titan_uranus

I managed to read two of the four (four?!?) pages written in the 5 hours since I last looked at Demonland. Suffice to say, I can tell what the other two will be full of. FWIW I agree with one of KS's posts from a few pages back. There is absolutely no benefit whatsoever to signing with GWS now. No reason, no advantage. By leaving his decision he allows himself to play out this season with an open mind, the possibility of GWS and MFC upping their offers, without locking himself in and fretting over whether he made the right call or not. Based on that, and what we've heard about Tom, his father, and his manager, I'd be flabbergasted if he's committed to GWS already. The GWS' argument is. What else can GWS give Scully that Melbourne can't? Sure, Melbourne's argument is about everything other than money, but if Scully chooses to go to GWS, it's for the cash. Judging by the length of this thread, you're not the only one.

That's not necessarily what's happening here. He might not have signed and might be weighing up his choices.

The thing that gets me is that, unlike Ablett, there could only be one reason for Scully moving to GWS: money. Ablett argued (whether he believed it or otherwise) that he'd already achieved it all at Geelong, and that moving to the Gold Coast gave him a fresh start, a chance at captaincy, a new challenge, and a way out of a club on the decline. Scully can't say moving from Melbourne to GWS gives him any of those. He's yet to achieve anything at Melbourne, we're on the up, he said back in 2009 he was hoping to be drafted by a Victorian club to stay in Victoria, and he's just as much of a chance to captain MFC as he is GWS. Just seems to me that the backlash against him might be quite strong compared to Ablett. I mean, many of us can understand a 20 year old looking at an offer of those proportions and understandably jumping at it, but the media and other Melbourne supporters will just given him money-hungry-related crap. FWIW the biggest thing for me is that a club like us, who only got Scully via a PP, can have him taken off us two years later. The PP was implemented by the AFL to keep the competition strong, just like the AFL implemented these rules for GWS' recruiting to keep them competitive. Allowing them to take our best youngster off us is contradictory to their aims as competition-managers and is really just robbing Peter to pay Paul. What's worse is that I can see this, if it does happen, leading to a rule change, which only helps clubs like GWS and GC in keeping their young talent after we've been the losers. That's my thoughts on it. Hopefully he stays, and hopefully he can see that there's more to football than just money, but I have a sick feeling that those kind of dollars will sway him.

Also, Mike Hussey and Hauritz are out of the World Cup. Shaun Marsh unluckily misses out on being the replacement, Callum Ferguson gets that job, and Krejza is in for Hauritz.

Fair enough. Of course, there is one simple solution to that problem, but let's not go into that now. Let's instead debate whether Trent Copeland will get a game for Australia this year. Surprised some by beating Chris Lynn to the young cricketer of the year award. I think I read he took 60 wickets in 11 matches. That's a pretty darn good effort. Given our lack of pace bowling options (well, decent pace bowling options), and the injuries to Harris, Starc and Hazlewood (who might not get back to full fitness before August, I don't know), maybe Copeland will head the queue.

I would have thought Dunn should top this list after his repeated 50m+ goals last year. Davey doesn't register many from that distance.

Doesn't matter what those who don't care about it say, it's not red, and that's disappointing, regardless of whether you think it's an issue or not. Even more so given that Cam and the team spent seemingly over a year working on developing a new jumper that was supposed to be red. The argument that colour combinations and/or synthetic materials affect the outcome of certain colours is probably quite valid, but our blue ought to be quite dark, and Essendon's red, up against their black, is quite clearly red, and not pink. I would have thought that we could aim for that kind of red which, provided we get our blue nice and dark, wouldn't come out pink.

Agreed. 'Floaters', as they are sometimes called, can be a useful tool in ODIs and T20s. Batting orders aren't as important in limited overs cricket. Hopefully he, like Clarke, will get back into some form before the World Cup. With him on-song we'll lift another notch from where we are now. At the moment I think he's just not timing the ball well and that leads to him trying the big shots to hit one in the middle or just get some bonus runs or something. But I'd prefer to see him bunker down and score slowly, and not go out, than try for a couple fo boundaries and get out. Ultimately, though, we need him playing his usual game with a SR of over 100. Maybe it was a confidence thing as well? I mean, I thought it was because they had the spinner on and he plays spin well, but maybe he thought that we might as well utilise his hitting early on and have the more stable back ups of White and Hussey down the order should it fail.

