titan_uranus

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.

WYL, you are so far out of reality it's laughable. Your conceptions of what should or shouldn't happen in this world beggar belief. Trengove should be kicking 2-3 goals per quarter, and if he doesn't, he's not a leader? Insanity. We 'should' have beaten Brisbane? No. Geelong 'should' have beaten Adelaide. We 'could' have beaten Brisbane. Could. Not should. Because we're the second-worst side in the competition. That's just what we are. I haven't seen the whole game, but from what I've seen, it was another sign of improvement. We won the clearances, and were competitive in inside 50s, tackles and contested possessions. We also went a player down in the third, which hurt our rotations, a killer in Darwin. People on here need to accept where we are and the amount of change that is capable of being achieved through a season with a sub-standard list. The pre-season is where we're going to need to see improvement, but we're actually doing quite well to pick ourselves up off the rock bottom we hit with Neeld.

There is a clear difference between a player in a football club being told to take something, and being told that something was OK to be taken, and various bodies, potentially including the important one (ASADA) saying it's OK, compared to an individual athlete doing something completely of his or her own accord. It might not amount to anything, but it's a clear difference, and some people believe that this difference is critical to the liability/guilt of the Essendon players.

There is no one statistic that says a lot on its own. Bundles of statistics together can be suggestive, but even then, it's watching the source of the statistics (i.e. the games) that tells you most. Inside 50s are obviously vital, as is the inside 50 differential. But the figure tells you nothing about the quality of the inside 50. Many of our inside 50s are kicks that miss the target, or are direct turnovers, or are wide to the boundary, or are shallow (i.e. 40-50), or are deep without purpose (i.e. to the goalsquare meaninglessly). The improvement in the straight number of inside 50s, with other indicators (handball received, uncontested possessions, uncontested marks, tackles) is clearly a positive. But our awful midfield needs to improve so that those inside 50s become more dangerous.

I think that's the damning point - I don't think England are playing that well at all. Cook and Pietersen are struggling, Trott's had two ducks already, Root's not firing like he was going into the series, and Prior's struggling too. All they've had with the bat is Bell (outstanding so far) and helpful but not huge contributions from others (e.g. Trott, Broad in the first Test, Bairstow in the second). Bowling-wise, Anderson obviously has stood out, but even though Swann took a 5-for, he didn't really bowl as well has he has in the past. We are just awful. Our shot selection essentially killed off our whole innings (Watson, Rogers, Khawaja, Hughes, Smith, Haddin all got out to poor shots, and Clarke didn't deal well with the bouncer-yorker combo).

This article sums it up well, I think. Well you've pretty much thrown out the entire side. A bit OTT, maybe? The players who, IMO, need to be replaced are Watson, Khawaja, Hughes and Smith. Problem is, we don't have enough batsmen in Australia to fill four spots at once. Warner shouldn't play Test cricket again (not because of behaviour, but because he's simply not good enough). Cowan probably isn't good enough. Shaun Marsh I still rate, but he can't make the Australia A side at the moment. Maxwell and Henriques are those classic players Australia's been attempting to find for a while now - all-rounders who aren't good enough at either trade. Doolan made a 50 in the Australia A side and has made some runs, but he seems a limited batsman and hasn't done a whole lot to warrant selection. Matthew Wade could be a left-field selection, as a batsman only. His batting is better than the four I mentioned above. Probably not the best move, but we're that short on batsmen it's not completely out of the question.

Viney for Nicholson is a clear improvement to our side. We're still hopelessly weak in the midfield, but Brisbane are very hot and cold, and if we can catch them on the hop early, who knows? Big match up for me is Gawn-Leuenberger. Gawn has to negate Leuenberger's influence around the ground. In the surprise of the year, I could not agree more.

I'm done with Shane Watson. That review was 100% selfish, nothing else. He's a petulant boy who wants to be everything; he wants to open the batting, he wants to open the bowling, he wants to field at first slip, he wants to be captain, he wants to be everything. We will go nowhere while he keeps opening the batting - you need more from your number 1 than 30s and 40s and 50s with no prospect of 100s and a constant worry of being out LBW, a flaw he's not been able to fix in 6 years. Khawaja is terrible. The fact he's getting a game speaks volumes of our complete lack of batting depth. Smith and Hughes will occasionally give a good knock, but generally lack the technique to be consistent. Rogers and Clarke are our only two Test-quality batsmen, with Clarke out of form and Rogers copping some really rough LBW decisions and good bowling. Major, major struggle street.

Irony overload. He is not soft. Take off your biased, anti-Toumpas glasses.

I agree with the general thought that GWS right now is struggling more so than most would have thought acceptable, and that they're a bit of a shambles. They've managed their list poorly, their senior players are crap, some of their kids haven't lived up to the hype, and their big recruits have also sucked (Scully the perfect example). But I don't agree with the myopic people who can't see the long-term view on this one. GWS is there to make AFL a sport of choice in Western Sydney. That's not going to happen overnight in areas where NRL and soccer dominate. That's why the team is there, not in Tasmania, where people already play and support AFL.

