DeeSpencer

Next Aussies summer: Warner ?????? Smith Clarke ?????? M Marsh/Faulkner/Watson Nevill Johnson Starc/Cummings Hazlewood/Pattinson Fawad/Lyon Big chance for Shaun Marsh or Voges to secure the middle order spot now before next summer. The next opener is a fascinating proposition as well. Joe Burns is presumably still in the picture. Hopefully our man Peter Handscomb is as well.

For the West Indies: Rogers Warner Smith - still not sure on him at 3 with his technique, I'd prefer him at 4 Clarke S. Marsh - Voges has the form, but S Marsh has the incumbent spot. He made 99 in Melb and 73 in Sydney Watson - he's an allrounder at test level and should bat at 6 until (if ever) he proves he can bat at the top 5 Haddin Johnson Starc Hazlewood Lyon For the Ashes just swap either Hazlewood or Starc out for Harris. If Watson is bowling well enough to be the 3rd seamer or if M Marsh gets his spot at 6 for that same reason I hope we are brave enough at some stage to play the leg spinner. He's got the ability to win test matches that Lyon doesn't.

Batting: The Kiwi's rely on McCullum to fire up the innings. After that Williamson is the class. Guptill, Taylor, Elliott, Anderson, Ronchi and Vettori give them batting all the way down to 8. They probably don't have the huge hitting that we do, but Anderson can smack it. I certainly think there are 2 big wickets and from there it's a matter of restricting the rest. Obviously if McCullum goes berserk they could score anything, but really I think there are 320 team at best. Bowling: 3 absolute guns - Boult, Southee and Vettori. And they complement each other. Boult's a star up first. Southee is dangerous throughout and Vettori can put the brakes on whenever he's needed. Only saw this Henry guy v SA, but they had 2 class options on the bench and chose him instead. He looks solid and dependable. Anderson is decent for an all rounder, but hitable. They don't have a clear 6th option, Elliott or Williamson should both go if they get called upon. Aussie's advantage: Power hitting - Watson, Maxwell, Haddin, Faulkner, Johnson can all smack it better than probably anyone but Anderson 6th bowler - with 3 all rounders we have versatility and can bank Johnson, Faulkner and most importantly Starc for big moments, the Kiwi's bowl Boult out and keep on to Southee meaning the 4th and 5th bowler often play important roles Home ground advantage Kiwi's advantage World class spinner to tie us down More reliable big hitter from the top - McCullum has been better than Finch and Warner The Kiwi's have to win it in the first 10 overs of each innings I think. If they make 1-70 from 10 they can put up or chase a big score. Similarly if they bowl and get us 3-30 again they'll have a huge advantage. The longer innings go the more chance our flexible bowling options make a difference and the more likely our big hitting does more damage.

Goes hunting for wickets and is worried about economy. I think he's never been secure on a test team and hasn't played enough shield cricket to have full faith in his ability, either that or he gets guys out too easily the next level down. Wait until he's picked for the first test in a series and backed in the entire way. He'll find his confidence and bowl like he does in ODIs. Only problem is for now when Harris and Johnson are fit he's still going to be competing with Hazlewood for a test team and Hazlewood has bowled beautifully these last two games at least at the start of innings.

2 weeks and no reply might be enough to answer your question. Access to the NBA on TV has killed it. No point going to watch D graders when you can tune in to the worlds best on ESPN/league pass etc.

Let's also be honest, props are often the fat kids or to be more kind the beefy kids. From my days of school rugby it would usually take a very serious preseason of running to turn from a prop to a good footballer.

Not necessarily a bad thing. Presumably he went through Auskick and learnt how to kick a footy with his old man. Probably got to high school age and was sick of everyone expecting him to be a gun at footy so turned to rugby. If he has the natural skills he could quickly play well at school or local level and make a shot at TAC for his under 18 year. With the new father son bidding proposal we don't really gain anything from a draft steal basis, but it's nice for the club and heritage to have father sons. With player movement becoming more common I think fans will appreciate the familiar names we hopefully run out with over the next few years.

I'd probably rather use pick 10 on him than not have a QB or to take a flier on anyone after the top 2 this year. The question for the Eagles is what would pick 10 plus their first pick get them? It's not getting them pick 1 or pick 2 either. They'll likely need to add next years first as well. Plus I don't think we've got a read on Mariota and Winston definitively being the first 2 picks.

