Rogue

'ENTER' stands for Equivalent National Tertiary Entrance Rank. It's a ranking used for entrance to tertiary education, primarily for school leavers. First, if you're not interested in entering tertiary education your rank is irrelevant. Second, there are plenty of alternative pathways if your ENTER doesn't allow you to gain access to a particular course. Fwiw, these include taking a couple of university units part-time (OUA has no ENTER requirements) or starting off with a Certificate or Diploma before entering a Degree. Furthermore, once you're classed as 'mature age' by universities (often this is 21 years) things like the STAT come into play, as well as personal statements, relevant work/life experience, etc. I believe the ENTER takes into account the entire population at a particular age, not just those who go on to complete high school. The average ENTER is in the mid-low 60's. I'd find a link for you but google is failing me (a bad workman always blames his tools ).

Truth. Absolutely. The idea that 'the game had passed him by' and so forth was a bit silly, given his strong performances in '08. However, his lack of match fitness meant he looked very, very slow in '09. From what I saw McLean certainly didn't spend most of '09 in the FP. In fact, he didn't even spend the majority of his time in the forward line. However, he did say he wasn't particularly happy with his roles, which included more negative midfield assignments. I think this might be an astute observation. He'd spot up a free man in the middle of the ground and have his attempt at 'centre-ing' the ball from out wide intercepted a little too often. The view that the worth of trading a player for a pick(s) should be based on the value of the pick, rather than the particular player chosen, is certainly one I subscribe to. It's a view I defended many times regarding the TJ/Grimes deal, particularly when Grimes was injured. There was an article in The Age about Sylvia earlier in the year that certainly indicates he's found himself in more trouble than that caused by the two incidents you've outlined. This is full of hyperbolic exaggeration. It may be true of your experiences but anecodotes aren't evidence. (Yes, Lewis came out re: the prevalence of drugs in the AFL).

Much appreciated.

I very much dislike the concept of a 'nightwatchman'.

Good point.

He played tall. It sounds like Hughes does the same.

The Clubs that are locked into the deal might need to conform, but I think Essendon went it alone.

Indeed.

I think the stats indicate that McGain deserves to be the next cab off the rank. I also agree that Smith's selection seems unwarranted. PS. Maybe you're remembering Smith from the Champions League 20/20 games?

To me it sounds like you're describing someone else I'm pretty sure Clarke got dropped because he kept getting caught attempting to hit through or over the in-field. While he's reined in his natural instincts a bit (bizarrely, in the case of ODI games), he still has a penchant for hitting in the air. I wouldn't be so harsh - my opinion is a middle-ground between the views you and H_T have put forward. Yesm that's what's been mentioned by numerous journalists and players (which is what I was trying to communicate). The key phrase in my sentence was used to. He hasn't played any T20 games either. Oops You also said Smith is seen as a future prospect but more of a batsman. I contend that White fits that bill (and he has great ODI form, which apparently matters more than Shield). Most states would have a better spinner than Smith is at the moment. Krejza and McGain are the two that spring to mind, given they've played a couple of Tests. Shield wickets @ average this season (career average) for selected spinners (and some part-time spinners): Adam Voges 4 @ 26 (35) //has represented Australia in 7 ODIs and 4 T20's from 2007 to 2009 Steve O'Keefe 3 @ 34 (33) Bryce McGain 13 @ 34 (36) //represented Australia in 1 Test 2008 Beau Casson 2 @ 35 (43) //represented Australia in 1 Test 2008 Dan Marsh 5 @ 35 (45) Marcus North 8 @ 35 (42) //season figures includes Tests Aaron O'Brien 12 @ 42 (50) Steven Smith 3 @ 45 (75) Jason Krezja 13 @ 47 (48) //represented Australia in 2 Tests 2008 Cullen Bailey 5 @ 50 (44) //2007-08 CA contract Fwiw, here are the 'list-A' wickets and averages of some spinners this season (and some part-time spinners): Chris Simpson 8 @ 30 Bryce McGain 4 @ 33 Aaron O'Brien 6 @ 34 Aaron Heal 6 @ 34 Marcus North 3 @ 37 Steven Smith 7 @ 38 Jason Krezja 3 @ 72 Yes, very odd (and dangerous).

Everyone makes mistakes, and getting caught is the risk you take for playing the aerial game. Think about how often Clarke was caught earlier in his career when trying to hit over the off-side in-field.

