Nasher

Uh-oh, inconsistency!

My Football Club Effing Sucks - DA called it MFCMCS, but it's not specific to the MFC, all clubs have these types of supporters. These are the people that believe that everything and anything is wrong with the club and if there's nothing real to criticise, they just make stuff up. This one applies to all the people who were having a moan about our 90 point win against GC.

rpfc invented it I thought but you've got the definition right DA. It's also the "it's been bad for the last 40 years therefore it's going to be bad forever" mentality. Being convinced Tom Scully will leave when there's no evidence whatsoever to suggest he will is a function of MFCSS. Being upset over the side's dreadful performance on Thursday is a function of being a normal footy supporter and has nothing to do with MFCSS.

Ross Taylor's innings not worthy of comment from anyone?

Indeed - this was a good performance but you'd have to think that that was close to their absolute best, and there's no way you could say that for the Poms. I'm a fan of Ryan ten Doeschate (Tassie's own ) but he's not going to score a century every time and will need more support than a few cameos. That said, I hope they are able to keep it up - seeing the "Associate" teams put in some good performances is part of the appeal of the world cup for me.

Absolutely - what a lucky break (no pun intended) for him. Would've been some distance from the selectors minds at the start of the ODI series. Big endorsement for Ferguson, especially given the level of absolute class in Marsh's century in the ODI series. What probably hurt was the fact that Marsh did nothing at all when batting higher in the order where Ferguson looked solid, which is where he'd have been required for the WC. Looking forward to see how Australia go - don't think there's a hope in the world of us winning, but I'm expecting a competitive performance.

Deleted all the non-cricket related posts on the last page. Sick of seeing new posts in this thread only to be disappointed that they've got nothing to do with cricket. Pretty disappointing effort for a bunch of smart blokes who know their cricket.

It would be pretty funny. It's got to be Watto though doesn't it? He's our best ODI player by far IMO. Edit: Seems that it is Watto.

Anyone want to speculate the reasoning behind the Johnson promotion to four? I'm not that interested in the obvious - clearly it was because Clarke wanted a player who could continue the run rate as set by Watson. Clarke had White, Hussey, Smith and even himself who could play that role, so why Mitch? Trying to put myself in Clarke's head and work out why, perhaps it was because he knew that with such a large total there was a every chance Johnson would need to bat sooner or later and believed he was more likely to respond when just playing a role of building on a good start, rather than being responsible for the run chase later on in the innings? I don't know - that seems plausible, but seems a bit wishy-washy to justify such a risky move. Thoughts?

That's how I felt too. He looked in good nick - but he also got out to a poor shot. Good building blocks to a form reversal, though he's not off the hook yet. I really want Clarke to come good though so I'm not at all disappointed that he's being given a lot of time. WYL will be happy that Clarke put in the request to play some club cricket to find form, but was told no by CA. It shows that it's not a terrible idea - but I still agree with keeping him in the side. Speaking of bad shots, how about how Haddin got out? I nearly threw up.

I wondered that too (didn't see any comments if there were any). Thought if there was one thing anyone may've learned from this summer, is to write off Mike Hussey at one's own peril!

It's been a pretty interesting ODI series so far. In every game, at least one batsman has stood up, as has at least one bowler. In this form of the game you probably only really need one bloke to stand up, so as long as this keeps happening then we're still a chance to continue winning. It's nice to see some winning cricket anyway, after the dreadfully depressing Ashes series. Brett Lee is an interesting proposition at this stage of his career. He's bowling at around 140kph - I always thought during the peak of his career that if he stopped being able to bowl at 155kph he'd be next to useless, but it looks as if he's still capable of being a good enough bowler even without the speed. Good for him - I thought he was finished.

+1 for the "measuring a keeper's performance entirely on catches is crazy" team. Next we'll be measuring Jack Watts' performance this year solely by the number of marks he has taken.

Absolutely agree with everything else AoB has said. Especially regarding the phantom NSW bias, but you all already knew that

Watson's amazing ability to inexplicably get out when he's in good form is frustrating and his running between wickets is a worry. Really though, he's the least of our worries at the moment. He, Hussey, Haddin and perhaps Siddle are the only players whose spots in this side are safe at the moment.

The selectors have been perfectly clear that Smith is in the side for his potential as a batsman, that's why placing him at 8 defies logic. I'm not sure how this couldn't be clear actually. He's batting at six, didn't bowl a ball in Perth and bowled 18 overs when the quicks all bowled more than 25 in this test. A specialist spinner would've bowled a shirtload of overs today I'd have thought.

You'll be able to tell your grandchildren that you were there, in person, to witness one of the most humiliating Ashes loses of all time. Awesome!

Rain? Four days of heavy rain? Please?

Hayden.

You'd bet your house on Watson making a 50 and not going on with it. Still, i'll happily settle for an opener that consistently scores 50s, which Watson clearly does. Have I mentioned that I love Mike Hussey?

Mitch switched on with the bat. Could this mean he's also going to be switched on with the ball? Let's bloody well hope so, because otherwise there's no reason to keep watching/following this Test. Also, I love Mike Hussey. Wish he'd gone on though.

I don't quite follow why you've got it in for Hilfenhaus but can't understand why Siddle is in the gun. I think your judgement has been clouded by one handy innings and a Victorian bias. In my eyes, both Siddle and Hilfenhaus are pie chuckers (at the moment, anyway) and both will get raped and pillaged by the pommy bats. It doesn't really matter which one you pick. Either way, it is all a bit ho-hum. Bollinger, Siddle, Hilfy, Johnson - who cares, can't see any combination of those blokes taking 20 wickets, especially when coupled with Harris and the obscure Beer.

That sounds like it might be worth keeping an eye on. Cripes, I'm dreading this next Ashes Test. Reminds me of the feeling of seeing Geelong coming up on the draw circa 2008; where not watching doesn't feel right, so all you can do is brace yourself because you know it's going to hurt. Urgh.

Yeah, there was a Dean Jones written article in The Age yesterday about the same era, saying the same thing.

AoB's post made me rethink my position too. If you take it for a given that these Ashes are gone, then he's absolutely spot on: cut our losses and start formulating a side ready to get the bloody things back next time. With a moment of quiet reflection, I agree that that's what's in order. I don't think our current side is in any condition to salvage these ones. The Poms batsmen and Anderson are just too red hot and this is the worst Australian Test side I've ever seen (too young to remember the early-mid 80s). I'm not normally a fan of flying the white flag (and I can hear WYL turning in his UFO as he hurtles towards this thread), but I think one has to recognise when one is in a completely hopeless situation and act accordingly. I guess the sticking point is whether or not you believe these Ashes are already lost or not.