This sums up my thoughts on the play: https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/02/02/analysis-notebook-super-bowl-xlix-that-play/ Not saying it was the right play. But I think it's ignorant of some of the top NFL minds if they feed the public with the idea that it was some kind of grossly stupid play that was always destined to fail. Smart preparation by the Pats, a super play the young corner and maybe even some luck made the play happen. Who knows, maybe the corner wasn't even meant to break on the slant so hard and got lucky that it wasn't a fake and the WR didn't catch the ball in 10m of space by himself after he faked in and ran out. That's one of the great things about the NFL and I think it applies to the AFL as well, particularly a Paul Roos team. Disciplined defense will only get you so far and some times it's the player who has the courage to commit to instinct who wins the day. I want to see more of that from our defenders this year.

He's managed to get his media company set up over there. Who knows what they are doing. But he's obviously found a media pass as well. It's ridiculous how many people they let on the field after the game and the presentation is just a mess. The grand final does it much better! Russell Wilson's pass was the 109th time a QB has passed from the 1 yard line this year and the first to be intercepted. Marshawn Lynch is 1 from 5 from the 1 yard line this year.

Offense difference makers: Russ Wilson, Lynch, Russ Okung (LT), Unger © Defense difference makers: Earl Thomas, Sherman, Bennett, Chancellor, Avril, Mebane, KJ Wright, Bobby Wagner Of that list they've signed most of the key defensive starters long term. It's at least half a defense of champions signed up. Bobby Wagner is the big one they'll need to get and will be hard to fit in. He's looming as the cap casualty. Wilson will get his 18-20 mil maybe with a little discount or flexibility at least. Lynch will probably get 1-2 mil extra tapped on for next year after he holds out. They'll be cool with that. But I don't expect he'll be back for the next year (ie 2016). He'll be the wrong side of 30. Their ability to stay as a good to great offense will depend on finding a superstar to replace Lynch, but it doesn't matter if it's a WR, TE or RB. The best QB's only need 1 star guy to take focus and perform and then they can work with a cast of bums if coached up efficiently. Edelman was the best WR out there today. I think that's a message that the smart guys in this league aren't overspending on receivers. The SeaHawks already spent a 2nd round pick on a good young guy last year to groom up. I think these teams proved that WR's are overrated. Heck a guy on debut had 100 yards on his first ever 3 catches! What they have is a luxury of young quality signed up for their prime. They'll have to keep drafting and developing to stay at the top once Wilson's contract comes in. But I think they already know that and they'll follow the Pats lead - pay the QB, pay the defensive superstars if you have them and pay at least 1 offensive superstar (Gronk v Lynch) and don't waste money on receivers and running backs otherwise.

I know. I'd have gone Lynch as well. But he's just had a run. You change it up, get them off guard and complete it and if not he's there for the 3rd and 4th down plays. An incomplete pass stops the clock as well so you can design your run play and communicate it. So it was silly, but I can do without the exaggeration. If it was a play in which Wilson was sacked and fumbled or threw it deep in the end zone through traffic and was picked then I'd say it was completely stupid, but watching it I could see why they went for it. They targeted the 3rd string undrafted corner and everything, wasn't 1 on 1 v Revis. Belichick is never going to say anything controversial so he avoided saying anything than it was a goal line play. I'll wait and see what Carroll says.

If there was a way that Seattle lost the game (besides from the execution of one play) I think it was they took Green Bay's offensive attitude from last week and used it as their defensive game plan. They played deep coverage bend and don't break and sat back whilst Brady went 3-7 yards at a time with underneath throws and then completions to Gronk v a linebacker. I know losing the corner hurt, but it's still the legion of boom out there. If your secondary and pass rush are your strengths then you can't just sit there whilst the other team picks off small gains on quick throws over and over against your linebackers. Brady is 37. He hasn't thrown an accurate deep ball in years and doesn't have a deep ball receiver of quality anyway. Surely at some stage you have to press up and try to stop these small passes. Seattle had the opportunity when up 10 points to go hard on defense. Big quarterback pressures and hits. Jam the receivers at the line. If they conceded a big deep play or a clever catch and run from Gronk or Edelman then so be it. Instead they just sat back time and again. Really annoyed me. You could see them playing in to Brady's hands. Whilst he was good and is a special player it doesn't make sense.

I don't hate it too much. It's a game of chess out there. Everyone will be teeing off on the Lynch run, so you throw what is usually a safe quick slant that most times is either caught or deflected down. A clean slant like that, how often is it picked off? An amazing play by the corner. Lynch is human, so possibly against a stacked box he fumbles or is tackled for a loss of 2 yards and then you have 3rd and 3 and can't run it with confidence.

