Rogue

It has nothing to do with whether Garland's playing ability - if you check out my post history you'll see I'm a fan. I'm suggesting it's surprising because I bet if I went through threads about captaincy/leadership on here Garland's name would be way down the list of nominees. As CB said, he's not a Moloney-type that many people on Demonland expected to be in the leadership group.

Fwiw I agree with Nasher, Thomo, BRFE, etc etc. Less is more when it comes to separate boards and the like. If the worry is that the threads about training are derailed by broader discussion the answer is to apply stricter 'on topic' moderation in those threads. I completely agree re: the blurred line concern. Moderator chaos and really, really unfriendly for users. I bet that I can pop up some scenarios in the moderator forum and get nothing like a consensus; and I'm not talking borderline cases, I'm talking events likely to occur many times. If there's a match thread and I discuss X player's performance in that match then that might be approrpiate. How about a follow-up about X's performance in a match reflecting a trend over a season/career? If someone wants to reply that X could have been tried in a different position in that match I assume it's on-topic, but if they reply with a post about how X should be tried in a different position in the next match suddenly it's off-topic and should be continued in an entirely different forum? Hrm... Massive indeed. Clear lines of separation, and enough usage to warrant the separation.

We've certainly embraced the young leaders. Trengove and Grimes would have been favourites if not for their age (and with Grimes, injury concerns) and I like that we've been bold enough to pick them; co-captaincy should ease the burden of non-football commitments that come with captaining an AFL team. Bartram and Garland are a little surprising as leadership group members, but they both fight hard. It's a trait shared by all the leaders, and not surprising given Neeld's attitude (what I know of it, anyway) to footy. It's probably not much of a surprise that at least three of the four 2011 leaders that have been effectively demoted - Davey, Rivers and Green (Moloney the other) - are all part of the 'old guard' that many on here have lacked leadership. I do feel sympathy for Green though, dumped not only from the captaincy but from the leadership entirely; whether or not it's deserved, it'd be a tough thing for him personally.

Why don't you think he's capable? I'd get what you meant if you'd said that he hasn't proven himself capable, which is what I thought you were might originally have meant.

I (think I) get what you mean, but that's an odd choice of words.

Even if Paine was going to come straight into the side, I don't see a problem with this. Wade gets experience that'll be good for him regardless of what happens after the Windies tour. However, it'd be silly to assume Paine will come straight into the side. That's a big call for most players, let alone a 27 year old who has played 4 Tests and averages 35 (31 over his first-class career). Stranger things have happened than Paine failing to find form, fitness or simply falling out of favour!

Unless we want to give Starc some game time/rest someone else then that's the obvious swap, yeah. I think we'll stick with Lyon for a little while, but it's still an important game for him.

When you open the field is up and the ball is hard. I reckon that's quite a good situation for Warner.

I'm going to guess that three have been appointed captain on a non-temporary basis; Dravid, Tendulkar and Dhoni. Sehwag (current VC) and Laxman may have stood in at times. I'm not sure there'd be anyone else.

Shah's always been a pretty good limited overs player.

In this situation everyone expects them to lose. Dravid's point is that the remaining batsmen should not be burdened by the pressure of having to bat for the best part of two days to have any hope of winning. I think it's a decent attitude to take at this stage of the game.

Weather: Today - Possible late shower. Tomorrow - Isolated early showers. Saturday - Partly cloudy. It looks like we should have plenty of time to bowl India out, but Hussey and Clarke are making the pitch look like a dream to bat on. The outfield seems pretty quick and we've hit 650 so far. Do we want to bowl at them tonight? What do we want as a lead? It currently stands at 459.

Any inner D'land smirk when our tail piled on some runs in the morning? I'm pretty sure I've even read quotes from Hilf admitting he had things to work on after he was dropped, and that he went away and improved his bowling.

If the above is true, it's disappointing Vince was even mentioned IMO.

Good to see some decent batting from our bowlers!

The imminent start of the season.

Why they were playing Pro40 or whatever they called it, I have no idea.

I reckon it has even less to do with Spencer's stocks if you're talking about list management, unless you think Gawn's likely to do his knee for a third time.

Congratulations, you're hired!

In his first season, at 18 years old, he picked up a Rising Star nom. In his second season, at 19 years old, Neitz played in the Victorian State of Origin team. In his third season, at 20 years old, he was again picked for Victoria and was also an All Australian. Spencer just moved up one position in the pecking order but he'll still need 1-2 injuries in order to break into the team.

I thought the consensus was that Scully was deserving of pick 1 (or 2).

Katman returns? Read more: http://www.theage.co...l#ixzz1gcX4FNSU

FWIW, we replaced our fitness guy and doctors.

Newtoooooooo! I can't see why you'd be dismayed. As others have said, Newton should do well for Norwood; he was a good VFL player for the last couple of years.

I'll just put this out there: Given that batting first is common wisdom, teams tend to bowl first only when the pitch is likely to favour bowling on day one. Therefore it's not that surprising to see a decent win/loss ratio when teams bowl first, because it's not the default position - they only do so when they think it's clearly advantageous.