More info: Dees take no risks with Frawley

Just some clarificiation regarding subs: - A substitute nominated before a game will wear a green vest, while a player subbed out during a game will put on a red vest; - A substituted player can take no further part in the match; - Clubs will not have to name their substitute until final teams are lodged 90 minutes before the bounce; - Clubs that make on-field errors similar to those seen when the interchange system was recently overhauled will receive on-field penalties; - Clubs that flout the vest rules will be penalised financially http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/no-injury-required-for-for-afl-clubs-to-make-substitutions/story-e6frf9jf-1225997515633

Good stuff. Glad we've announced it now and the focus, if it wasn't already, can be put squarely on Round 1.

Majorly, majorly disappointing. But putting it in perspective: it's January 22. We have a bye in Round 5, and of the first four games, two are against weak sides that we should be able to beat without him. Not having Frawley is going to hurt us against Hawthorn, but Warnock is a more than able replacement, and along with Rivers and Garland, and with Joel MacDonald able to play as a third tall if required (and, going further, McNamara and Campbell on the rookie list), our depth should cope OK. The only worry is that the injury has some sort of long-term impact on his marking or upper body strength or something. Not knowing anything about the muscles and how they work, hopefully there's no chance of that.

Any single moment from the Sydney game. Any single moment Jurrah went near the ball. Trengove's decision to rush a behind vs Port Adelaide in Darwin.

South Africa needed to end their innings a bit earlier, and preferably for a few less runs, to entice India to go for the win. 340 off 90 overs was never going to happen when Sehwag got out early, so it was tailor-made for Gambhir, Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman, who are tough enough to dismiss normally, to drop the anchor and bat the day. Which of course, they did, because they're capable batsmen. Imagine Australia trying to bat out a day. I totally agree that saying Haddin has less catches means Prior is better. Clearly the quality of the bowling and opposition batting translates into the number of catches. In saying that, I look at the way each has batted when they have come to the crease. To be fair to Haddin, he has certainly had a tougher time, being asked to rescue innings at 5/150 odd, whereas in most of Prior's innings he's come in with plenty on the board. But I still look at Haddin and see a batsman who is more than capable of scoring centuries, and showed it, but whose innings ended prematurely due to poor shot selection. There were runs in every pitch we played on, maybe Perth aside, and in almost every Test Haddin got himself in before getting out to a flat-footed drive, a waft outside off, or an attempted slog. It's a line-ball debate at any rate.

Watson's now been involved in 7 run outs. The ones I can remember were all his fault too. It's really unbelievable that he can continue to run like he does, head down, not looking at his partner, ball watching, whatever it is, he isn't good at it. Hughes got a good ball but didn't score freely at all. But Haddin throws his wicket away with careless shots far too often. His 5 in Melbourne, his 6 in Sydney were both thrown away. Sure, batting's been a lot easier for Prior, but when he's had the chance he's made the runs. Also, his glovework has been better. Haddin's dropped at least two catches and he let one go between him and Watson. I can't think of any dropped catches from Prior.

I forgot to post this the other day. This is one of the best articles I've read over the last couple of months regarding Australian cricket. Written by Geoff Lawson: http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/wanted-people-who-know-the-game-of-cricket-20110101-19cno.html

Yes, a case can be mounted, but it wouldn't win. He's leaning on his superior average, that's it.

You could take the captaincy out and Strauss would still get in. Watson has run his opening partner out twice. He hasn't scored a century despite reaching 50 four times. He might look like he's settled but he will find a way to get himself out. When Australia has needed a solid opening partnership we have struggled to get one. Even if Watson's not the first one dismissed part of the blame rests with him. He needs to score big runs at the top of the order to give our middle order a platform. Strauss has a crucial century which helped save the Brisbane match, and has worked much better in partnership with Cook than Watson has with Katich/Hughes.

