titan_uranus

What does this question even mean? What does Hawthorn 'stand for'? Success? What does Collingwood 'stand for'? Something different? If the question is 'how is Melbourne viewed by the public?', the answer is a combination of pity ('I feel sorry for them') and disgust ('I'm sick of this rabble wasting a spot in the competition'), and the only way to cure that is to win games.

Unlucky for James Taylor, how the umpires could not have known it is dead ball after the finger is raised is beyond me, really. Nonetheless, we looked really good. We bat deeper than any other side and our fast bowlers to me rival any other sides'. Getting Clarke and Faulkner back into the side is going to be interesting. IMO Watson has to go. Can't drop Warner, Finch or Smith, whilst Maxwell is running into form (and provides spin if we don't play Doherty) and Marsh just took a 5-for. How does Watson keep his spot over either of those two? I assume Bailey is the other one to go, but IMO Watson goes first. It won't happen though, it never happens. Fantastic piece. Slater and Taylor have made their way into the WC coverage but it's mixed with Fox and Sky commentators and, yesterday at least, focused more on the game and less on banter.

If the rumour is true, then no matter what you think of Cook (and Jackson), the problem with this situation is that there is some sort of friction between Bartlett and Jackson. That is not good for the club. I'm not sure if the rumour is true, maybe it's partially true. But if it's 100% true then it's not great.

I'd also say 2, but the first was when McGrath rolled his ankle in England in the 2005 Ashes.

This is essentially it for me. I can't stand commercialising football (or sport in general). Trying to mimic the NFL is not a good idea (their game day atmosphere is unique, based largely on their enormous periods of downtime during games). If we get more competitive (whether it's winning or at least looking good), we'll get larger crowds. Even if it's only mid-30,000s, we here all know that we are for some strange reason a very loud supporter base and 30,000 of us matches 40,000+ of many other clubs. Also, I love the 'Melbourne clap-clap-clap'.

I'm not the biggest Patriots fan (I really don't like them, to be honest), but between them and Seattle it was a no brainer as to who I wanted to see win, so I'm quite happy with the result. The play call on the INT was terrible. At the very least, by throwing it there they were clearly going for the TD which would have left NE with, what, 25 seconds? Why not run the ball (it was only 2nd down), if you don't get in so be it, use up some more time and run it again the next down (or throw it if you're that overly keen to throw it). Especially given how Lynch was running (and that Wilson wasn't exactly dominating). In the end, the best two sides of the year played one of the best games of the year and that's how you always want it to be (even if I hate Seattle). Also, Tom Brady surely has to go down as one of the best of all time. Rogers gets the MVPs, Manning gets the records, but Brady wins Superbowls (and if it hadn't been for some miraculous plays, would have two more instead of two losses to the Giants).

Good article on NFL.com about 8 moments which defined GB's loss, most of which Macca has touched on: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000460883/article/how-they-lost-eight-plays-that-doomed-the-packers The two early field goals when it was fourth and goal from the 1 yard line were definitely bad decisions. That's a little bit of hindsight of course but maybe even allowing for the first one to be a FG for some points, you have Rodgers at QB and on the road you need TDs - should have gone for it. The two drives in the fourth that Georgiou pointed out above were also important. Rodgers touched the ball once in the six downs Green Bay had. Once. Aaron Rodgers. Look what he did on the final drive to level the scores. I understand running the ball eats the clock up but a first down does even better than that.

No it didn't. I'm biased (I hate the Seahawks with a passion), but they played 5 minutes of football and won the game. You were all over them for 3.5 quarters. Your defence smothered them at the line and your offence controlled the tempo. Your two main problems were an inability to turn the dominance into TDs - five field goals left the door open all day, Seattle should never have been able to win by scoring just two TDs, they should have needed 4 or 5 - and your choke at the end (you intercepted Wilson with 5 minutes left and a 16 point lead). Bostick also shouldn't have been catching that ball - he said himself his job was to block for Jordy Nelson to make the catch and you can see Bostick kinda jumps in front of Nelson as he turns to make the catch. Terrible play.

