for 179. Just what we needed. Target is 231. The bowlers have done their job. It's now down to our batsmen to do theirs. Plenty of time, so there's no need to take risks. Warner, Watson, Smith and Bailey need to show they can put in long, slow innings. As for psychological advantages - gee, think how they'll be feeling right now.

I don't think Bailey gets to go to South Africa. If he plays and fails in Sydney, there's probably no chance. Of course, he might come good, but I'm not confident that will happen. He also mightn't make it to Sydney, especially if we lose this Test and he doesn't contribute. As for who replaces him - if Watson stays in the side (I'm also not sure that should happen), he might drop to 6, but then we need another number 3. I don't know how I feel about going back to Hughes (or Khawaja for that matter). They've had their chances in the side, each time being dropped, then recalled for strong domestic form, then sucking and being dropped again. So I'm not sure whether that's a good choice. However, we need someone. KP's the big wicket now. Just the very out-of-form tail to come from here, plus the inexperienced Bairstow, and their lead isn't yet 200. Huge session, this.

I think this could be a small blessing in disguise. By sucking in Melbourne, and with Sydney a second dead rubber, we may see changes to the side. Specifically, we may get to see someone in the place of Watson and/or Bailey, the two biggest problem players in our side. Faulkner may get a game at 6, though I'm not sure if his batting is good enough for 6 (and I don't like seeing us push the keeper up to 6). We may also see a new batsman, potentially. Either way, it may well mean we get something more important than we otherwise would have out of Sydney.

I know you would have batted first. You always would. That's the real issue - you're a traditionalist who believes in batting first no matter what, which means that any poor performance is a result of the toss, not of the actual performance. Again, there would not have been any psychological advantage to us batting first and folding as we did for 200.

But none of that applies if we'd done our job with the bat and made, say, 350. Then, we'd have a 100 run lead, we'd have kept their bowlers in the field longer, tiring them out, we'd have rested our bowlers more, and we'd then set out to only have to chase down a target of around 150. In other words, we didn't make enough runs in our first innings.

What was the common thread? We made runs. This time, we've been bowled out for 200, clearly our worst first innings score. If we'd made 300+ like we should have, we'd have a lead in this Test. We put England in on a pitch you agree is not that bad for batting on, and bowled them out for 255. That's a great result for a first innings. We then came out with our tails up and threw our wickets away (see Warner, Watson, Rogers, Smith and Bailey). That's bad batting. Not bad captaincy. Why do you keep insisting that if we'd batted first we'd have made more runs?

But what's the point of bowling in the fourth innings if we don't have a target to defend? On the batting performance we displayed yesterday, we'd have set them something like 200. Not enough. You're right. The pitch is playable. We scored 200 on it. Not enough.

Why would you assume otherwise? Day 1 was the cloudiest, the pitch was the greenest. It was the best day to bowl. They said on radio and TV that Day 2 was better (and that today is better again).

Good work from Haddin (what a star) and Lyon to get us up to 200, but assuming we do our job with the ball as we've done all series and end up with a target of 300-350, we're going to need an enormous improvement with the bat to get close. You'd favour England from here, after that awful batting display. Psychological what? We go first. We made 200 (probably closer to 150 given the conditions on Day 1 were even worse for batting). They come out and make 250. We're then behind. How does England fare worse psychologically? They come out to bowl in the third innings knowing they'd already knocked us over easily in the first dig, and with us 100-odd runs behind. No difference, aside from the order of the innings.