Macca

They won't be replaying the match Wadda as the World cup just returned home! The Poms might be all about fair play but there are limits! Deciding the World cup by the most amount of boundaries is high farce. Who thinks of these things? Laughable really. A tie would have satisfied some but finding a winner of a sporting tournament isn't rocket science.

We could but Preuss doesn't have good hands. And he's up forward to take grabs. If we had some decent small forwards then Preuss providing a contest would be of more value. He can at least do that. We know he can ruck and is very able back-up to Max. The effort was there on Sunday ... he's just not a threat and doesn't really know how to play as a key forward. But who else is there? Petty did ok and Tim Smith might be available (?) Weideman again? You may be right Bub ... give the big boy 6 more games and see what comes of it. Season is shot anyway and Preuss might just start clunking them.

Yeah that was a questionable decision but the umpire might have thought that Stokes had completed the 2nd run. Again, he has to make a quick decision. To be honest, I much preferred the days when we just accepted the umpires decision and got on with it. The rub of the green. But I have never been one to question umpiring decisions so I prefer to take the good with the bad and wear the odd bad decision. The LBW ruling is different as we're talking about bad rulings by the lawmakers It's those who I have a problem with. We make it hard for the umpires in cricket much like we do with footy. And the most boundaries decides the World Cup? Schoolyard type ruling Just keep playing another over each until you find a winner.

Re the technology ... I don't trust ball tracking but might prefer it if more than half the ball was hitting the stumps for an LBW appeal to be upheld. Anything less than that and I'm not satisfied. But that's just me. As for the reviews and the howlers ... the only way to get it close to 100% right might be to review every appeal - which creates another issue of course. Unintended consequences kicks in. But they (the ICC) should at least be able to find a better way. But it's the ICC we're talking about! Bottom line - Taylor wasn't out. And it's a World cup final and Taylor is a gun batsman. But I don't have a problem with the umpire giving Taylor out ... like many, he probably thought it was out and has to make a quick decision. If the process of ball tracking was quicker the umpire could have sent the appeal straight upstairs. But how many times before it could become farcical with numerous frivolous appeals?

Ì Was all of Australia barracking for Roger & the Kiwis last night Wadda? Loss/loss but that's sport for you. And both lost in such a narrow margin that would really sting Still, it was a great night of sport ... bleary eyed today though!

I'll be heading over to the tennis soon ... cricket on audio with the F1GP commentary online! Federer winning Wimbledon again takes precedence and I really hope he can do it. A perfectly behaved all time great hey? Should be more of it ... nice guys don't always finish last.

I didn't see it Wadda but you can't be behaving like that after a dismissal ... it's just not cricket! Looking at how the match is panning out you'd reckon the Kiwis are going to have to get to 250 at least. But at 5-186 after 42 overs they'll do well to get to that figure. New Zealand's bowling has been very good throughout the tournament so you never know.

Why bring in technology if that technology can't be used as originally intended. Now it's about when you use a review and when you don't use a review. Again, not the original concept. We still have howlers. In a World cup final. Rub of the green worked better ... the whole LBW technology ruling is all over the place. The same result can be out or not out depending on reviews or whether the appeal was given out or not out originally. We're back to where we started from.

Kiwis have started nicely ... 1-91 off the first 20 overs. Hard to know what a competitive score might be (all things considered) Anything over 250/260? The rule of thumb is often touted as you double the score of a team from the 30 over mark (with enough wickets intact of course) So if the Kiwis could get to 150 off 30 overs they might end up with 300. Edit: Kiwis are now 4-152 after 35 overs (lost 3-61 off their last 14 overs) 250-260 would be a good result from their position now.

Weekend Special MLB Monday 06.07am Oakland Athletics vs Chicago White Sox Oakland Win (-1.5) $1.90

Hunt trails his man again from a rushed kicked forward. Is he ever going to learn? Easy turnover as a result and an opportunity lost. Eventually the Dogs scored their 3rd goal All because Hunt chose to play from behind. And all our forwards do it so he's not alone. Undisciplined football ... coach killers.

Excellent point with regards to defensive pressure in our forward line t_u ... and it could be argued that those of our own (midfielders) who venture into our forward line don't apply enough defensive pressure either. Are the coaches demanding that forward line pressure? You'd like to imagine so but we can't be sure because we haven't seen it (of at least enough of it) Bulldogs & Tigers won flags on the back of defensive forward line pressure (amongst other factors) so we are a ways off that. As you said, even a 25% improvement would make a big difference. Overall tackle counts in our forward 50 would be a good pointer ... especially if the number was abnormally low. Our eyes tell us we're miles off so we probably only need confirmation with the actual numbers.

We've got about 15 inbetweeners on our list. Overall output - way below average. But the issue is that there are too many inbetweeners in the overall system (who are clearly not up to it) The sport would work better with a dozen teams. So there are 6 too many teams thus too many C & D graders. In terms of opportunity the AFL offers a lot but that comes at a cost of quality. The actual skill level falls away dramatically past the top 150 players. And any number of the best players are often injured Our club's issues with so many average (or worse) players is merely a symptom of a much bigger problem The other issue is that there is too much 'management' of players as opposed to actual coaching. It's not like soccer where the people in charge are managers.

If we were to look at our midfielders as a collective then you'd see that the output is a bit down on last year. But the fall hasn't been off the scale like it has been with our collective forwards. Gawn is not quite as dominant, Oliver the same, Harmes good now after a slow start, Brayshaw not as good as last year, Viney has had his issues whilst Jones is now better suited to a back flank. Lewis is no longer a factor so the output isn't fantastic but they've had no one in the forward line to kick it to all season. ANB is ANB. A good forward straightens up those disposing of the ball (by foot) We miss Hogan more than we thought we would. For instance, Brayshaw is playing the same as he normally does (gets on to his non-preferred side to create seperation) but his kicks are often intercept marked or to a contest. To my eyes he's doing the same thing but with different results. Ditto for the others in the midfield when dispatching the ball into the forward line.