By the rules it definitely wasn't a catch, but intuitively when you watch it you don't think incompletion, you think catch. He bobbles it but keeps it with him the whole time and IMO that should be a catch. As Macca said, we should be rewarding those kinds of plays. The missed field goal leading to a Green Bay field goal (6-point turnaround) followed by DeMarco's fumble (he holds it, he scores a TD) were just as critical though. As for Denver, Peyton's second half of 2014 was bad enough to suggest to me that his dominance is over, and with that I think Denver's dominance is over (which is pleasing, to be honest). He's lost a lot of arm strength and accuracy and without that Denver is just an average side. I'd love to see the Colts beat New England but I don't think that's happening. Meanwhile for the NFC I don't think Green Bay stands a chance in Seattle with Rodgers on 1 leg.

Bummed with both results. Never thought Carolina could actually win but I can't stand Seattle so they had my full support. As for the Ravens, they probably should have won, and it's highly disappointing to have New England in the AFC Championship game again. Credit to them of course, but it's sad that, despite the evenness of the competition and the 'any given Sunday' stuff, it could well be 3/4 teams the same on Championship weekend. Really? I disagree with you, Dallas' O line is one of the best, if not the actual best, in the league. If Rodgers can't play, or isn't 100%, Dallas can win this.

Well, apparently it didn't hit the wire - it just distracted Smith's view. http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-v-india-2014-15/content/story/817967.html

The footage doesn't show whether it hit it or not, zooms in right before it passes the wire. I'm with you though - it's it shouldn't come to this, ever.

Road of a pitch, game going nowhere, Lyon gets rid of Rohit and next ball not only does Haddin drop Kohli but we miss a blatant run out opportunity to get rid of Rahul. Wickets aren't easy to come by, especially without Johnson, and there's still Rahane to come. Draw looks quite likely right about now.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-v-india-2014-15/content/story/817143.html Great article from Jarrod Kimber.

Great comeback from Dallas. To come back from down 14-0 and 17-7 at the half against one of the better defences in the league in a playoff game is a big effort. Means we get the Packers, 8-0 at home, hosting the Cowboys, 8-0 on the road, which should be a great match up (Carolina at Seattle though, I'm not so excited about).

Bell out for the Steelers was always going to be huge. Having said that, I never felt Pittsburgh was anywhere near as good as the number 3 seeding suggested and they showed why - crap secondary, inconsistency from Big Ben, and a marked inability to score in the red zone. Baltimore is a well-rounded side. I don't see them winning in New England but good on them. Arizona's season ended when Carson Palmer got injured. Big fall from them, to go from 9-1 and not make the Divisional Round of the playoffs is disappointing though.

Carolina is the Richmond of the 2014 NFL season. Hopeless first half despite high expectations, then some key wins in the middle of the year allowing them to come home with a wet sail. They, at 7-8-1, now get to host the 11-5 Lions, a game that IMO could go either way now that Carolina's defence has lifted and Newton looks fit. It's all moot though, Seattle is going to the Superbowl for the NFC. If Rodgers is indeed injured then there's no chance they can win in Seattle. Arizona is floundering and will lose its first playoff surely, which leaves Dallas as the only other chance. They did it once this year but I just don't see it happening twice. As for the AFC, can't believe the Ravens are in the playoffs. They've been highly mediocre all season. San Diego is a much better side but injuries meant they'd have been average in the playoffs anyway. Buffalo blew it last week losing to Oakland; I'm not sure, but I think if they'd won that game then their win today would have put them in? Meanwhile Cleveland went from 6-3 to 7-9, sad for their supporters. I still back New England to make the Superbowl with their home-field advantage but it's so rare that both number 1 seeds make it so I'm sure something will change. (edit: happened last year. Oops. Well, it's rare that it happens twice in a row...)

