wisedog

My initial reaction was that the claims don't quite seem plausible: This isn't the usual defensiveness of a white middle-class male, I just don't understand how systematic racial abuse of a player could occur in this day and age. I went to an all-boys school in a regional town and even there, I can't imagine anything like this occurring. These young men grow up idolising athletes from the NBA, NFL and play alongside Indigenous players. How could they possibly still hold such backward ideas? This isn't even taking into account the measures put in place by the AFL educate players. However, these are strong claims and it's equally hard to believe there isn't at least a kernel of truth to them. Surely by now, there are dozens of former Gold Coast players and support staff without any strong ties to the club who would be able to corroborate such claims. And if not, surely someone honourable enough to give an honest appraisal of the situation. I would suggest Gary Ablett, but that would also suggest his leadership wasn't strong enough to put a stop to the behaviour.

Thoughts on Syrian strikes? A slap on the wrist in the scheme of this war but anything other than a slap may have been catastrophic. It breaks with his narrative about US interests in the Middle East and has hurt his support among right commentators.

I understand that. And I was never particularly open about my support for Abbott. It just wasn't worth the number of barroom arguments I would have to endure. I had multiple arguments with my girlfriend over the years who would tell me he made her skin crawl. So we just decided to avoid the topic. It would be an interesting study to see why so many people arrive at their opinions with such striking consistency - without any kind of manifesto or for that matter any kind of collaboration. The term 'group think' is very much apt. My Dad is from England and he would often retell a quote by someone or other. "If I'm at a dinner party and someone tells me where they stand on fox hunting... I can tell you where they stand on everything!" But I'm not saying this is only a phenomenon of the Left. I can just as easily see people reading Bolt and allowing their views to be bent in accordance.

Abbott always seemed to me like a genuine man. I liked him and was actually very disappointed when Malcom 'born to rule' Turbnull knocked him over. It seemed there was a characterisation of Abbott that was peddled by the press gallery but the real man was someone different. He was just too awkward and old fashioned to know how to counter their tactics. I think it was very telling to hear Warren Mundine say, and I paraphrase, "The more you got to know him and the more you worked with him, the more you liked him." As for Rudd, he said the opposite. I think Abbott was confronted by an extraordinarily hostile media who barely even bothered to disguise their loathing for him. His brand of conservatism was anathema to them. However... while he did kick a few goals, he was ultimately a disappointment. What does he do now? He seems to have no purpose and no friends in the world except Andrew Bolt. Even his former allies in Cormann, Frydenberg and Dutton have turned their backs. He could join Bernadi's Conservatives... perhaps better to go quietly into the night. He'd actually be a good war time Prime Minister. So when Trump blows everything up, he may be useful.

But the question on everyone's lips is what word am I using to describe Trump that keeps getting censored? It really could be any number of things.

He won't ever have the eloquence of Obama. But he's something of a story teller in his own way. I have to admit to you I've occasionally despaired of the human race to realise someone so uncouth could occupy the highest office in the world. And yet, as indicated above... I'm more inclined to judge the aforementioned [censored] by the results. As much of a [censored] as he is; he was clever enough to smash the Republic establishment and beat Hilary. He's isolated himself from the CIA, the FBI - every Liberal news outlet in the country. He was a joke candidate who has cleared every hurdle placed in front of him and he's still running. All of this probably terrifies people and I understand that. But I'm not all that happy with the status quo - so I don't really mind watching an orange skinned gentleman nudge the apple cart. And for what it's worth, I do sense that at the end of all of this people might be pleasantly surprised. Feel free to bookmark this page and bump it when half the world is in ashes. I could be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time.

Definitely insecure. Some stupid. For sure. And yes, time will tell if the North Korea dialogue amounts to anything. But it's been acheived in no small part to unprecedented sanctions from Trump. And time will also tell if these tariffs are a monumental disaster for America. It may not be, certainly many conservatives think it will. It's all up in the air and there's something exciting about that, I think you'll agree. Exciting or terrifying given your emotional disposition. I'm quite sure Trump will get a second term, probably because all the stupid and insecure people like me. I stand by my post but I respect your opinions. I feel there would be many counter examples of the Obama-era: What would leftists say if Trump brought upon the chaos in Libya given their unanimous disapproval of Bush's incursion in Iraq. (Except from Christopher Hitchens). What would leftists say if Trump withdrew from Iraq and left the door open for unimaginable horrors. (Actually, that's what they always wanted, but it was still a F-ING DISASTER. LIKE PROBABLY ONE OF THE WORST F-ING THINGS TO HAPPEN THIS CENTURY). If I really racked my brains I could probably think of some more for you but I'm at work and felt I should probably respond in some way. Double standards are all part of the game. The point is, I don't feel Obama ever did anything of true significance. Other than present a modern face of America. And preharps that is significant. Anyway, I'm sure you're all good dudes. But I'm frustrated, even though I'm not from America, from my perspective, while it may seem nihilistic, I'm actually glad to see someone 'f-ing' with the system. And isn't it bizarre that people who hold these views align themselves to the Right these days... and not the left who would be the traditional home of rebels. Lefties are becoming very, very boring and it will probably be part of their undoing because so many of their followers are vain, vapid idiots. And so the vain, vapid idiots will drift to the right instead. The pendulum swings and swings. All the best.

