Macca

I don't particularly trust anyone when it comes to these sort of things ... documentation of the settled figure would settle the argument dc ... can you tell us where we can find that? Anyway, my original point stands ... the Pies make a substantial amount of money from their away fixtures on the back of their premium memberships. That whole Western stand is a big money maker for them ... at opposition home games. .

I'd agree that the QB clash is a terrific day for us - that's not my point. My point is that I don't believe that Collingwood are gifting us anything. They still make a decent amount of money out of the QB clash on the back of their premium memberships. .

Why would you believe that we get a cut of their premium memberships? The MCC might but why would they pass on any of that money? You're looking at this with a trusting eye - I'm not

There are other "hidden" reasons 1) We support our club to a much greater degree than many other supporter groups - all things considered, the crowd numbers at the QB games have been phenomenal. Nearly all the games are stand alone fixtures these days so for them to only get 37k to their home fixture against us was pathetic. Just imagine what the crowd might have been if they'd spent the last 9 years at or near the foot of the ladder? 2) Their supporters with premium 18 game memberships (at least 20k?) might be more likely to use those memberships for away fixtures to "get their money's worth" ... we of course, don't get to see any of that money from those premium memberships and their club and members would know that. Our dividend from the QB clash may well be dependent on the gate receipts and I reckon those gate receipts would be down because many of their members are not paying at the gate for the QB clash. Jackson would know the full story but we're probably never going to hear it.

5 of 11 ... Divisional Round - Ravens @ Patriots 6 of 11 ... Divisional Round - Panthers @ Seahawks

That's a furphy anyway LH The Pies make heaps of cash from their away games at the MCG ... those full season memberships (which cost up to $864.00) grant free admission to their away fixtures at the MCG (often with an already paid for reserved seat in the Western stand) And they sell a truckload of these type of memberships which also guarantee access to a GF ticket (perhaps in excess of 20k) 20k x up to $864 adds up to quite a princely sum. My estimation is it's at least 12-14 million which works out at about 660 - 770k per game (home or away) We don't see that money on the QB but the finance dept at Collingwood does. The so-called "gift" is just another myth - they'd walk away from the QB clash with a fair stash of the folding material. Of course, one less game at the MCG (or Docklands) means one extra game interstate (where they'd make zilch) ... and they never have to travel interstate 6 times a year do they? More often than not it's 4 trips or less. Eddie's worked it out quite well and will keep pushing the line that he's helping others out when in reality, he wants the Victorian teams to request home games against his team - more $$$$'s for his club that way. .

Not sure whether it's been mentioned previously but the low crowd number to their home game was noticeable. 66,120 for our home game against them and 37, 894 for their home game against us ... nearly all the games are stand alone fixtures these days so where are their members for such a vital game? Those numbers could easily be interpreted as them jumping off far too quickly where as we continue to punch way above our weight - all things considered. And when is the heat going to come onto Buckley? He "talks" well (apparently) but his team is going backwards - the players don't play for him. I hope they re-sign him for another 5 years - he will never win a premiership for them.

I'm more thinking of how to win this particular test rather than any long term or short term solutions with the keeping spot. Nevill's keeping to Lyon in the 3rd test was at times amateurish - missing balls completely and not gloving the ball well ... I thought he moved a bit too slowly to the quicks too - especially taking balls down the leg side. Ian Healy made some pointed comments - and he'd know. Haddin dropped a soda in Cardiff but other than that, he kept to his usual standards. Haddin brings a wealth of experience, know-how & leadership where as Nevill is trying to find his way in the grand final of test series. So are Mitch Marsh, Voges, Starc & Hazlewood for that matter. That's a lot of inexperience. Nevill probably deserves a good go at it but my idea of an extended run in test cricket is not always to play every test uninterrupted. McGrath was rested or dropped 5 times in his first 9 tests. Sometimes we're in too much of a hurry to get rid of experienced players too quickly - the balance of the side is all important. Once Mitch Marsh was preferred to Watson then I would have kept Haddin in - especially when we already had an unproven newcomer in Voges in the side. A 5,6 & 7 of Voges, M Marsh & Nevill didn't hurt us in at Lords because of the Rogers/Smith partnership but that same 5,6 & 7 line-up let us down badly in the just completed test. My reasoning of having Haddin at 6 and Mitch at 7 is that both might be better overall value with that configuration rather than the other way around. One has loads of experience whilst the other doesn't. I accept that Nevill will probably play though and I genuinely wish him well - if he does do well with the gloves, I'll give him due credit. However, the selectors will be picking a team to win this next test match - not necessarily with an eye on getting games into new players ... so, it wouldn't surprise to see 3 changes. Anyway, time will tell. .