'I'll hit this over the top'. He hits in the air - that's his game. He got one today. If you suggest he's playing for his future it seems he's done. However, I thought he not only made runs but also looked decent at the crease, so I'd retain him for the next series and see whether he's turned the corner or is yesterday was an abberation. It used to be a fast bowler's strip. Most comments about the pitch I've heard have mentioned this. In fact, it's been the topic of a few interviews/articles. I'm not sure what your point is here. Smith has played zero ODI games. (Say hi to a guy called Cam). There are plenty who should be "in the selectors eyes" before Smith. *three pace bowlers

Maybe you are To me, their thinking is virtually impenetrable. For sure - I think this is a fair assumption to make. Everyone's happy except the host of spinners that feel they should be in front of Smith in the pecking order! Surely the #2 coming in and playing well is a good thing for all (except perhaps Hauritz, in a selfish sense)? I don't think there'd be a huge amount of pressure on the selectors, given that Hauritz has done okay and no other spinner is knocking the door down (but plenty deserve to be chosen before Smith atm IMO). That said, if the selectors are making decisions to protect their reputations we're in more trouble than I thought. It'd be nice to have been a fly on the wall in selection meetings over the past year or so, wouldn't it? (Better to have been a selector, of course!) RE: SA v ENG - Pretty interesting game in SA. Interesting that England are going in with just three bowlers. I assume a batsman or two - Collingwood and perhaps KP - will roll the arm over at times.

In what way did he show he knows little about the Melb list? If you're referring to the comment re: Morton and Grimes, both played down back a fair bit in '09 - Grimes by design and Morton by necessity, following injuries (ie. Green). Btw, your personal attack is pretty poor form too... Nice call

I can't see the sense in that. If you felt playing any of our spinners was going to be dicey then why not play a fast or medium-pacer? Surely we wouldn't consider throwing a Smith to the wolves to protect a Krejza. Surely... :| I'm sure that's the plan, yeah. Anyway, moot point now

Probably more opportunity to get a chance at AFL level with Freo.

Selection is bordering on farce. Steven Smith has been drafted into the Test squad because there's an injury concern for Hauritz. As I said a long time back, I think we should decide on a group of players we think are good prospects and then stick with them. How many spinners have we churned through in recent times? It's madness (almost as mad as suggesting Smith and White play as our Test spinner).

Nice

As BB says, this is a strange comment. The impact on the AFL is not caused by 'someone [coming] along with a more popular product', it's someone coming along with a product and telling the AFL they have to take their product off the shelf for n time. EDIT: That's exactly the scenario that's being discussed, isn't it? Either the AFL must stop the competition for the duration of the World Cup plus time before and after the event, or the AFL can only stage games outside of the metro areas. Obviously you're aware that the AFL has stadium deals in place, but if the AFL doesn't agree to submit to the will of the World Cup bid the stadiums can apparently be 'taken over' anyway (refer Etihad). To return to the analogy used above, if FIFA/FFA aren't telling the AFL to take their product off the shelf and give the round ball game a free run, they're telling the AFL they can still sell their product - as long as they steer well clear of the big markets and utilise substandard showrooms.

I was thinking the same thing. The fact that many guys are having their first full pre-season in a while, and that Wonna looked pretty good, suggests we're doing something right. As for pre-season injuries, there are 40-odd players on a list. Chances are that some are going to be injured most of the time. I thought the points were very similar too. RE: RR, his posts reflect his own opinions unless otherwise stated (just like any mod).

It can, sure. (You can also experiment without tanking). Tanking is about intent. Experimentation is a tool you can use - it's a means to an end.

'Tanking' isn't limited to players.

I think this anecdote is more of an indictment on 'the experts' than it is on the ability to predict a team's fortunes. The 2007 'expert' predictions you refer to were lazy predictions. I thought it was pretty clear we were on the decline. You only needed to look at the age of our more important players to realise that they - and thus us - were likely to be on the wane. Our list's 'age gap' meant we were relying on inexperienced players to step up. However, the injury toll and upheaval worsened the slide - on paper we weren't as bad as our '07 results reflected. (Going so badly in '07 helped the rebuild, so I'm not complaining). I think it's highly probable we'll avoid the spoon, while getting out of the bottom four is even-money at best.

I'm not a fan of the 'almost black' blue that some find appealing. Interesting comments re: the round neck. I agree that if it's an advantage, even a small one, we should take it.

Same.