titan_uranus

No surprises with the squad for Sydney. Either Beer plays as the spinner, with Smith at 6, or we go with 4 pacemen again. There's also the choice between Hilfenhaus and Bollinger if we go with Beer. I'd go with Bollinger, he can't be worse than Hilfenhaus and he knows the SCG well. Plus I assume he's improved his fitness. I'd have preferred to see another batsman named. It's a very weak top 6, with Hughes, Clarke and Smith all out of form and a debutant at number 3. Squad: Watson, Hughes, Khawaja, Clarke, Hussey, Smith, Haddin, Johnson, Siddle, Beer, Bollinger, Hilfenhaus.

Good post, I agree with that. Hughes and Smith were picked because they are young. If they were 4-5 years older, with the same form and the same record, they wouldn't have even been on the radar. But this misguided notion that we need to play youngsters to inject youth into the side has let us down. What we needed to do was play our best XI. Anyone who thinks Hughes or Smith, in their current form, are a part of Australia's best XI, right now, aren't thinking clearly, because they're not. And consequently, we were let down. This is going to sound a lot like a WYL proposition, but I honestly feel that what needs to happen now is a full review of the entire Australian cricket industry. People say this isn't a time to panic, which of course it isn't, but if there ever was a time to be worried or to question what is going on with Australian cricket, it is right now. There's a much too strong focus on limited overs stuff, the selection process is unclear and has caused us problems, scheduling is a worry as well. There are problems all over the place. Also, why aren't Tim Nielsen, Justin Langer, and the other coaches, with Troy Cooley excepted, copping any criticism? Our batting has been woeful all summer, but no one seems to think that might be bpoor coaching? Plenty of people took to Josh Mahoney in 2009 when we weren't scoring, but when our cricket side fails both to make runs or to occupy the crease, Langer apparently had nothing to do with it. Final comment: moving Haddin to 6 is just another wallpaper-over-the-crack move.

Bloody Watson! That's his 15th 50, to go with his 2 100s. He never fails to go out, even when he looks rock solid. We needed someone to stand tall and make a big score, hopefully Ponting is the one to do that. Maybe Hussey will come out there with some runs on the board this time.

Pathetic run out. Watson really struggles to pick a good single. That's the third time he's run out his partner, all of them have been for the first wicket as well. He needs to turn this 50 into a minimum of 100, preferably 200.

How many times over the last 2 years have we taken 'wickets' off no-balls? This time Dar didn't call the no ball until he'd paid it out, but later saw the footmark was close. I'm not entirely convinced he did the right thing given at the time he didn't think it was a no ball but in the end the ball was illegal and the batsman shouldn't have been out. That's another thing England do better than us: their bowlers learn to bowl with their entire foot behind the line.

Siddle bowled a very nice line and length earlier today, got both openers. Seems he and Harris will get the new ball after lunch so that's a sign that Ponting respects his effort. Hilfenhaus won't play in Sydney. All cricket history in fact! Apparently it's only the second time ever that at the end of Day 1 a team has bowled its opponent out and then overtaken their score without losing a wicket.

Really, what today showed was that Perth was won more by an accidental Johnson spell of swing than anything else. We cannot bat against the moving ball. Watson, Ponting and Hussey got hood balls but the other 7 just pushed too hard at the ball outside off. Hughes and Smith are not good enough. Hilfenhaus is useless. He is possibly the least threatening new ball bowler in the world. But the problem is the batting. It's not good enough.

That's true, but I don't think a conference system really fixes anything. The bottom 2-3 teams, who will be out of the running for the wildcard anyway, will put their players out to pasture and prepare for the next year regardless of the system that is in place.

Looks like a couple of judges have missed the deadline... Tsk Tsk...

Disagree. Having one, or even two, wildcards does not fully rule out the possibility of a team missing out on finals despite winning more games than a team who makes it. At any rate, it's no different to what we have now, it's just dressed up. Right now everyone plays each other at least once, and for almost every team the big rivalries are played twice a year. So if we changed to a conference system nothing would really change except the possibility for teams to beat better teams to a finals spot. However, for NFL I think it works as well as they could get any system to work.

He'll play for sure. No way they'd let Khawaja play for NSW in a 50 over game if they thought there was any chance he was going to bat at 3 on Boxing Day. Plus Ponting is strong enough to play through it.

The whole wildcard thing shows exactly what's wrong with the conference system. Of course for NFL they have little choice but here for AFL the mere suggestion of it is ridiculous.