1) Yes. He's had a poor season but such is the nature of t20. No qualms on his leadership and his a solid tactician. 2) Yes. The big bash stepped up a long way. He isn't a regular international and we have one batting international already. Spend the spot on an elite bowler if possible 3) Who knows. I don't know how the salary cap situation works with guys likely to play ODI's. As long as you know what you're getting I'd still be keen to keep them. 4) Probably not. Particularly Quiney and Huss, they are solid veterans who likely don't break the bank. David Hussey can be the finisher, rebuilder and bowl handy overs, they missed him tonight. Quiney is probably a depth batter I'd suggest. Had he won them the game in Brisbane that he nearly did with tremendous finishing I think we'd have hosted the semi and likely won it. McKay seems to have lost a yard of pace and deception with his stock ball that never looked great but was very effective. But his slower balls worked well tonight. Really I'd get an elite bowler in to go with Hastings/Bird/Beer so that you've got 4 very good bowlers who all offer something different. Then I'd have more competition for the 4th bowling option and all rounders. It would leave you skinny with batting but I'd expect White, Stoinis, Handscomb, Hussey and Quiney to offer more next year with uninterrupted campaigns. Next years line up: White Stoinis Pietersen Hussey Maxwell/Quiney Handscomb Falkner/Boland/McKay/extra batsmen/Triffit keeping depending on circumstances Hastings International bowler Bird Beer

Amazing win. Love the way he feeds off the crowd and expresses his emotions. Got to keep going for it even when it doesn't work. His serve looks world class. Particularly for a 19 year old. So when he fills out and gets the body fine tuned it will be a weapon. And he's strong enough on backhand, forehand and volleys with both the power needed and the athleticism. But it's not skills that make champions it's heart and mindset. Experience helps as well and he got so much tonight! Watching Murray v Dimitrov those guys are probably a step too far for Kyrgios to beat regularly right now. But the definitive list of guys I wouldn't give Kyrgios a serious show against probably stretches to about the top 10 and that's it. With a few more results he'll push in to the top 30 which means seedings and regular grand slam draws to get through to the 3rd and 4th rounds and the more of them you stay in the more you get used to competing with the guys at the pointy end. I'm certainly along for the ride. And I still expect Tomic to produce some good tournaments at some stage. Don't mind Kokkinakis either! Keen to see Sam Groth at Wimbledon serving bullets on the grass!

Moving on McCarthy would be ballsy. I wonder what Rodgers opinion is of him. Not right now, but in the middle of winning streak. Moving on Dom Capers might be better. From the outside his level of support amongst GB and NFL fans wavers. He did a better job this year and I like where your secondary is heading and he made your run defense better this year. Plus after years and years of status quo he made a move on AJ Hawk. From watching the horribly bad Bears defenses the last two years I reckon you can tell a lot from inside linebackers. I think to be a star defensive linemen or star defensive back you need a heap of talent. Coaching, scheme, talent around you etc can and does help, but I feel it takes special athletes at those spot. Of course to be a truly special linebacker like Keuchly or Bobby Wagner or someone of that like you need to be great as well. But to be a standard linebacker I think you need a bit of athleticism, some smarts but really just a good scheme and coaching will get you have way there. If these days running backs are dime a dozen in some ways by default it means two down inside linebackers can be as well. And every year good ones are plucked from late in the draft and put in to good schemes and do very well. So when I see poor play from inside linebackers it makes me question the quality of the coaching. Anyway, it will be interesting to see how close the superbowl is. Last year the real grand final turned out to be the NFC championship game. This year the NFC has had some weaker teams in the bottom of the NFC North and East, as well as the debacle that is the NFC South but still a strong West. The AFC East and West (Oakland aside) were solid, the AFC North all had solid records but lined up against the NFC South for 4 free kicks each. The AFC South turned out 2 mid level teams (sorry Colts) and 2 battlers. Dallas, Detroit and maybe Arizona with a first string QB were probably all teams who could call themselves solid play off teams. I don't really know what to make of the Colts and Broncos but you can't really ignore their entire seasons just for a bad loss each, though they seem to me like deceptive cats more than horses! Baltimore are sleeping giants that only wake in January. Overall I wouldn't say their was a clear gap in the two conferences and we should be in for a great superbowl. I'm thinking a tight defensive battle as Seattle shut down Gronk and restrict the Pats running game whilst the Pats restrict Lynch and blanket Wilson. But I reckon it will be a 2 minute drill to win it. Just not sure whether it will be Brady or Wilson steering it in.