I consider myself a moderate - but I'm more in Wrecker's camp in that I'm deeply uncomfortable with the group think that pervades the left - that there are these new prescribed opinions that we mus hold. Most of you may think that consensus preached by the political elites is better than alternatives; that it does more good than harm and that's fine. In some ways I agree with you, but I'm sick of watching careers ruined because of slight verbel missteps, I'm sick of watching rich, inner suburbs types or for that matter, Hollywood types pose as men and women of the people when they couldn't be further from that. I'm sick of feeling ashamed because I was born male and white. What I loved about Trump - and he is a massive [censored], there's no question about that. What I loved about Trump is that he showed how powerful it can be to ignore the authority of the political media, instead of backing down and looking shame faced, he stuck to his guns and never apologised. When Abbot reinstituted knighthoods and there was a massive backlash - one of the many hits he took that led to his downfall. If he took a leaf out of Trumps book and said... "Fu you. This is our history. It shouldn't have been removed to begin with. There are knighthoods conferred in Canada and Northern Europe and it's a great thing." Instead he was shamed out of his decision. and why would anyone follow you if you won't fight for the idea you came up with? I feel that this was the secret to Trump's success and a really signigicant development that others who's views aren't represented by the political left will learn from. He never backed down, in the face of insummountable NBC editorials or Twitter hashtags. (Except for when he made those dispariging comments about Ted Cruz's wife... but as I said... he's a [censored].) As for his policies, there was dog whistling of course, but while he carries on like an imbecile, he's turning things on their head and getting results. Jobs - a dialogue with North Korea. I look at Obama and I think, what the f did you actually do? It's like your presidency was just a massive American PR exercise. Obama... I like him. He was probably the president we needed after George Bush. And thank f it wasn't Hilary. Anyway, I love all you guys and value your thoughts about football and jazz and the like. But I wanted to put in my two cents. But upon looking over this disatribe, I see it's far more than two cents and I'm sorry for subjecting you to it.

Began a bit of a jazz odyssey last year. I found you sort of have to let the music wash over you rather than listen to actively like pop or rock. I also enjoyed going into record shops and picking up CD's without really knowing what I was going to find - just looking at the personnel and knowing who I liked. And there is really too much to every really get through. They were seriously prolific musicians back then. The first person I really looked into was Bill Evans - I was immediately drawn to the piano in Blue in Green on Miles Davis' Kind of Blue. (Bill Evans famously complained about the lack of credit for what was largely his composition. I believe in place of royalties, Davis offered him a $20 note he had in his wallet.) Evans was a chronic alcoholic and drug user, whose life was described as the "longest suicide note in history". Like a lot of white rappers these days (who are far less talented) he faced a lot of criticism from black audiences, who felt he was intruding on their own art form. But ultimately, he was one of the very greatest and distinctive jazz pianists from a golden era and made a very significant contribution.

Haha, I mean a little more complexity in the gameplay, not just flashing stumps and fireworks.

I agree - it would be nice if there was some added nuance, perhaps winning or losing a bonus point for a big win/loss. Still, I suppose there are games of footy that are over by half time. One other thing I'd like to see is a best of 3 final. Because it's such a short format, I think there's far more potential to get a result that doesn't reward the best team of the season, but I suppose all sports with a 'grand final' have that issue. First year, I've really taken an interest as well and I quite enjoy it - really benefits, like the A-league, from the novelty of the 'marquee player'. I still vastly prefer test cricket, but it has its place.

Yeah, I think he came in for the Sydney test and took some big wickets in the second innings. Those first two matches were probably the most frustrating games of cricket I’ve ever seen. Two extraordinary comebacks by South Africa...

I think it might have been against South Africa in Cape Town, 2009. From memory, the results of the series mirrored South Africa’s tour of Australia the previous year. Both home sides lost the first two tests and won the dead rubber.