That's not what I said. I said it was a 'benefit' of having four quicks. We did not choose to play four quicks for this reason, we did it because the Perth pitch offered something for pacemen and this was a good way to avoid the spinner issue. Not only has England played just four bowlers for each match, but Anderson and Finn have played all three Tests so far, whereas for us Siddle is the only one to have played them all. And for England, Anderson and Finn bowl lots and lots of overs because there's not a lot of support, whereas Siddle didn't have much to do in Perth.

If Anderson doesn't play and Ponting does, this could be the spark Ponting needs to make some runs. This is another benefit of playing four quicks, they get to bowl shorter spells to stay fresher for longer. Anderson and Finn will be exhausted and there are still two Tests to go.

Thanks for the update. Agree with that. When people like Tom, or Cam Schwab, come on a clarify stuff it just takes out all the rumouring and bragging about who said what and the information is clear.

First, and so received 5 votes, the maximum.

I told you it was hard to split the teams! You're right, defence for mine is more important, and based on that you should have beaten Ox to the 1 vote, but I kept looking at your forward line and I just couldn't shake the notion that you weren't going to score. It was a lineball call between you and Ox for the last vote. Pearce has played forward before. Higgins can play small, especially in that team.

Alright, so I think I've come to my decision. Let me start by saying this is ridiculously difficult. I didn't think it would be this hard. I was able to rule out a couple of teams, but picking a top 5 out of the remaining 7 or 8 took a lot of time, and I'm sure the other judges will have quite different choices. I highly doubt everyone will agree with what I've said about each team, but as BB said, this is subjective and in the end it's about each judge's opinions. Anyway: (be aware, I wrote a s**t-tonne)... Range Rover: Problems in defence with just Lake as a KPD. Goddard wasted if he has to play CHB. However I rate the forward line highly, as I am a massive Chris Knights fan, and I reckon he goes well alongside Fevola and Gumbleton as the two big men; with Green as the third tall Knights would get under the radar. Despite not playing through the centre for Geelong as much these days, Bartel still remains one of the leagues better mids, but despite him, Murphy and Hannebery the midfield seems a bit light on (Im not a Jackson nor Lewis fan). HT: Love this defence as I am a massive Gwilt and Bock fan, and of course Frawley is a star. Mackie isnt the player he was back in 2007/8 though. Forward line is a weakness however. Pavlich is good, but he doesnt have much support with White being just OK and Sidebottom and Dangerfield bit-players who rotate through the midfield. IMO you can't rely on them to be scoring each and every week. Banfields OK as the crumber but Burgoyne is a midfielder. The midfield itself is pretty good, Cooney and Scully add the pace and class whilst Watson and Swallow get their hands dirty. Cox isnt as good now as he was 5 years ago but for pick 180 thats a bargain. e25: No shortage of ruck options here if Kreuzers knee doesnt hold up, with Ryder and Clark more than able to step up. Good defence for mine, with Reid and Morris holding down FB and CHB easily, Ryder can play there but spends more time forward for Essendon these days, but I rate Grams drive of half-back, Hartlett has looked promising. No points off for Toy, but no points on either, basically meaning that for Toy (and Swallow and Patrick) I chose not to make a judgement either way. However I am cruel and points come off for the inexplicable decision to take the hack that is Palmer over Nat Fyfe. Sorry. Other than that, though, the midfield is good. Goodes, Pendlebury, Martin and Sylvia have all proved their worth. Kennedy, Johnson and Rioli in the forward line are enough for me to overlook Clark, who as a forward is not much chop. Overall one of the stronger sides. Eth38: Good defence here, Pears is a nice choice for an Essendon player and is a good FB, Garland though has to take the second tall which isnt always ideal. The HB line is probably the best though, with Drummond, Gilbee and Harbrow giving massive drive. That gets good brownie points from me. Forward line is just average, Cloke is a beneficiary of a brilliant team and Walker and Byrnes are over-rated, but Fyfe, Milne and Gray help. I like this midfield, Mumford is the third best ruckman in the game and any midfield with Hayes and Hodge in it is going to go alright. Deestroy All: The defence is pretty good with Scarlett at FB, but Merrett for mine is flaky as the CHB. Not exactly sure how Scott Selwood gets on anyones radar, despite West Coasts list being thin. Dawes should swap with Hansen, then with Dawes at CHF and Hall at FF, with Hansen as the third tall, that forward line is good, despite the ageing and perennially unfit Motlop. Hilles OK as the ruckman but the midfield is strong, with Judd, Boak, Deledio, Dal Santo and Bateman. A well-rounded side IMO. Ox_5: Best forward line bar none. Both Riewoldts plus Jurrah and Porplyzia for extra marking options and Jetta and Higgins on the ground cant be beat, so kudos there. However, the balls got to get there, and with a terrible ruckman and a so-so midfield (Barlows form post-ACL is questionable, Black and Kerr are beyond their best) points come off. The defence is light on for run as well, with Thompson, Tarrant, Taylor and Gibson all slow tall defenders. Winderlich and Enright (glad someone took him!) are there for drive but Winderlichs disposal is poor. The forward line gets this team most of its points. Roger Mellie: Not a fan of this defence, as I dont rate Krakouer or Chaplin too highly. Rich can kick but goes missing way too often. For mine the midfield comes near the bottom. Selwoods a star and Mundys 2010 was good but theres not a lot else going for it. Another good forward line though. LeCras and Didak ooze class, Roughead and Pods would work well together, although I have doubts about Pods' 2011 living up to his 2010, and Murphy played some stellar football, and can go back as well. Lags behind other teams overall though. Deez Nutz: Straight away Id swap Staker and Waite. Stakers best footy in 2010 came as a defender, similarly Waites best was at CHF. Staker and Hurley are good KPDs but I dont like Rance much. Broughton, Gilbert and Sherman earn points for their drive off HB. Amazingly strong midfield, but I have no idea what Abletts doing at FF. That forward line is just average, ROK and Chapman will spend a lot of time there with this midfield but theres no FF, Staker/Waite isnt the best CHF, and Wonna and Hitchcock are just fillers to ensure those teams were represented. Points off for Naitanui also (yes, thats harsh). The Master: Possibly the weakest defence of the lot. Grima and McPharlin as KPDs lag well behind others, Hurn was taken way too early, Surjan isnt anything special. Adcock and Kelly the only highlights. The forward line is tough to judge. Franklin obviously helps but I cant judge Swallow, and Morton, Henderson, Monfries and Schneider are all up and down players with little consistency. Love the choice of Jamar and the midfield isnt too bad, with Griffin, Thomas, Thompson and Hill. Kennedys 2010 was good but I dont know if that form can continue. Experience an issue. Trengove: Moores a spud, but with Glass and Hooker the KPD is OK in this side. Plus Nick Maxwells there to help out. Browns an interesting one; clearly hes a star when fit, but add another year to his age for 2011 and who knows how many games hell miss. But I will always love Brown and with Tippett at FF, and Varcoe, Garlett and Harvey crumbing, the forward lines pretty good. Just as with Toy and Swallow, I wont pass judgement on Patrick. A good midfield here too, especially given Sandilands is the ruck. Strong on inside mids with Boyd, Sewell, Cassisi and McVeigh but I reckon theres enough on the outside with Montagna and help from Harvey, Varcoe and Grimes. So, based on those analyses, I ended up with this: 5 - e25 4 - Deestroy All 3 - Trengove 2 - Eth38 1 - Ox_5