But it's 16-0 at the half, partly thanks to the SeaHawks themselves going for a big 3rd down TD, getting picked and not getting the 3 points because of the scoreboard pressure you applied. The Pats are the best team in football due to the Patriot way, which in short is by doing what you need to win and not holding fast to a stereotype. So I really think you're over critical of a change in game plan that worked for a half. The first field goal you had 3 goes from inside 7 and didn't get there. I understand taking the points. The second field goal gave Rodgers two goes and he got to the 1. I would've gone for it from there. But 5 minutes later you get a TD! So it might have been 10-0 but then no touchdown. Again by this stage it's 13-0. The third field goal - In hindsight I go for it at 4 and 1 from your 22, but if you don't convert then it's 13-0 and on the next drive Wilson checks it down at 3 and 8, the convert the field goal and it's 13-3 at half time not 16-0. I'd be annoyed in hindsight. But it's probably the 3rd field goal that would really give me grief and I'm still thinking it's 16-0 at half time despite Rodgers throwing two picks. At 19-7 I think that was the time to say ok if they get the ball back they're looking at an onside kick either way to get the two scores. What does it matter if they have 5 minutes or 3 minutes. In fact you throw the ball it gives you more time to have more plays on offense. These are the two series that I would have regrets about: Green Bay Packers at 06:53 1-10-GB 13(6:53) (Shotgun) 44-J.Starks right end to GB 14 for 1 yard (50-K.Wright). 2-9-GB 14(6:09) (Shotgun) 44-J.Starks up the middle to GB 19 for 5 yards (50-K.Wright). 3-4-GB 19(5:26) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers pass incomplete short right to 81-A.Quarless (50-K.Wright). 4-4-GB 19(5:22) 8-T.Masthay punts 37 yards to SEA 44, Center-61-B.Goode. 19-B.Walters to SEA 46 for 2 yards (31-D.House; 86-B.Bostick). Green Bay Packers at 05:04 1-10-GB 43(5:04) (Shotgun) 27-E.Lacy left tackle to GB 39 for -4 yards (94-K.Williams). Timeout #1 by SEA at 04:57. 2-14-GB 39(4:57) (Shotgun) 27-E.Lacy left tackle to GB 37 for -2 yards (72-M.Bennett). Timeout #2 by SEA at 04:50. 3-16-GB 37(4:50) (Shotgun) 27-E.Lacy up the middle to GB 39 for 2 yards (54-B.Wagner; 72-M.Bennett). 4-14-GB 39(4:00) 8-T.Masthay punts 30 yards to SEA 31, Center-61-B.Goode, out of bounds. The first series kind of worked, 2 runs to get in to a 3rd and manageable that Rodgers then converts because he's Aaron Rodgers right. But even the throw is short when the defense was all up trying to get a huge stop. I guess Rodgers' mobility might've factored in but I'm thinking you have to get Nelson or Cobb involved and play to your QB's strength which is brilliant throws to WR's who always find the soft open spot, not a quick pass to a back up TE. The second series of runs are really just killing time outs. The 3rd play is oh crap we now have 3 and 16 so we can't throw it anyway but that's where I think you look for a screen because a run up the middle in to a 9 man box with the Seattle defense just won cut it. At least some kind of funky screen might have given you a chance. You could even target Sherman because at this stage I don't think he was moving his left arm at all so he's not going to come flying in to bust up a screen. Not sure on Earl Thomas and his shoulder either. Maybe the runs and time outs forced the onside kick. But if you do 1 run and 2 passes even if they are incomplete you are still kill some time. They take over at 4;30 with maybe 1 more time out, but then maybe they run the ball a bit more knowing they have time to score twice without rushing. They went the onside kick with 2 minutes left. Even if they had 2:30 or 3 minutes left I'm still taking the onside kick because I'm scared of giving the ball back to Rodgers who never gives it back to me. IT's all in hindsight and comes back to 'don't fumble the onside kick'!!! But still it's those last two series that would annoy me more than the points left on the field in the first half. I'll say one more thing as well. The miraculous come back from Seattle does deflect from the stupid overtime rules. I feel robbed that we didn't get a college style over time with both teams having shots from the 40. Lets be honest, with the lack of big plays these days we don't watch games for special team kick offs. Nor do we want to see just one half of the game in overtime. Wilson/Lynch at one end punching it in from the 40 and Rodgers going for it on all downs to get the tying score from the other is what the game deserved. I don't feel like it's unfair on Green Bay so much, I mean play good defense and you get the stop, I just think it's unfair for the fans!