Continuing on with all the highlights of last year's playoffs ... the links will take you to youtube where you can "fullscreen" the games ... 3 of 11 ... wild-card Bengals @ Colts 4 of 11 ... wild-card Lions @ Cowboys

I'd bring S Marsh & Haddin in for Voges & Nevill ... Voges out because he hasn't made runs and we need Haddin's experience despite Nevill being a good prospect. Nevill's glovework against Lyon was average but it's more so that Haddin's batting in the late middle order that is badly needed. The next test is do or die. I'd also reshuffle the batting order so as to make it more productive ... I also can't see Siddle being picked - Cummins is more likely but I reckon we'll keep the same 4 bowlers regardless. I do like the idea of having an experienced batsman and an experienced bowler in the squad but not necessarily as first choice for the test matches. So, the selectors have probably got that bit right with S Marsh and Siddle as back-ups. My team in batting order ... Rogers Warner Smith S Marsh Clarke (out of form and needs to drop down a rung for the foreseeable future) Haddin (a temporary move to no.6 until M Marsh is more accustomed to test cricket) M Marsh Johnson Starc Hazlewood Lyon So, with my side we'd end up with a 5, 6 & 7 of Clarke, Haddin & M Marsh instead of Voges, M Marsh & Nevill. A much more solid look about it ... S Marsh can bat anywhere in the order but having a left hand bat to break up the 2 right handers in Smith & Clarke could put their bowlers off their line - remembering that they'll be missing the experience of Anderson. It's a big out for them and we need to take advantage. .

Yep and in the case with Burns, he's been given a taste of the big time. What happens with Burns from now is up to Joey himself - he got picked on spec so he's obviously got something ... he can now go back to shield or Australia A level and hopefully get better - and he's young enough to get better too. Martyn, Langer, Hayden and many others had to fight their way back in after being initially picked on spec. It's been that way going all the way back to Bradman and beyond - and it works. Khawaja is another who can get back - he's also currently on that Australia A tour in India. Jordan Silk is another with prospects. It's not all doom and gloom as the so-called experts keep telling us. In fact, I'd wager that the system we have in place is much the same as it's always been. It's more that people just have less knowledge because it's not in their face. The selectors job is to look further than just the numbers - I'd compare it to evaluating a top rate draftee in footy - there are no guarantees yet sometimes they can hit the jackpot. Re the bowling - Starc and Hazlewood still have a few kinks to iron out but there's a big upside with both of them. Cummins and Pattinson look to have bright futures too (if they can remain fit) Mitch Marsh & Nevill both need a decent go at it and I wouldn't rule a line through Maxwell either - temperament is his issue and that can be learnt. As for the current series, who knows where it takes us from here? Trying to make predictions is pure guesswork Anderson might be out for the remainder of the series with that side strain and if that's the case, they'll really miss him - and our batsmen would be relieved too (if he was to miss)

I'm not against picking older blokes per se but we shouldn't put ourselves in a position where we are forced to use 4 or 5 new players in the top 7 because of the general age of the team - it's not like these aging cricketers are all all-time greats. It should be more of a gradual process - rotating young talent through the no.5 batting position is one way of doing things - the all-rounder traditionally takes up the no.6 spot but there would have been nothing wrong with batting Mitch Marsh behind Haddin as a softer intro. I was surprised to see Brad left out of this test - not because of what Warnie and others said, more so that without him, our middle order and late middle order looks vulnerable (and this isn't just an ordinary series - it's the ashes) .

5 of the top 7 in the team (from the first test) are either finished, finishing up, never should have been picked in the first place or possibly coming to the end prematurely. It's time to rebuild the batting side of things as we have traditionally done - picking old blokes just because they've made a few runs at shield level is fraught with danger. Just about all of our top batsnen over the years were picked on spec and picked when they were relatively young - fact Most of these top players were NEVER "bangin' down the door" - another fact. Bancroft just made 150 against India A and he's a 22 opening batsman from WA - the average punter would never have heard of him because other forms of first class cricket are not in our face anymore ... there are a number of other promising young players out there if people could be bothered looking. .

Advantage England ... we had them 7 for 190 but Moeen & Broad have swung it back in their favour. Minimum 370 required by us when we bat again (that would give us a 225 lead) Ideally we make in excess of 400 ... however, we'll almost certainly need one of our batsman to dig in and make a big hundred to get to that sort of figure.