Up until this innings I would have picked Haddin over Prior but Haddin continually throws his wicket away and Prior's batting chances have been limited until today, where he's made 100. Siddle might have been close but Finn and Bresnan have taken wickets in wins, not losses, so one of them would pip him. So yes, Hussey's the only Aussie who would make the series best team.

What a match. From 4/74 they managed to get to 342, meaning India needs 340 in a day to win the series, and South Africa needs 10 wickets in a day to win. Epic stuff. Kallis now past Ponting on the list of century scorers. Trails Tendulkar by 11, and currently averages more than him. Did it all with a crumbled top order and a side strain. But great support from Boucher, Steyn and Morkel to get the score up where it is. Oh, and in that other Test that no one cares about anymore, England has passed 600. Again. Apparently it's the first time the 6th, 7th and 8th wickets have all put on 100. To think that we'll have lost three out of our last four Tests, each by an innings (can anyone see us not losing this one by an innings?) is staggering, even if you'd said it before the Ashes no one would have believed you. This will be Hilfenhaus' last Test, and it should be the last for a while for Smith and possibly Hughes.

I wouldn't. I've seen enough to know that his technique isn't going to get him anywhere in Test cricket. There are options. First off all, what if Ponting returns for the next series? They won't (and shouldn't) drop Khawaja, so Smith's spot down the order could be an option (i.e. Ponting at 6). Secondly, Andrew McDonald is more than capable of batting at 6. Plus, in Sri Lanka most teams play two spinners, which sounds ridiculous for Australia but if we wanted to go down that path we could have McDonald as the third seamer whilst batting at 6. There are, of course, the old chestnuts of David Hussey and Cameron White too. I'd go with any of those before I play Smith again. Unless, of course, Smith becomes a spinner, not a batsman. But at the moment his bowling isn't good enough either.

You know things are going badly when Michael Hussey starts bowling... Siddle's not bowling anywhere near like he did in Melbourne, Johnson is all over the shop, Hilfenhaus is about as damaging as Hussey, Beer is trying but isn't special, and Smith is worse. What is Smith's role in the side? If you can't bat in the top 6 you have to be able to bowl, and he can't. Hopefully this is the last we see of him until he either learns to bat or learns to bowl.

Classic Test in South Africa atm. RSA were on top at 6/247 but Harbhajan and Tendulkar are evening the game up nicely.

He now is level with Ponting on 39 centuries. And he takes wickets, which none of the others do. Surely he's at least as good as Punter now. Sehwag has never had footwork. Most of the time he flays the good-length stuff early and the bowlers sh!t their pants and end up feeding him full stuff. He's a superb striker of the ball and when he gets going nothing is a good ball but early in his innings a level-headed bowler can pick him up for nothing if the field's right. Smith's technique needs a lot of work. He plays like it's a ODI. Open stance when driving, doesn't have a sound defence, chases the moving ball to try to put some bat on it. He's not a Test player. The argument that we need to stick with him because he's our future misses the point that he isn't good enough and hasn't shown anything to suggest he will ever be good enough for Test cricket. We definitely need to look to youth but the youth that get selected need to show something at state level. Like Khawaja. And eventually, Maddinson, Starc, Pattinson, Hazelwood and Copeland. Smith isn't good enough. If he can't bat in the top 6 he needs to be out number 1 spinner. Since he's not that either, he shouldn't be there. Picking someone to bat at 7 and bowl as the second spinner isn't smart.

I'm with you. There's no other choice. Cameron White, IMO, would make a better captain, but there's no way he could captain a side he hasn't been a part of for 2 years. Nice argument. But surely the state that's won the past two Shields is the state with the best players? I'm talking White, D. Hussey, Hodge, McDonald, Nannes, Rogers, McKay. Over the last 2-3 years these players have been in their prime, and IMO these have been the best players in the country. Nic Maddinson will be an Australian player. But I don't want him in the side until he's had at least another year with NSW. Learn the craft there, get the runs, experience, form and fitness on the board with them, not with Australia.