titan_uranus

Well this is interesting. Andy Murray, who has done diddly squat in Grand Slam tennis, will on Monday rise to number 2 on the World ranking list, in front of Nadal, by virtue of Nadal losing in the quarters of the Montreal tournament, and Murray making the final. http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...6-11088,00.html Once Nadal fully recovers from his injury I'm sure he'll rise back to 2 and maybe even back to 1 again, but it just goes to show that the ranking system is a little bit flawed.

It's not just Brett Lee. Ponting's no good at Twenty/20 either. I don't care though. Cricket is about test cricket. So long as we win the Ashes, does it really matter?

If Stosur can beat Dementieva, I reckon she can beat Kuznetsova. Mind you, anyone who beats Serena must be doing something right, but still, the way Stosur's been playing, she certainly is in with a real chance to make the final. The final!

Of course you're allowed your opinion QueenC. I wasn't saying you were wrong for liking Rafa or for not liking Roger. I respect both of them and love the way they both play. I wasn't trying to put you down or anything, sorry if I did.

What do you mean you nearly cried? I love Roger, and Nadal seems a bit cocky to me. Agree though. It's now or never for Roger. The seas have parted nicely. Yes, well done Sam. Into the top 20 she goes.

No, Federer came back from 2 sets to 0 down to beat Haas. If ever Federer was going to win a French Open, it would be now.

Nadal's out of the French Open! Defeated in 4 sets by Robin Soderling. http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...3-11088,00.html Sporting upset of the year?

Yeah, but can you remember the last time Federer beat Nadal in a lead up tournament to the French? Despite Nadal's supreme form at the moment, I think Federer might have as good a chance as he's ever had to get the French Open.

Federer beat Nadal on clay! http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...14-3162,00.html

Hey, at least we won a match!

Isn't Bellerive Oval in Hobart? You got the list pretty right there though. Maybe Hobart above Melbourne. But defintely Sydney and Brisbane are top 2, and Perth is bottom. You piqued my interest HT. Here's the data for matches since 1995: SCG: Only 1 draw since 1995 (vs India 2004), 14 results in same period MCG: Only 1 draw since 1995 (vs Sth Africa 1997), 12 results in same period Adelaide: 2 draws since 1995, 12 results in same period Perth: 2 draws since 1995, 11 results in same period Gabba: 3 draws since 1995, 10 results in same period Hobart: 2 draws in its 8 matches since 1989

Completely with you on this one. Too often pitches are so incredibly lifeless the match is a snore-fest. The SA-Aust series was so memorable because all 6 matches had a result. That's in part because the teams are so evenly matched, but in part because none of the pitches (except maybe the last one) were a batsman's paradise.

And quite a few of the Indian wickets to fall in the 1st innings were poor shots, rather than especially good balls. Still, they batted for more than 2 days to save that match. Gambhir's innings was particularly dogged.

Yeah, looks like this one going to be a draw now. India's in front by 37, still 7 wickets in hand. NZ have definitely let one slip here, but credit to them for fighting back from an innings loss in the 1st test.

There's an upset brewing in NZ: NZ 9dec/619, and in reply, India's 2/73. Good for cricket if NZ can win.

In other tennis news, Kim Clijsters (remember her) is about to announce her return to professional tennis: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...6-11088,00.html

One Monty is too much for either side. Besides which, they're playing Graeme Swann now I think.

Australia keep spin option open for Ashes Ponting doesn't really want to rely on 3 part-timers. In the article Ponting says that he pulls up sore in his lower back after bowling, so he doesn't want to make him sore before he opens the batting.

I can't remember when, I think he said it in the lead up to the third test, when everyone was talking about his 3 wickets in Durban. And I'm pretty sure it's his shoulder. Agreed, but I can't understand all this talk about Johnson batting at 6. He's over-worked as it is. He plays to take wickets, not make runs. The runs are a nice bonus, but we need him fit for bowling, so he shouldn't be batting any higher than 8.

Just saw this: over the 3 tests in SA, the Australian with the highest average was..... Mitchell Johnson (85). Compare that with Hussey's average of 22.

I agree with that. I hope so. But you'd think that Johnson, Siddle and Hilfenhaus will be the first 3 picked. The last spot will either be another quick (Clark, Nannes, Lee, Bollinger) or McDonald. I heard on ABC radio that Katich said his body doesn't cope well with bowling, especially now that he's an opener. Hussey is definitely near the end. We just can't afford to have consistent failures in the top 5. I'd say Hodge or Klinger will be in the squad and if Hussey doesn't perform, there'll be an opening in the middle order for one of them. I wonder if McDonald's 60 will keep him in the forefront of selector's minds? I doubt he'll start in the first Ashes test, but I reckon he might get a spot in the squad. D. Hussey won't get a spot in the squad. His Shield form wasn't fantastic in 08/09.

I agree. Johnson and Siddle are certainties. Hilfenhaus isn't, but will probably start in the first test in England just because he's a swinger and it generally swings in England. As for the 4th spot, maybe we'll see a return of either Lee or Stuart Clark. A bit of Ashes experience. I wouldn't rule either of them out. And if they're fit and bowling like they were 12 months ago (not guaranteed), then they'd complement the other bowlers well. I like Nannes too, but if the selectors turned to Geeves and Magoffin in South Africa as cover, I'd suspect those two are in front of Nannes in the queue. And Bollinger, for that matter.

The fact that we won the first 2 tests doesn't vindicate the selectors' decision to take a squad with 5 spare bowlers and no spare batsman. Yes, it wouldn't have mattered if North hadn't had a severe but brief bout of gastro, but would you have been happy if at 1-1 we'd played the team we're playing now? I wouldn't. Agree. North, Katich, even Clarke can chip in with decent spin. Katich especially. That leaves room for a 4th quick which helps share the load around.

Well then. Australia has in 2 days undone the superb efforts of the previous 15. We can apportion blame on the selectors for not sending over a replacement batsman. Hodge, Klinger, Rogers or Ferguson should have had Hauritz's place in the original squad. That was poor judgement, and as many commentators had pointed out, could have cost us the series if it was 1-1, not 2-0. The McGain experiment has failed. Sorry folks. 93 runs in 10 overs is woeful. He bowled maybe 5 balls in total that were threatening, and most of those were in his first 2 overs late on Day 1. Too much short stuff and full tosses. At 37, persisting with him would unfortunately be a waste of time. Better off with Krejza, who at least has shown his potential to take wickets, and has time on his side.

And on a congratulatory note, Martin Love made an unbeaten century in his last innings for the Bulls. Well done Love. And well done Victoria.