Yep, sometimes the ball can act "strangely" but that was decidedly odd

Lyon 3 for 3 off 3 overs in 3 spells. That's gotta be some sort of record.

Starc in particular and then he picks up a wicket - he's a bit like that. His height and pace and the fact that he's a left armer means he can still pick up a wicket even when he's not bowling well. Mitch Marsh looks a likely type - nice movement away. The game is evenly poised - they'd want to be at least 150 ahead after the first innings - if it's only a 100 odd, we're back in it.

Ha! ... and another one goes 6/86 - egads! I've readjusted down to 160 -180 odd but it's "trending" downwards ... Johnno might get amongst 'em (we'll need him to)

Yep, Rogers has been tremendous .. there's another big score for him here if he can get through the first half hour after lunch. You'd think we'd need at least 250 but if we get 300+ we'll hold the advantage - need Voges, Marsh and Nevill to all contribute though. Looking forward to seeing Johnson on this deck but we'll need to give our bowlers some runs to play with.

The selection of Finn looks an inspired one .... and England have come to play. Need the middle order to stand up

2 - 18 ... nice delivery by Finn and a good catch by Cook. Pitch has a bit of life in it too ... reckon you're right Cards - could be a terrific test match.

Thought I might post up all the playoff highlights ... a couple at a tiime up until the preseason starts (which kicks off in earnest on Friday August 14th - oz time) There is an earlier game coinciding with the hall-of fame weekend (Minnesota @ Pittsburgh) but all the teams are in action from mid August. The NFL have posted up all these games in HD on youtube which the below links will take you - the highlights can be "full screened" as well ... 1 of 11 ... wild-card Cardinals @ Panthers 2 of 11 ... wild-card - Ravens @ Steelers

Let me spell out to you what I absolutely dislike about the modern game ... this will give you an indication of why I can't understand the view that the game will sort itself out or those who believe in the "let the game evolve" concept (a concept of which I've never bought into) I want to see players play in their traditional positions but I rarely get to see that. I also want to see fast, free flowing footy played mainly through the corridor - if that doesn't happen, I probably won't be watching. That free flowing corridor football is what drew me to the sport in the first place and now we don't get to see it, except fleetingly ... my dislikes ... All the short passes - we see hundreds of them in all the matches and I only want to see them when they're necessary or to a leading forward. All the uncontested marks - I only want to see them when they're necessary ... again, we see hundreds of them in all the matches and I find them to be dead boring All the rotations. Flooding 36 players in one quarter of the ground The forward press Boundary hugging football Teams who "work" for stoppages All the packs The ridiculously loud adverts at the games Vacant forward lines Fixturing favouring the bigger clubs and disadvantaging the smaller clubs 20-30 players around the ball Forwards in the backline a lot of the time Poor gameday timeslots which disadvantage those with families Backmen in the forward line a lot of the time The drafting age being as low as it is and the issues that ends up causing (mainly supporters lashing out in an unnecessary way) Players handpassing to players who are already under pressure (we're not the only team that does it) Ruckmen tapping the ball to their own feet (which often causes another stoppage) Players kicking the ball backwards. The way the game is umpired (which isn't the umpires fault) Clash guernseys when they're not necessary - why the need to copy other codes? The fact that the AFL are too preoccupied with the money - we even have advertising on the actual football - how crass and classless. Most of the above has all been introduced (or not rectified) in last 10 years or so - that's a lot of change and it's why the sport is largely unrecognisable from how it once was. That's quite a lot to dislike yet I don't have any issues with any other sports which I've always liked or loved. I'm not in the habit of making stuff up so (save for our games) I rarely watch any other games at all - I often don't even know who plays who anymore and I rarely bother to check the scores. I might watch the finals. I now find the sport boring, tedious, unexciting and unspectacular. You said that you want to let the game evolve but you also want the AFL to intervene - just to clear things up, what is your interpretation of letting the game evolve? Perhaps its better to say ... "Let the game evolve (with AFL intervention)" ... although, I'm not sure that makes a lot sense. Everything I've suggested that might fix the sport is connected - that includes people no longer sitting on their hands and hoping for the best. Affirmative action is required I believe but again, I have no faith that the AFL will do anything other than make cosmetic changes. I suppose if the AFL lost 10-15% of it's support it would still be quite big - I would prefer the sport to grow by that amount though. Personally, I've got lots of other stuff to occupy my time. We're probably miles apart on how we view footy so it's probably best to agree to disagree now. .

That's a gutsy call

Technically, that was a mark to T-Mac. He did control it from the first time he got hands to the ball and the footy hadn't gone past the line of the goals (the padding on the goal posts counts)