And a couple/few of those 7 top-end picks will almost certainly be below par. That's how drafting works. There are no absolutes despite what we're told. The 'hope' attached to drafting leads many to ignore the bad news that inevitably surrounds drafting. So an extra pick increases the percentage play rather than guaranteeing another good player. As a coach, Dew should know this so why he doesn't want what is best for his own club is quite baffling. You take what you can get and if you don't ask, you don't get. I understand all the rest of it with regards to building a great list and a great club but again, you scramble for all that you can get in this league. We'd be a bit alarmed if Goodwin was in conflict with Bartlett over a priority pick. I guess the GCS are a bit out of sight, out of mind so that might explain the difference of opinion between the Pres & Coach.

Coach-speak? Goodwin wouldn't be concerned about our midfield anywhere near as much as he would be concerned about our forward line Collectively our forwards can't win their own ball and they often butcher the ball when they do get it. Petracca is the outlier as he does win his own ball but is questionable in front of goal ... his kicking action needs to be reconstructed. As for the others in the forward line ... I've outlined my reasoning in the above posts. I don't often blame the A-end of a problem but in this case, the forwards are largely to blame. They are clearly not up to it so they either improve dramatically (as a collective) or we make lots of changes (more so in the off-season) Today's result rests with our forwards. If they manage to fire, we can win. If not, we'll probably lose.

So it is not really about Weideman per se ... collectively our forward line has been woeful so in a team sport, changing 1 player in a dysfuntional unit isn't going to fix things. I'd be more inclined to play Oliver, Jones or 1 or 2 others forward for the remainder of the season and then do-over the forward line in the off-season. Target a key forward from elsewhere as well as some medium sized and small forward talent.

If we were to grade the output of our forwards this year only Petracca gets a pass mark. Weideman has been poor, T-Mac not much better, Hannan below average, Garlett runs past far too many contests, Spargo not up to it, Melksham average before injured, Hunt up and down. Collectively they don't play in front, can't take a grab, don't make position, can't kick accurately, don't make enough leads and there is a general lack of movement. As a result, we changed our forward line coach mid-season. But Rawlings needs new personnel. Yet the stats boffins here want to blame the DE of our midfielders? Amazing. Yes, the midfielders aren't perfect and they do spray it occasionally but they aren't the issue.

Yep BBO .... it is the worst forward line I can remember seeing since the 70's. It really is that bad. Plus, our forwards don't play in front so what hope have the midfielders got? In a dramatic move we changed our forward line coach but a change of player personnel is the real answer. Early in the season many here were blaming the backline but our forward line issues have been there since game 1.

What you've said isn't controversial at all AF ... the DE stats people will disagree and that's their right. Numbers can often paint the wrong picture. I prefer the eye test. Our midfielders can spray it but the real issue has been our dysfuntional forward line. The lack of movement, leading patterns, ability to create space and marking ability is really poor. And has been all season. Petracca is our best but it's a long gap to our 2nd best forward. It's happened before on countless occasions at various clubs. We ourselves once had an all-star centreline (Alves, Wells & Flower) but couldn't win games because our forward line was hopeless in those days. Thank heavens we didn't have the DE stats in those days otherwise all 3 star players would have been lambasted from pillar to post by the stats 'Gurus' It's just history repeating itself ... better personnel in the forward line is the answer or a massive improvement with what we've got (which is a long-shot) The value of a key forward stands out more so when you haven't got one. One of them stands up (T-Mac last week) and hey presto we look a different side (until he got injured) Our midfield isn't the issue ... we need better forwards.

To be honest I couldn't care less about the GCS but was more arguing that the more top end picks, the better, when it comes to drafting. The next no.1 could be a Nick Rewoldt or a Jack Watts or a Tom Scully. It's a numbers game.

Any extra pick at the top end can never hurt though ... not sure that Dew is doing the right thing by his club regardless of whether he is right or not. I agee that the messiah attitude with a top end pick is not the answer but again, you take what you can get in this league. In more recent times we angled at a high-end pick with the Frawley compensation. Managed to win just the 4 games in 2014 which enabled us to end up with picks 2 & 3 in the draft. And I'm a sceptic with regards to the draft ... the more picks the better rather than placing an absolute value on any given pick. Weight of numbers (so to speak) ... and that's not foolproof either.

We're no longer the powerhouse ... lots of good or decent players but short on A grade elite class. Which is what you need to be a powerhouse The bowling is good enough periodically but it's not McGrath, Lee, Gillespie & Warne. England were superb last night so credit where credit is due. We never looked like winning. But go the Kiwis hey Wadda! England should win the final but New Zealand are a determined bunch.

The Spring carnivals in both NSW & Victoria just got a hell of a lot bigger. Prizemoney has been ramped up in nearly all the feature races in both States as well as Country racing & the Country Cups. That's competition for you and I'm all for it ... much prefer to bet on the best of the best running around. And we're almost certainly going to see more overseas representation as the money on offer now is amongst the best in the World (if not better) I'll post up more details later with a few links but Racenet.com has all the details in their 'News' area. Horse racing in this Country is in fantastic shape but without the fierce competition between NSW & Vic that might not be the case ... along with of course the punting dollars and the collateral provided by the horse owners.

Nadal/Federer on late Friday evening ... Roger is now 38 so we might not see this match--up again too frequently. Could be another classic. One will advance to the final to meet either Djokovic or Bautista Agut (that match-up is on Friday evening as well)