wisedog

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.