Glad South Africa won. Hopefully they keep this form up and knock India over another two times to become the number 1 side. They deserve it more than India does. India just accrues points by belting teams at home without putting in decent performances on the road.

Nice. FF I think.

He has knees?

I've done most of my analysis, I'll probably post it tomorrow or Tuesday as I need to write it up. BB seems to have gone a bit deeper than me but I think I can justify my choices pretty well anyway.

Well that was quick. Reminds me of last year, this big turnaround. We thrashed them at Headingly, they came back and won the next game at the Oval. Despite him being woefully out of form we need Ponting to be fit to play. Otherwise we'll be playing someone new at number 3 for the most important Test in the last four years. I don't want Clarke at 3, he's not good enough, and how would Khawaja go debuting on Boxing Day in front of 100,000 people at number 3? It could be David Hussey or Cameron White but they're probably not in selectors' minds, so we need Punter. The other call will be the bowlers. Will we go with the same four quicks and use Smith as the spinner? I think Melbourne demands a spinner much more than Perth, and unfortunately that makes Siddle a possible casualty. It's down to Siddle and Hilfenhaus, they each only took one wicket but I reckon they like Hilfenhaus' outswing with Johnson's inswing.

Yeah, you're right. Still, in my perfect world, I reckon Garland doesn't play FB or CHB. But we'lll go alright with him in that role.

I said no, but that's not to say he can't, or hasn't, played key position. But I reckon at his best he's not tied down to one opponent and he can float around a bit.