titan_uranus

Calvin Johnson. Wow.

So true. Imagine having a Monday Morning article in the realm of MMQB, or my personal favourite, TMQ with Gregg Easterbrook. Someone just providing an unbiased take on statistics, tactics, trends, players, etc. Would be fantastic. Instead, we get Mark Robinson's 'The Tackle'. Putrid filth.

Nothing new, but interesting to hear CA admit a mistake: http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/simon-katich-should-not-have-been-dropped-ca-20131024-2w3uf.html

Word is that Freeman is out concussed and Ponder will start on SNF: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000268404/article/josh-freeman-has-concussion-christian-ponder-at-qb Freeman's surely the better long-term option, but comparing Freeman to Ponder is a bit like comparing Weeden to Gabbert.

I've been inexplicably absent from this thread all season. This year's so wacky and largely unpredictable. It's great to see some swapping of roles - the Chiefs, Jets, Chargers, Browns, even the Raiders at times showing improvement on 2012, whilst the Giants, Steelers, Falcons and Texans all slide backwards (can't say any of that saddens me). Some massive games this week, starting with Broncos-Colts on SNF, plus some huge divisional games like Seahawks-Cards, Bucs-Falcons, Cowboys-Eagles, Bills-Dolphins and Ravens-Steelers. Also amazing to consider that Arizona is fourth in NFC West at 3-3, a record which would have them tied-first in NFC East. Also amazing to note that if the playoffs started today, the undefeated Broncos would be the 5th seed in the AFC. Fifth.

Well done to Zimbabwe for winning only their 10th Test ever, and their first against a side other than Bangladesh since 2001. There's a bit of talent in Zimbabwe. A pity there are so many external factors hampering their professionalism. More exposure to the better Test sides might see them develop into something more than a minnow.

England only have themselves to blame for running out of time. They dawdled all morning with no intent on a result. If it wasn't for Clarke, they wouldn't have been that close. Don't blame the umpires, have a look at yourselves, I'd say. Clarke did the right thing, IMO. 4-0 compared to 3-0 is no difference, but he created buzz and could have won us the Test. Turns out our bowling was crap in the evening (Starc and Faulkner the biggest culprits I think) which gave up too many hittable deliveries, but we still took 6 wickets, 10 for the day. In the end, of the five Tests we were in a winning position in three of them (Old Trafford, Chester-le-Street, The Oval), and could easily have won two of them (Old Trafford, where the rain thwarted us, and Chester-le-Street, where we should have been able to chase that score down). We didn't deserve to be as close as we were at Trent Bridge, but we could have won that too if little things had gone our way (e.g. Haddin not being given out on that evidence). We were clearly outplayed at Lord's, but in the end I think it was much more competitive than the scoreline suggests, and it gives us hope for the return series. Mind you, if Harris goes down it's game over.

Watson and Smith have both hit centuries right at the right time. Heard someone liken Watson to Marcus North - approaches being dropped, pulls a 100 out of nowhere, then (probably) proceeds to stink again. Hopefully Watson can actually convert this 100 into a run of form. Rogers, Clarke, Smith and Watson form four of the top six (Rogers at 1, Watson at 3, Clarke at 4, Smith at 5). I'm not sold on Warner, but you'd assume he stays given how much the selectors love him, and the sixth spot is up for grabs. Come Brisbane, it won't be Faulkner. It probably won't be Khawaja either. It might be Hughes or Cowan, but they'll need to make some first class runs before the series. As for the bowlers, Lyon clearly is our number one spinner, and that debate should be ended. In terms of pacemen, Harris and Siddle are the top two, with Pattinson IMO the third if fit. Starc is errant but has the advantage of being a leftie. Bird is back-up in the likely event Harris is injured some time between now and the Sydney test. Haddin remains our keeper whilst his glovework continues to be of his high standard. Wade needs to learn to keep wicket if he wants to get back in. So, Brisbane Test XI: Rogers Warner Watson Clarke Smith Hughes/Cowan/debutant batsman Haddin Siddle Harris Pattinson Lyon

Sometimes there is more to it than the distance back the players run (e.g. Dunn's instinct is to kick long and his kicking style results in all his kicks being up and under). But your point is definitely a valid one, and is contributing to far too many mistakes. One of about 100 things the new coach needs to work on.

Wow, that was a terrible over from Kerrigan. Good on Hayden Watson for giving it the treatment it deserved, though.

Once again Australia goes for the all-rounder to solve our problems. If you can't bat in the top 6, you're not good enough. So, Faulkner's a bowler. So, we're playing too many bowlers. Batting the keeper at 6 is a terrible idea, especially given Haddin's batting form is weak at best. Starc's also back. We gave Bird one go. We keep moving Starc in and out. It's insane. Clarke says it's not a charity side, that you get dropped if you don't perform. Yet Watson keeps his spot, and now gets to bat at 3 instead of 6. Management of this team is just awful.

I'm sorry but you're way, way off it here. Haddin's keeping has been nearly flawless. The byes you speak of are often the product of terrible bowling from Starc or Agar or Lyon. It's this high quality keeping that means that no one else can displace him until they get better at keeping. Wade is a better batsman, we all know that. Paine is probably a better batsman too. But Wade's keeping whilst he was the Test keeper was disastrous (dropping du Plessis at Adelaide, anyone? That's just one example of many, though). We can't afford to have a keeper dropping catches on a regular basis, runs or no runs. Prior's not making runs for England but they're doing just fine - keeper runs are important, sure, but not the be all and end all of a team. If your top 6 make runs, the keeper's primary job becomes keeping. Haddin's doing his job fine, right now, though clearly we'd all like to see him making 100s. Haddin is the best gloveman in Australia right now. Paine is getting there, but he needs to continue to find consistent form with both gloves and bat on his way back from injury. Wade is way, way off it.

