Macca

Think I'm right in saying that Michael Hussey went on 2 Ashes tours and didn't play a test. He had to wait an eternity to get into the team. Stand corrected on that one but he certainly was in a lot of squads prior to breaking into the team. No such luxury these days hey? Great player though as was another late starter - Adam Gilchrist. But Greg Chappell, Punter, AB, Steve Waugh & Smith are in a league of their own. Greg & Ponting had the elegance to boot! I saw a lot of Ian Chappell's career from about '68. A fabulous no.3 who often had to go in early. Really hard to dislodge once in. A dogged fighter.

Can't split the 5 actually ... all were great as is Smith. I'd put Ian Chappell somewhere in there as well. Michael Hussey? We've had some good one's!

Smith reminds me of Steve Waugh or Allan Border. Gritty fighters who played for keeps. Not classical players but they don't have to be. Most players edging towards a century would show some sort 'tell' that close to lunch. But not Smith ... didn't look remotely fazed. And then took a single off the last ball so as get the strike after lunch. Cool as a cucumber. He's way ahead of the game isn't he?

Travis Head needs a mindset where he can imagine himself batting through the innings. Do that, and we can get ourselves into a winning position. Support Smith by refusing to go out.

Yeah I'm ready to get back into the tips DZ The off-season for me doesn't really exist as I get right into the overseas racing (Europe & Sha Tin) To good effect too especially in July and from mid to late June. The winter racing in Melbourne & Sydney threw up the usual skewed results. I steered clear for the most part but in hindsight should have followed Craig Williams & Damien Oliver. They both rode plenty of winners.

A lot of the good horses are back next week BM but there are only 3 stakes races up for grabs this upcoming Saturday The Winx Stakes (formerly the Warwick Stakes) is the first Group 1 for the season - 24th August. This year's version could well see a much larger field and because the grand mare Winx is retired, a lot more competitive too. Same deal for the George Main Stakes, Turnbull Stakes & the Cox Plate. Alizee & Avilius to step in with the absence of Winx? Hartnell the 9yo?

So very Melbourne Wadda! Next thing we'll be the butt of jokes if you keep talking like that. Oh hang on ...

Over to you Wadda to complete the deal.

And here's the Sussex Stakes and Nassau Stakes from Goodwood (raced last Thursday & Friday)

Weekend Special MLB Monday 6.10am LA Dodgers vs San Diego Padres LA Dodgers Win -1.5 $2.30

I wouldn't have had Wade in PF but we need him to get some runs regardless. Warner can be a marchwinner and the next best is Harris or Burns anyway. Bancroft deserves a bit of a go at it. I would have had Renshaw at the top with Warner with Harris at no.3. Smith at no.4 which is his ideal position. And then at 5 and 6 I'd have any 2 of Labuschagne, Bancroft, Khawaja or Pucovski. There's no reason why top order batsmem can't bat in the middle order ... we used to introduce players into the team that way. For decades a batsmen had to bat in the top 3 for his State to even be considered for Test selection And weight of runs at lower levels or non first class levels is often a flawed concept ... at Test level a batsman needs sound technique and great temperament. So identify young talent, make sure they bat in the top 3 for their State and then introduce them into the Test team in the late middle order. A tried and true method that worked for decades. e.g Ponting played the large majority of his first 20 tests batting in the no.6 position. The rest is history. Having said all that we can still win this test with the current line-up. Looking ahead, I'm not so confident.

So we're effectively 3 - 34 with 7 wickets in hand. Smith holds the key once again (what a champ) but we'll need input from Wade, Paine and the tail. As well as Head. 150 in front isn't enough and even a 200 lead doesn't feel comfortable. A 250 lead is 216 runs away and that's a bit of an ask. But you never know. And there is a bit of rain forecast so we might be on and off the ground a bit.

Could be that Paine realises that Smith has the greater knowledge and has just deferred. Maybe he wants to concentrate on his keeping? There's a reason why wicketkeepers make good vice-captains. Seems unusual but behind closed doors, who knows what has been worked out? It's not often you see a non captain making moves or taking charge. Bowlers can tend to wave their arms around but that's just bowlers being bowlers.

Has Paine given Smith a license to do that? I wonder? I'd prefer to see Smith back in charge but he has to know his place. The natural pecking order tends to often shine through. All's well that ends well though Wadda so it's whatever works. Need to get this last wicket pronto.