From the MCC's Laws of Cricket - The act of making the catch shall start from the time when the ball in flight comes into contact with some part of a fielder’s person other than a protective helmet, and shall end when a fielder obtains complete control both over the ball and over his own movement. ... © the ball does not touch the ground even though the hand holding it does so in effecting the catch. I suppose this is where Gavaskar was coming from, but I'm sure there have been numerous instances of players taking diving catches when part of the ball has come into contact with the ground (a Symonds blinder comes to mind). It seems the only time a catch is ever referred to the third umpire is to check whether or not the ball had bounced before it was taken. It was an incredibly bitter test match. No doubt India were hard done by, but had it been the other way around, I think we all would have moved on fairly quickly. Although Ponting has never been renowned for his sportsmanship, he was widely praised for not making any exuses following our loss at Lords in 2009, despite 3 or 4 crucial decisions going against us (including a highly dubious catch by Strauss). I couldn't help but compare that to Kumble's petulant claim after the Sydney test match that "only one side was playing in the spirit of the game".

Out of interest, if the ball came in contact with the ground when he landed (which it doesn't appear to have done), would it be a legal catch? I only ask because I was watching a video the other day of Ponting taking a diving catch off Dhoni in the Sydney 2008 test. He controls the ball, but it touches the ground when he lands. Ponting appeals and the commentator (Gavaskar) basically calls him a cheat for doing so. It seems like a bit of a grey area.

I think it will too. One-day cricket lacks the prestige and significance of Test cricket, and has been surpassed as the hard-hitting, fast scoring form of the game by Twenty20. I have wondered if it was necessery as a bridge between Test and Twenty20, but I don't think so. It's become the mid-strength beer of cricket. I don't mind Twenty20, I think it has an important role in attracting people to cricket who may be otherwise put off by the idea of a 5 day game. Unfortunately, I've struggled to get behind the revamped Big Bash - I think it had more credibility when it was a state competition.

Ponting and Hussey bring up the 100 run partnership... who would have thought? I don't often say it, but the selectors have been bang on the money for this test match. Marsh has failed, but Hilfenhaus, Cowan, Ponting and Hussey have all made solid contributions.

I'm really glad both Warner and Marsh have been able to take their form in other forms of the game, and bring it to test cricket. The question is, where does this leave Watson? After years of debate, we finally have the opportunity to move him down the order, but I suppose it depends on how Clarke intends on using him in the bowling attack. I would move him, but for another reason. The middle order has been a problem for years now, and I think it would be fantastic if Watson was able to settle things at 6, and play the 'Mr Reliable' role. Hussey did this beautifully for the first part of his career, but at 36, a tough decision needs to be made. If it were up to me, the side would look something like this: Warner Marsh Khawaja Ponting Clarke Watson Haddin Siddle Pattinson Cummins Lyon

And the debutant scores the winnings runs. What an incredible finish! Well done to Ponting, Haddin and Johnson. Stood up under enormous pressure...

As stirring as the Perth win was, it was obviously wallpaper over the cracks. If we kept relying on Watson and Hussey, eventually we would be exposed - and we were. I supported their selection to begin with, but the inclusion of two youngsters in Hughes and Smith into our top six was a mistake, and made our batting lineup far weaker than it had been in Brisbane. With a faltering top order, we needed cool heads and players in form with the bat. With a Shield average of just 16.8, Hughes really shouldn't have been played (especially not against a side which knew how to target his weaknesses). As for Smith, at this stage he's just not strong enough with the bat or ball, as Titan had warned. In hindsight, I think two of D.Hussey, White, Marsh or Khawaja should have come in and Haurtiz should have kept his place at the expense of Hilfenhaus.

Well whatever the change, I do think Smith should come into calculations. Smith in for Doherty probably makes more sense – The argument that Doherty could at least play a containing role seems to have been dashed after the Adelaide test, so I don’t think we’d be losing anything, plus Smith can bat. I’m not entirely convinced by David Hussey. He’s in good form but he seems to have difficulty performing at the national level. He’s also 33 years old.

It's strange that our spin stocks are so low... You would think that the generation coming through would be full of Warne Wannabes. Hughes in for Katich Smith in for North Big question marks over Bollinger and Doherty.

The greatest difference Ive noticed in the Australia cricket team since the McGrath/Warne era is our inability to finish off the tail. There have been too many occasions over the past 2 years where weve been in strong winning positions only to throw away the game in the last 2 days. Remember South Africas tour in 2008/2009, when South Africa effortlessly chased down 414 in the 2nd innings at Perth? Then came Duminy and Steyns record partnership in Melbourne! In last years Cardiff test, we couldnt break a last wicket stand between Anderson and Panesar which ultimately cost us the series. Even in the first test agaist India we couldnt break the tail and allowed India ground out a win after Ishant Shrama survived 100 + balls. Weve just lost that killer instinct.