If you think Knights and Murphy were of the same value to their sides as Sylvia is to us, then you know very little about Adelaide, Hawthorn or Melbourne.

I'd offer Scully up as being more disappointing, but the point is still valid. Trengove's not playing very good football at the moment. The fact that we're lauding his ability to achieve 20 disposals three consecutive weeks is, IMO, an indictment on his status. If it's mental, take the captaincy from him (this should be done anyway). If it's injuries, then hopefully with time he'll begin to improve, but right now he's a long way from good enough IMO. He might need to shed a kilo or two to pick up some pace, as I feel his game is being severely impacted by his lack of ability to get to enough contests.

I suspect Essendon will try to discredit that by focusing on the specific words he used: 'My understanding after it being given through Bruce Reid and the club is that I was receiving AOD'. They'll probably try to say that the fact he thought that's what it was doesn't necessarily mean it actually was AOD. Whether or not that gets close to being successful remains to be seen, but I see the loophole.

We shouldn't be dropping any of our bowlers, I don't think. If we do, Starc is the one to go, but I'm not sure dropping him after one game is going to help much. Apparently, yes. Pretty disgraceful, really.

I'd be looking to delist Sellar, MacDonald, Jetta, Gillies and Davis. If more have to be delisted, Tynan and then Nicholson are going to be in trouble. As for rookies, I'd straight away upgrade Clisby, I've seen plenty there. Magner and Couch have to be in trouble given they can't get a game. Magner potentially gets one more year, but Couch probably goes. If a club wants Tapscott, they can have him. Same goes for Strauss. I'd stay away from Cross, his form this year has been terrible. Whilst he adds a stronger body, leadership and some clearance skill, he cannot kick to save his life, and we have enough slow midfielders who can't kick. You spelled 'Demon31' wrong.

Our last two coaches have been guilty of the same thing. Bailey tried to get us playing a free-flowing, uncontested game a la Geelong of 2007-2009, but the Colingwood press of 2010 and then Sydney's higher pressure game meant Bailey's plan was made to look pathetic. Then Neeld came in and tried to get us to play Collingwood's pressing, pressure game, with contested marking and boundary-based movement, and was left to watch the competition speed up and pass us by. Truth be told, trends in football come and go every year. The good clubs and good coaches are able to adapt and mould their playing group to fit the bill. Neither Bailey nor Neeld were able to do that, not even close.

Whilst Spencer is now eligible, I can't see why we'd play him. Gawn is doing well at the moment, as is Fitzpatrick. Tough for Spencer who looked good in the St Kilda, but that's how it is. Pedersen's playing good consistent VFL form, and maybe is worth a run over Dunn, who is a useless spud. But then we'd probably just be swapping spuds for spuds.

The last month has shown how much better we are at this. I don't have the numbers, but I'd hazard a guess that our numbers for uncontested marks are up, too. We seem to be positioning better and running a little bit harder, as well as using those options more than we used to (i.e. better, calmer, more intuitive decision-making). Having said all that, UP and UM aren't going to get you there alone. Our clearance work is abysmal, our contested possession work varies from acceptable to unacceptable. If we can lift those areas to be consistently competitive, then our work on lifting UP and UM will begin to pay off, I think.

I fundamentally disagree with your first point re: guilty until proven innocent. Where are you pulling this whole thing from? I've never seen anything which suggests that ASADA operates on a guilty until proven innocent method. If they take a test and the test comes back positive, that's evidence of guilt. That's different to saying someone is guilty and then making them prove their innocence. Here, ASADA has no positive tests, so it's not like they've taken a test, failed it, and then ASADA's launched an investigation. So far, ASADA has nothing but circumstantial evidence, and that's not the same thing as saying guilty until proven innocent. The onus is not on Essendon to prove anything if ASADA has nothing to go on. How do you prove you didn't do something? What does Essendon do? ASADA may well compile a stack of evidence which overwhelmingly suggests Essendon players took a banned substance, but on what we know so far, they don't have that yet. I haven't referred to the ACC report once, actually. I've only said what I've heard, and that is that people at Essendon seem to be running an argument that they received conflicting information. My point about the ACC is that it's not as clear-cut a substance as some are making it sound like. You're right in that it only comes down to what ASADA says, but Essendon sounds like it wants to try arguing everything, and if they did indeed receive conflicting information from ASADA, that might be relevant. The ACC's position shows that conflicting opinions are out there. What you're saying about the players is as naive as what I'm saying. Neither of us know what it's like to be an 18 year old kid walking into an AFL club. If you think it's all as simple as looking at an iPhone app, then you're just as naive. I maintain that asking 18, 19, 20 year old kids to go behind their club doctor's back, when the AFL and your club constantly tell you to respect your doctor and authority, is not as simple as you are making it sound. You say none of the players thought to check - do you know this? I thought that the whole point of procuring these 'consent forms' was the players asking for security from the club. In the end, yes, the WADA code demands that every athlete is responsible for what enters his or her body. But almost every example I've seen, if not literally every example I've seen, has been an individual making an individual decision, rather than a member of a team being subject to a decision made by someone else. I believe there is a difference, quite a big one. Might not be enough to absolve players of offences, but I can't agree with the arguments that everything was easy and simple for the players. These are all the things I see as being contentious issues as this plays out. Essendon could well fail on all arguments and go down in a blazing heap. But I see a few clear points that will be addressed, and they're not as clear cut as you, and most others, want them to be.

