Rogue

I don't think so. Have a listen to Prendergast on 'DeeTV' via the MFC website; he was was pretty explicit about the fact that our selections at this draft were shaped by the new Coach/game plan. All the players would have retired by now so it's pretty irrelevant to the current list. However, our list right now might have been pretty different and I think it's not only a reasonable discussion point, it's also interesting.

Ditto for Bruce; he may have felt like it was less likely that he'd be kicked to the curb for a young guy before his time.

He's missing two games.

Really, Nasher? More like this: Bob: Johnson adds batting depth to our lineup Demonland: We lose more with the ball than he makes up with the bat. Bob: Okay, forget naming names, our tail is long because none of our bowlers can bat. Demonland: Sure, but so what? You should choose bowlers for their bowling; the batsmen have the responsibility of making the majority of runs.

There's a point to be made about having a long tail but today's situation never would have happened had Johnson been playing. It probably would have been worse. I get where you're coming from, but you can't disentangle his batting from his bowling; if so, we may as well say that it'd be handy having D Hussey coming in at 8.

Sure, and there have been Presidents happy to have their Clubs merge and relocate. Fancy barracking for the Melbourne Hawks if we had more money in the bank, old dee? Nice hypothetical, though.

If I was President our name would not be for sale. (<- That's a full stop).

...and the 15+ extra runs we would have conceded had he been bowling for us? I agree with TU that you shouldn't be picking bowlers because they can bat a bit.

RPFC and JCB sitting in a tree...? (What they didn't know was that David Dunbar was the tree).

Our name is not for sale.

Would he have been handy on the preceding days of the game?

Good question. Given he doesn't miss many games, and they don't win many, I'm guessing it's a very, very long time.

WYL, we can call old dee 'Nev'.

Disappointing I'm not suggesting you rob a bank. However, if it sets you up for five years then so be it. Oh, right, I guess I am suggesting that! Seriously, you'd sell our name for a five year sponsorship? Wow.

I swear that didn't say maybe when I saw it

We're not there yet!

Most of us journey through life without thinking too often of the end. Sure, we know we won't live forever, but death is an event that will happen at some undetermined point somewhere in our future. Despite knowing we are mortal we push that fact to one side, blissfully ignorant of our death until it is upon us - or perhaps not at all. I struggle to comprehend what it must be like to be aware of your impending death, teetering on the edge for months, then years, and then months again. It sounds like Stynes has embraced the positive of this brush with mortality; the prioritising of what is really important, something most of us won't do until it is too late.

^ Yeah, Hughes poked at it. Jaques is unfortunate that he's been in a bit of a trough so far this season. The other forgotten opener, Rogers, is probably past it at 34 years old but he's in good form.

Hah.

I always knew I could be a commentator

Yeah. Siddle's opening the batting next Test.

They go up on the web 24 hours after Thursday's teams.

Just like all terrorist leaders are masterminds.

He really is a Johnson replacement! Well, well, well...

Is the NZ series over yet?