titan_uranus

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.

Who would have struggled to have an impact whilst having no support, no fitness, no confidence, no enthusiasm, no leaders to look up to, two coaches in one year, neither any good. Then, you'd have whinged about taking a slow, stocky, unskilled midfielder instead of taking someone who can kick. Either way, we'd be right where we are now. And you'd still be a fool.

If I did start a thread, I'd certainly not be hoping it's so that you can post in it. Toumpas is not a wasted pick. If we'd picked Wines we'd be 0% better, and you'd be whinging about Wines. Toumpas isn't close to being one of our problems right now. Face it.

jumbo, Clint, you're pathetic. You're truly pathetic. You're having a go at a first-year player when our 'senior' players were not just as bad, they were worse. Toumpas has his whole career ahead of him. Where is Howe at? Sylvia? Davey? Grimes? Trengove? Those are the players you should be venting about. Your continual collective inability to recognise how hard it is for a first-year player to play at a consistently high standard when he has no support, no leadership, and no confidence is bewildering at best.

Great cricket from Australia, but I don't think we're good enough to get a win in this Test. That missed chance/drop from Cook in Lyon's first over might come back to really bite us. Lyon showed why he should never have been dropped; Agar will be back one day, but not right now. I think I can understand why Warner reviewed, with his bat hitting his pad. I think. It didn't cost us (unlike Watson's selfishness did) so I'm not too fussed. Bresnan I think was victim of the DRS' problems. A fully functioning DRS system would have encouraged him, but once Erasmus paid that out, how confident can you be of Dharmasena overturning it? Bresnan wasn't to know which angles were going to be available and what mood Dharmasena is in. I understand his decision, but obviously a bad one.

dee-luded, your opinion of Clarke is misguided, ill-informed, and just plain wrong.

Unfortunately, those 'contributing factors' include such minor things as the fact that Mitchell is a second year player.

Unfathomable decision. If that isn't considered conclusive evidence, then there's no point having the DRS at all.

Correct decision to replace Agar with Lyon. I certainly don't think Lyon is going to magically bowl us to a victory, but I think he will not only do better than Agar (with the ball, anyway), but he deserves a crack. Warner for Hughes is much of a muchness, really. Bird's pretty unlucky to miss out, I think. Good start so far from the openers. Some of Rogers' stroke play has been great. Obviously the key is to get a nice big platform to give the middle order something to work with, but it's been good so far.

I cannot wait for NFL to start. With Melbourne and the Australian cricket team absolutely stinking, I need to see the 49ers again. Something that resembles a professional, successful team.

In the same post you're admitting that both players are long term prospects and then saying that we should have taken Wines solely because he would have had more of an impact for us in 2013. So, you're saying we should have taken Wines simply and only because he is better in 2013, despite admitting that both players are going to improve in the long run. Pick 4 is never about an impact from day 1. Pick 4 is about making sure you get the player who is most likely to give you 200 games. Wines might do that, but Toumpas equally might, and as many have said on here, Toumpas is showing signs of being a classier, more complete player than Wines. Yet you continue to bleat on about how Wines would have had more of an impact in 2013. The impact our player from pick 4 was going to have in 2013 should not have been relevant at all to the drafting decision.

That's absolutely not what your contention has been until now. You've continually said that Wines is able to impact games right now, and as such, is the player we should have taken. Nonetheless, if you want to say that both are long term prospects, then why are you complaining? If you're happy to admit that both Wines and Toumpas are going to reach their prime in future years, why does what Wines is doing right now matter? It doesn't. I wonder if backing up from Geelong in the wet and Darwin in the past fortnight took its toll on his clearly underdeveloped body. You'd hope, with the coming pre-season, his fitness improves next year, as that's definitely something (along with his strength) that he needs to work on to get the most out of his skills and smarts. I'm with you on the positioning and running. He has what most of the players on our list right now don't have - footy smarts.

This is exactly how recruiting shouldn't happen. You are saying here that we should have taken Wines over Toumpas solely and only because Wines would have more of an impact in 2013 than Toumpas. You do not draft players at pick 4 to have an impact in their first year. You draft them to be 200 game players for your club. Toumpas will do that, and on the evidence of this year, will do that just as well as Wines will, if not better.

No.

When you have to resort to 'but the MFC might not exist in three years' as your idea of a rational argument, you must be struggling.

You're tantamount to saying Port's in the 8 because of Wines. He's been good this year, but he's not even their fifth best midfielder, which says a lot about their list. Wines at Melbourne wouldn't be half the player he is now. Conversely, Toumpas at a team like Port would probably be better. We'll (hopefully) get some decent mids to the club this year, and then the value in taking Toumpas will become a lot clearer.

WYL, what do you think would have happened if Wines had come to Melbourne? If he'd had to play alongside the remainder of our pathetic midfield? You talk a lot about how our club has an ingrained psychological problem, that we're 'cooked' mentally and that the tanking saga has killed our culture and spirit. Why is it, then, that Wines would just walk in like a messiah and fix everything? Wines at Melbourne would be half as good as what he is at a club like Port which has a group of star midfielders (Ebert, Boak, Cornes, Hartlett, Wingard, Cassisi). Even if we were a little better off now, we'd still be bottom 2, we'd still have a crap midfield, we'd still need more midfielders this year, and we'd still be looking at a wait before finals.

As I read this, I heard 'Trengove kicks into the man on the mark'. Apt.

Terrible results from the Sussex game. Cowan 66, Hughes 84, Smith 98*, Khawaja 40. Smith may go on to make a 100, which will save his spot, but what do we do about the rest? Can we drop Hughes after making an 84, to go with his (superb) 81* at Trent Bridge? Can we drop Khawaja for only making 40, despite being better than Smith and Hughes at Lord's? Can we drop Watson despite not giving him a chance at Hove? Warner's 193 now also looks just OK given the South Africans' batting. You'd expect Warner to get back in, which means someone has to go. I think it should be Watson but surely he can't be dropped without getting a chance at Hove, so if it's not him, I'd pick Hughes, even though this 84 is good. Khawaja looked maybe like he was getting comfortable at number 3. If Lyon bowls well, don't be surprised if Agar gets 'rested' or something along those lines (I maintain he never should have been picked). Bird and Starc have Pattinson's spot to play for, too (maybe they'll both play if Harris isn't fit).

There was an article in the paper today about Simon Katich, the forgotten man. Should never have been dropped when he was. He's currently in good form in English County cricket and has said he has not retired from international cricket. We could do a lot worse.

It's actually worrying. We have one Test quality batsman in the entire country (Clarke). There are 0 players not in this squad who are threatening to become a Test player, whilst the current side is made up of barely first class talent.

He's a one-dimensional fail of a Test player. Another useless, standard Watson innings. 20 off 23, out LBW. Get him out.

That catch that was turned down by the third umpire was disgraceful. Far too many poor umpiring decisions for what is supposed to be the most important Test series of the year. Doesn't make much difference to our ineptitude, though. The pitch is a road, but the bowling wasn't very good. Pattinson's having an absolute shocker, might not hold his spot for the next match. Agar's also not good enough. His 98 makes it hard to drop him, but his bowling isn't close to Test quality. Again, that 98 makes this sound unfair, but he shouldn't have been picked in the first place.