He's annoying isn't he (Broad) ... seems to often hold us up or take vital wickets. Truth is he's quite a good cricketer who plays the villian role to very good effect. 73 ahead now and it's advantage England. I'm now thinking ahead in the sense that we don't want to be any more than 2 down once we wipe off the deficit. And we still have to get them all out!

I cashed out on a couple of Gator's tips so a happy camper here! Including a nice collect in the lucky last (Oliver is the master) And I've always liked the way they score boxing ... working from 10 down. A cricket session is more than quite similar but I've only thought about it that way in the last 2 days. Never occured to me beforehand. It's certainly an interesting way of scoring a Test match. So if a novice to the game asks "Who's winning?" we now have a possible answer!

Well summarised. Re the session evaluations ... Oddly enough there are 15 sessions in a Test match (if it goes the distance) which coincidentally matches the 'traditional' 15 rounds that a boxing match lasts for at Championship level (when boxing was more relevant of course) England marginally ahead but that could change quite quickly. We could clean up these 2 wickets cheaply or they could get away from us. Or somewhere in between. And as for the evaluations - whoever here gets in first (But get it right!)

Tempted to go 10 - 6 but you're right Wadda. 10 - 7 is the outcome. Others may have their view of course as the numbers aren't written in stone! So here's the blow-by-blow account ... Day 1 Session 1 Eng 10 Aus 8 Day 1 Session 2 Eng 10 Aus 7 Day 1 Session 3 Aus 10 Eng 6 Day 2 Session 1 Eng 10 Aus 8 Day 2 Session 2 Eng 10 Aus 9 Day 2 Session 3 Eng 10 Aus 9 Day 3 Session 1 Aus 10 Eng 7 Overall score: Eng 63 Aus 61

As entertaining as ever Wadda ... love your work! And yeah, it's all ahead of us now. We could assume that if we don't bowl them out before lunch then they'll have probably added 80 odd. Which would give them a 60+ lead with wickets in hand. And if they only lose 1 or 2 wickets we're in allsortsa. Open fire ready with costumes and spears at the ready for the much awaited rain dance. Demonland style!

Well, I'll give that last session a slight win to England (10 - 9) as it looks like they're now going to gain at least a reasonable lead on the first innings. But they still need to be at least 60 ahead to effectively be in front (and that is still 77 runs away) And with Bairstow, Moeen Ali & Woakes to come they might build a big lead. A gritty ton to Burns being the chief reason why England are on top. An early wicket changes everything but the early morning session tonight may well decide the match. We'll need to bowl them out by lunch to stop them gaining a strong advantage.

If we don't win this next session I will be doing the rain-dance.

In boxing whoever wins the round gets 10 or if it's level it's 10 each So 10 - 8 in Englands favour for that last session Wadda? Which makes the overall score as 46 - 42 or thereabouts depending on how one scores the battle (in England's favour) Needless to say we need to win the last session. By the way, the last time we were in England we were bowled out for 60 in (I believe) one session. 10 - 0?

Wasn't Joe's best knock but I'm glad to see the end of him all the same. He's a top player. 1 wicket often brings 1 or 2 more and Lyon still remains the key DJ. And as Wadda said in the above post, a terrific caught and bowled by Siddle. Like to see him get a couple more wickets.

The umpires have got a lot of calls wrong and once that happens the whole review system becomes farcical. It's like a perfect storm. If the technology 'ruled' then it wouldn't matter what decisions the umpires make. Human error is therefore just as prevalent if initial rulings by the umpires have importance. Total technology or go back to the old ways ... by the way, I have had no issue with England umpires over the decades. They are renowned as the best in the world anyway. Shepherd & Bird were exceptionally good umpires Now we take away their impartiality by making sure they are nuetral (supposedly) ... effectively undermining the umpires. e.g. Paul Reiffel can't umpire games involving Australia. We are effectively then calling him a cheat in advance. And Paul Reiffel is not a cheat. The insane hatred of umpires leads to even greater issues. Lose the hate I say.

Technology was supposed to rid the game of the howler yeah? I have seen nothing but the opposite. We're back to where we started from where it's now a game-of-reviews with a LBW ruling that is highly questionable. And that's if you trust the technology. In effect it makes for poorer umpiring where the umpires might end up 2nd guessing themselves anyway. It sounds radical but do we actually need the umpires out there at all? If all their decisions are governed by technology what's the point of having them out there? They instead could act as orderly's Pointing the finger at the umpires effectively ignores a much greater problem.