Nasher

In retrospect (to my post) I think you're right.

I don't know that I can be bothered writing a thesis on this like everyone else, because I think the selections speak for themselves. I probably would've selected David Hussey instead of Smith and I know nothing about this Beer bloke, but really, none of this impacts on the main point: We are going to get completely rogered in this Test. I don't think any other combinations of average players would change that.

Precisely.

Don't know - I reckon it's a fair question. There are always players on the list who can do absolutely no right in the eyes of supporters on the forums; get slagged when it isn't deserved and don't get the credit when it is deserved. So it is with a roll of the eyes and an audible groan that I suggest that #6 will bear the brunt if it from the numpties this year.

I felt that way after reading that article too. Seems that besides some cobwebs to be blown out, there will be nothing stopping him from reaching his best form - career best if the stars really line up, given his age. This news just seems to get better and better really. Edit: Seems to be completely at odds with what's coming out of the Hawthorn camp (quotes from Pelchin et al) re: Campbell's knee. Still, even if the MFCSS's worst nightmare happens and his knee is a complete bust, I'm still very happy that we've given it a shot.

No you haven't. We end up on the same side of the argument 99.9% of the time.

Cleaned the thread, I'd be nice if we could refrain from derailing good topics with personal slanging matches - ta.

What online community do you own? Btw, if I were a member of your community, I wouldn't like you saying you "own" me.

Best of luck TMac.

Indeed - I took it to mean "does everything okay without doing anything particularly well or poorly. It does read funny on paper though.

If I were an English selector I wouldn't care about that. Since the first innings of the first Test, the Australians have shown that, they are completely incapable of getting anywhere near the English tail. I'd be backing the batsmen in and just picking the next best bowler.

Indeed - I thought the reason he gave it away in the first place was because his body was cactus. It's a good pick I think - risking nothing as the draft had already been well and truly pillaged by this point, so there would not be much quality after. Already proven he can play, the only big question is his body. The last few picks were always going to be used on mature players.

This certainly came from left field. No complaints from me though.

As was I DD - I joined Demonland (and Demonology) during the 2003 season - I was 19 during that season. It was a down season, so it was an interesting time to join. Seems like an age ago, actually. On a side note, I just had a look at Demonland from 2002 on Archive.org. There was a thread on there from ASHO (aka JUMPING JACK CLENNETT) bemoaning the point kick-ins. Some things never change!

Isn't it obvious 45? He's supposed tolead the side from the sidelines.

I don't see the relevance.

The one thing that goes in the favour of players like Thorp is that we're up to our eyeballs in rookie draft picks. 6 picks when the draft went very deep means the cupboard will surely be absolutely bare by the time we get to our last couple. It could be that we'll take someone like Thorp simply because there's nobody else left worth taking.

Ryan Harris is currently the best bowler in the country.

Heard a rumour that Hilfenhaus's omission from the side is considered permanent. The rumour goes that Greg Chappell believes Hilfenhaus has had an extended run in the side, and has proven that he is unable to take enough wickets at Test level, and therefore will not be considered for future Tests. Source is only of moderate credibility, so take this with all appropriate grains of salt.

Not real good apparently, gone for 2. Three wickets for two runs. Won't make double figures at this rate.

Katich out without facing a ball, Ponting out for a golden duck. Cracking start that

As per article: http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/105876/default.aspx Executive summary (changes only): 7 Jamie Bennell 21 Lucas Cook 38 Jeremy Howe 41 Troy Davis 43 Tom McDonald 11, 17, 23, 25, 26, 30, 32 unfilled. Full list: 1 Matthew Warnock 2 Nathan Jones 3 Clint Bartram 4 Jack Watts 5 Jordan Gysberts 6 Matthew Bate 7 Jamie Bennell 8 James Frawley 9 Jack Trengove 10 Cale Morton 12 Colin Sylvia 13 Jordie McKenzie 14 Lynden Dunn 15 Ricky Petterd 16 Jack Grimes 18 Brad Green 19 Addam Maric 20 Colin Garland 21 Lucas Cook 22 Brent Moloney 24 Liam Jurrah 27 Jared Rivers 28 Joel Macdonald 29 Michael Newton 31 Tom Scully 33 Austin Wonaeamirri 34 Stefan Martin 35 Luke Tapscott 36 Aaron Davey 37 Max Gawn 38 Jeremy Howe 39 Neville Jetta 40 Mark Jamar 41 Troy Davis 42 Jake Spencer 43 Tom McDonald 44 Rohan Bail 46 Sam Blease 47 James Strauss 48 Jack Fitzpatrick

Not to rain on your parade, but Clint definitely made it.

Absolute bargain; nice one. "We couldn't believe he was still there..." Nice game btw.

The real theme is that our highest draft picks have been given numbers that are relevant to our history. Watts was given 4 with a Norm Smith theme behind it, Trengove 9 for Neitz, and Scully 31 for Barassi. Just to further debunk your theory, last year our earliest available number was 5, which went to our third pick in Gysberts.