Ridiculously huge turn around in this game. From 3/409 India lost 7/56 - some were saying they could push on through today to end up 150-200 in front and then have a go at bowling us out on Day 5, but instead we're now 112 runs in front with 10 wickets in hand and two days to come (with some rain it seems). Kohli and Rahane both played beautiful innings (though both were dropped and should have been caught), they kept our bowlers away nicely. Once we had someone else to bowl to at the other end though Harris and Johnson came to life a bit more.

Feel sorry for Cowan who has stacked on the runs and probably is good enough to bat at 3, but I guess the selectors are swayed by youth a bit and Burns can bat anywhere from 1-6. I'd put him at 3, Watson down at 6. Also Harris replaces Starc.

Redskins, what?! If Dallas wins tomorrow that's the Eagles' season now, I think.

Terrible day. Shaun Marsh's two dropped catches were horrendous, both of them displayed of terrible technique and were so atypical for Australian fielders. Multiple injuries and generally toothless bowling on a Brisbane pitch weren't great either. If Marsh can't bowl then he shouldn't be playing on Boxing Day. Ed Cowan's making a stack of runs; I know he's an opener but with the form he's in maybe there's a spot at 3 for him?

I'd still be surprised if you didn't win a playoff or two. But the number 1 seed is huge for you, and you may have lost it with that loss. I don't see how anyone can beat you at Lambeau but at Seattle, or even at Arizona, I reckon you're on par with your rivals (though Arizona being forced to start Lindley at QB changes things a bit). Seattle v Arizona is enormous - if Seattle wins they probably firm for the number 1 seed and if they get it, will they lose? Probably not. Meanwhile if Arizona wins they clinch a first-week bye and, possibly more importantly, Seattle will be forced to go on the road repeatedly to make the Superbowl. Could change everything.

Read what you've quoted again. The line you've bolded refers to the situation in which a positive test is returned. When there's a positive test, then the burden effectively flips over to the player to prove the test inaccurate. Otherwise, read the first sentence again: 'it is the anti-doping organisation which carries the burden of proof to establish than an anti-doping rule violation has occurred'. I think there is cross-examination in these things, but then again who knows really? The procedure behind most of this stuff is so unknown given I guess that it rarely occurs. If it were a real trial (and it's not) then not having the witnesses present would severely effect the case - you can't just rely on witness statements without giving the other side a chance to respond via cross-examination. Whether or not that translates to this tribunal hearing I'm not sure, but I am fairly confident that there was more to an expensive Supreme Court summons than simply dotting i's and crossing t's. I don't think ASADA's been flawless in its handling of this case at all. I'm not sure why you think they're all of a sudden superstars because they have some good barristers presenting their case - the players have equally competent barristers acting for them. None of this is to say the players are going to escape sanction - but it's not some lay-down misere that many on here think (or, more aptly, desire).

No it's not. As much as you may want it to be, it's not. ASADA still has to prove the case. ASADA was the one asking the court to allow the two of them to appear at the hearing. I think it's fair to say it follows that they wanted them there, and by not having them there, their case must be weakened to some degree. If ASADA can't get its witnesses to show up at court for the purposes of cross-examination, the tribunal may decide to take their evidence with a grain of salt (you would have to to an extent, given you haven't had the chance to see how their stories stand up when questioned). As for the negative inference, that's not how that rule of law works. They are ASADA witnesses, not the players', so the inference would operate if ASADA decided not to call them (it would mean that the players could say they're not being called because they have nothing useful to add). I don't think anyone thinks those two would be useful for the players' case.

I'm with you on the concept of depth and that those who will also be around that spot. I just don't see him as being able to succeed in the middle and if it came to it, I'd have Michie, Riley, Newton and Toumpas all in front of him right now, and I would also be more confident in all of them being better midfielders in the future.