It's harsh to call McCarthy a bad coach. I know I'd love a superbowl winning coach who also developed the best QB in the game. But I get the feeling he's far from perfect. I think some of it stems from him being the play caller. I don't know the stats but I just don't like head coaches calling plays. It's hard to hire an offensive genius without them then calling the plays as head coach, maybe Belichick's got it right. Hire Josh McDaniels, get him to flame out in Denver then come crawling back with a point to prove, but due to Pats coaches failing once they leave the nest no one wants him for another shot! The reason's for Green Bay losing I'd summarise as this: - 80% luck - we've got the onside kick, the crazy 2 point conversion that had no right to land in a receivers lap and the coin toss just to name a few. An unbelievable sequence - 5% on the poor guy who muffed the onside kick - 5% on the Packers defense and special teams, both who have been great for most of the game giving up big plays late And getting back to where I started: - 10% on McCarthy's play calling in the second half. You've got Aaron Rodgers! Yes I know you want to kill the clock but run, run, run, punt with Eddie Lacy whilst Rodgers is there doesn't get the game wrapped up. Nor was there any big play attempts. I know all about Seattle's secondary but you have to give up one play to try for 40 yards deep to Nelson or Cobb right???

Not surprised the Packers are winning. But wow the margin. Kind of surprised that Seattle have picked Rodgers twice but still conceded 16 points. Not really shocked that the SeaHawks offense is battling, I think they've battled for most of the year compared to last year and really have come good more later in games. But 3 picks and 0 points is again a surprise. I thought last drive was their drive to get 7 and back in to it. But this is looking ugly.

I think a number of factors that meant he didn't have the trust in the GM and/or of the owner. Reports were: - He wasn't happy that they gave away this years first round pick for Sammy Watkins - Wasn't happy that they signed Orton - which helped him win short term but long term now their are bigger doubts on EJ Manuel Then there's whatever they did recently where Bill Polian was coming in to be some kind of adviser above the GM and then didn't. And of course Orton retired as well. Pretty much he'd have a good defense but such a troubling relationship with the GM and also no real idea what level of play he'd have at QB. They are 2 very negative factors for success. Instead he took a 4 million dollar pay out and a shot at being head coach somewhere, which it now looks like wont happen.

I don't think they trust Keath. Better to have a strong 5 bowlers and hope you don't have to chase a big total than have 4 bowlers and gift the team 4 overs for 40 runs is probably the theory. That said Hastings isn't the worst number 7 and Boland not the worst number 8 either. Adelaide and Perth don't bat deep either and are leading the ladder. It seems it's a bit like baseball in that good pitching will beat superstar batting, but also like baseball you need consistent hitting from your top bats even if it's not flashy. Graft to 150-160 and bowl well seems to be the model to win most games. I thought the Thunder were really weak last night with how slowly they went at 3 down. Ok 3 for 9 is a big whole. But you rarely win by then going slowly and trying to set 110. The bowlers can block it for 4 and over. So hit out or get out and try to resurrect the innings and make 140.

But that's the thing. The Bills are now owned by Terry Pegula, the patron saint of Buffalo. They aren't going anywhere and the other owners won't force them to move. Not unless they want a fracking well in their stadium. Defense is back in vogue to an extent right now, but it's still a QB league, you only have to look at the playoff QBs this year. I get the feeling Rex took the Bills job so he can have a super strong defense and a middling offense and can turn that in to a few successful seasons. He can probably make the playoffs again with that formula and therefore stick around in the job for many years. If he took Atlanta he'd have to create the entire defense from a fresh start and could be out of a job by the time they improved. Rex is undoubtedly a good defensive coach, but so much of his success at the Jets came from Revis, first round picks on D-Line guys like Wilkerson and Richardson, free agent linebacker signings back in the day and so on. I think both Rex and the Bills took the easy road.

I know the finals now come quickly, but I would've preferred that Ange rested guys for the Oman game and started Cahill and co v Korea. Oh well. We have to be good enough to beat China. Then it will be Japan first then someone else instead of maybe the other way. The biggest same is apparently if we beat China we are set to play Japan in Newcastle, which is such a shame for fans because that game deserves a bigger stadium or a bigger city (think Newcastle stadium is slightly bigger capacity than Melbourne but lets be honest Melbourne would do it better!).

Dimitroff in Fed and Murray's side of the draw. If he's in form this could be the year he beats both of them and makes it through to the semi at least. I like Nadal over Berdych as long as Rafa is fit he's too mentally strong. Stan gets a pretty strong draw to get back to the semi's. Can't see the Djoker being trouble by Raonic. The unseeded Del Potro or Gael Monfils might cause more trouble in that quarter. Those latter two could have a heck of a second round match.