I think he hit it, but the evidence was inconclusive. The hot spot potentially only showed up after the ball passed the bat (it was inconclusive FFS!). The sound was there, sure, and probably was bat hitting ball, but with no deflection, it only gets to the likelihood, not the conclusiveness, of Dar making an error. In the end, Erasmus should have told Dar that the evidence was inconclusive, and Dar should have stuck to his original not-out call. The end result may have been the right one, but it wasn't produced for the right reasons. All in all, a sad way to end a great Test which unfortunately has been marred by poor umpiring and the DRS. As for changes, Cowan was ill apparently, so give him another Test before making the switch. Harris/Bird would be handy, but who gets dropped? Starc to me was the worst of the three bowlers. I'd leave them be, though. And, Clarke needs to learn to stop using referrals on 50-50 LBW decisions.

To clarify the situation on compulsion - the new laws provide ASADA with the power to compel anyone to attend an interview or produce a document. Of course, this can only be done if the person is reasonably believed to have information relevant to an investigation. If you're summoned to produce a document or attend an interview and fail to comply, you can be fined up to $5100. Bossdog - there is no constitutional right to remain silent. Hyperbole aside, if you're compelled to attend an interview and you don't go, you can be fined up to $5100. I don't think you've really understood some of what I was saying. As to circumstantial evidence, the simple fact is that without it, ASADA's case is significantly weaker than with it. Whether or not you believe it's innocent-till-guilty or vice versa, Essendon is going to try to argue that there is insufficient evidence to show it was taken. So far, in the public sphere, what evidence is there? Watson's admission was that he believed he was being administered it - is that enough? I never said the ACC's view was definitive of anything. In fact, I said I didn't think it would amount to any defence. What I said was that Essendon believes they received information from the ACC suggesting AOD was not a banned substance, a position stil taken by the ACC according to their website. The general point is that I have heard Essendon suggest part of their defence is that they were provided with incorrect information: ACC information is not relevant, but ASADA information is. The ACC's information probably is more relevant to the players. Naivety and being a teenager go hand in hand. I think it's naive for you to say that an 18-year old is mature and wise and strong and independent enough to second guess his own doctor. I think that's unfair. As for the precedent, you're right, it would be something future players could look on. But to me, having players in a team sport rest on the advice given by doctors is not a bad thing. Reid, Dank, Robinson, and maybe more (Hird, Robson, Evans, Thompson) are going to be penalised for, at the very least, bringing the game into disrepute. This kind of action is going to be monitored more closely by ASADA and the AFL. I suspect there will be new requirements from the AFL regarding administering substances - more reporting, or the like. There are plenty of things that can be done to ensure that this doesn't happen again other than making an example of the players.

I've been away for the weekend so I've just caught up on the past few days' happenings. The Broad decision is a disgrace from most parties. Firstly, Dar should have paid it out. I struggle to think of what he must have thought happened - off Haddin's gloves? I don't get it. Second, Clarke will hopefully have learnt his lesson - stop reviewing marginal LBW decisions and retain the reviews for the howlers. The referral of the LBW call going down leg was pathetic. Finally, Broad. It happens all the time, batsmen choosing not to walk when they're clearly out and waiting for the umpire. But I've never seen someone edge the ball to slip and pretend it didn't happen. When it's to the keeper and it's a straight line and/or a faint edge, I can understand a player using the doubt to hide. But there was no doubt with that. We've been pretty good in this Test, except for all four evening sessions. After tea on Day 1 we lost 4 wickets. After tea on Day 2 we let Cook and Pietersen cruise. After tea on Day 3 we let Bell and Broad cruise. After tea on Day 4 we lost 4 wickets. It's killing us. This Test is still winnable, but we need Haddin to be mature and play the guiding knock that Hughes played in the first innings. All of Agar, Siddle, Pattinson and Starc can bat. A useful 10-30 runs from each, maybe with one pushing closer to 50, and with Haddin batting through at the other end, and we're not out of it. Still plenty of problems, though. Cowan's not good enough, neither Smith nor Hughes have the techniques to be consistently good players, Watson's horrendously over-rated (he averages 35, two centuries ever and hasn't hit one for 3 years), and Clarke's out of form and injured. It's not a great batting line-up.

I'm sorry, but this qualifies for worst thread of all time.

This is incredulous.

His fitness clearly needs work, as does his centre-square ruckwork. However, his willingness to get involved in general play is a clear highlight, and the polar opposite of Jamar. He is incredibly mobile for his height, has clean hands, reads the play well, moves well into position, and backs up with second efforts. Needs a bigger tank, a much bigger tank, plus more strength and training in the centre square. But he's a true talent and could be a genuine ruck star.