Sorry, that's total crap and completely unfair on Haddin. His keeping has been superb. Hasn't dropped a thing and has made some tough chances look easy. Wade's keeping is abhorrent by Haddin's standards, and as much as I love Wade's batting, he's nowhere near good enough as a keeper. Specialist batsman or nothing for Wade.

Well I genuinely didn't think I'd wake up after it was raining over lunch to find we'd been bowled out. I should have known better.

Aannnnd it's raining.

Huge fightback from Harris to get rid of Bell and Prior, then Broad. But those late runs to Bresnan and Swan have pushed the lead up to 299, and I reckon that's about 40-50 too much for us. To chase this is going to require a really concerted effort from our top 7. With the freedom of time to help us (let's hope there's no rain), we need our batsmen to get themselves in and then to diligently work together to knock this off. You'd think we'll need one of Rogers and Clarke to post a big score, but I want to see Warner, Khawaja, Smith, Watson and Haddin show something.

Harris is having a massive one. Top 3 all gone, keeping us in the hunt. Pietersen and Bell could change this Test, if we can remove one or both of them cheaply we might just be in with a sniff.

An observation about umpiring/DRS: Three umpiring errors were made this morning in our innings (Rogers paid not out, Lyon paid out, Harris paid not out). The use of the DRS ensured that the correct decision was made on two of them, whilst if Lyon had chosen to review, the third error would have been corrected as well. When the DRS is used correctly, it works. The problem has generally been incorrect use by the third umpire and by the players. There are flaws which need to be addressed (Hot Spot's reliability, getting real-time Snicko, ensuring the third umpire knows exactly what he's doing), but the DRS is helping reduce the number of incorrect decisions.

Rubbish shot from Clarke. We've been lucky this morning some regards, though Rogers looks a bit settled in. Three down now but no Clarke. We need a big one from Rogers.

That's the correct DRS decision. The third umpire would have told Hill it was 'umpire's call' on hitting the stumps, and he would have said 'I didn't think it was hitting the stumps'. Therefore, on the catch it was not out because he didn't hit it, but on the LBW it remains not out because, ignoring the bat, it wasn't hitting the stumps. Rogers very lucky, though.

2/12. Warner and Khawaja both found wanting against inswing. Good bowling, but both of them were struggling to get bat on ball in general. Broad's bowled a few leg-side deliveries, but neither was able to put them away. Need Rogers and Clarke to hold on, wear the shine off the ball, see off the swing, because as it keeps swinging we're going to keep losing wickets.

Another wonderful bowling display. Most of our bowling innings this series have been disciplined and aggressive at the same time. Lyon went another step to making the Agar decision look woeful, Bird showed up Starc (Starc may feel disappointed but he continually releases pressure with half-volleys and leg-side rubbish. Run-scoring pressure is what did in Root, Bell, Bairstow and Prior), Watson showed that he has to bat at 6 to be able to chip in with his bowling. Great fielding too (Bird's early stop on the boundary, Khawaja's catch off Trott, Harris' catch off Bell, Haddin's catch of Pietersen, all great). Will be interesting to see how we bat on this pitch. The Rogers-Warner partnership will also intrigue - Rogers is in form, Warner's not, and the Rogers-Watson partnership was doing fine. Pressure's on Warner. Watson meanwhile will hopefully avoid the swing and maybe get to get stuck in to Swann. Very keen to see how Watson goes at 6. All in all, the more we play like this and keep things competitive, the more hope and confidence we can draw for the return series. You could argue Warner's our second best batsman. But you'd be wrong. Rogers is our second best Test batsman, and at the moment Steven Smith is third (which shows you where Australian cricket is at right now). That is, of course, besides the point. Maxwell is not a Test cricketer. His bursts of wickets/runs are just that, bursts. They distort his averages. On the African tour for Australia A he made the big 155, but also made a pair. He also took just one wicket in four bowling innings. It's that kind of inconsistency that renders him a limited overs player. He has talent and potential, no one's disputing that, but he is simply not a Test cricketer. Australia has to stop trying to take limited overs talent and moulding it into Test match talent.

Every time Maxwell blazes away, whether in First Class (almost never) or limited overs format, people salivate and say 'he could be the next big thing in the Test side!' He's not close to a Test player. I'd rather see him keep doing what he's doing and being a long term member of the ODI/T20 squads than attempt to play Test cricket and end up somewhere in between a Test and ODI player. His turn in India highlighted how massively far off it he is, and a blazing ODI 100 doesn't change that.

Fantastic bowling from all of our bowlers. Clarke dropping Root may really come back to haunt us, but we're doing a great job so far. It's going to be mightily frustrating for us if we get close (like, 7/8/9 wickets in) and it rains or the light is bad. So many overs lost to rain/light. And of course, in cricket's wonderful ye olde glory, we take a 40 minute break for lunch at the scheduled time despite losing about 40 overs since tea yesterday. Sometimes cricket baffles.

No, what I'm saying (this is probably too much for you) is that if Wines was here, he'd be way, way worse than he is at Port right now. He'd be far off the pace he's showing now, and the result would be that people like you who think that our first year players are a problem would be having a go at him.