Macca

We've seen Rodgers make great plays when given the opportunity to do so In this game he wasn't given that opporrunity Poor play calling and we didn't go for the jugular 3pt field goals? Not the Green Bay way

McCarthy's play calling in the first half was even more questionable and conservative (especially in the 1st quarter) Again, the focus goes onto the big moments in the last quarter when in fact the whole game needs to be looked at if a proper appraisal is to be made. Also, 2 of Wilson's interceptions were after the ball had bounced off 2 of his own players (who both could have caught the ball) ... another was a bit of a fluke catch by Clinton-Dix. It's not like all 4 of his interceptions went directly to Green Bay players. Sure, there was some bad luck involved but not nearly as much as some might think ... there's a bit of bias against Seattle involved as well. That can cloud people's thinking. By trying to play in a careful and safe way on offense we played into Seattle's hands. McCarthy has to cop a lot of the blame but he is what he is. A good and sometimes very good coach but not a great one. Rodgers sounded more than dissatisfied with the play calling after the match. We had our chances to put them away and didn't.

Sometimes a game can be won or lost early in proceedings ... in the first quarter the Packers were in 4th and 1 situations (twice) ... both times 1 yard from the end zone. Both times we elected to take the field goal. In my opinion McCarthy took the 3 points on offer because of 4 reasons ... A) He doubted our capacity to convert those 4th downs because of Seattle's defense B) He didn't want to hand the ball back to Seattle even though they would have been 100 odd yards from scoring - he didn't have enough faith in his own defense if we did hand the ball back C) The 3 points on offer "seemed" attractive at the time. D) He seemingly didn't have enough faith in Rodgers Meanwhile ...Seattle know all this and were probably quite happy to concede both field goals. We've got arguably the best QB in the business and we're not going to take a chance for 1 yard? Twice? When both times you're 1 yard from the end zone? A risk not taken can sometimes be a huge risk. We're not the sort of team to grind out wins ... the way we win is to score early and to score TD's. We win by blowing teams out of the water (early) This has the effect of making teams take undue chances which in turn can create more scoring opportunities. Field goals aren't usually high on the agenda. We gave them a sniff and even though it took them a while, they took advantage. Play by play (1st quarter)

I'll always give credit to the winner in a loss. It's more an acknowledgement of the other team rather than a huge compliment. Seattle were the better team because they converted their chances more than the Packers did ... we also should have "gone for it" on at least 1 of those 4th down field goal conversions. A game can be won or lost early in the game too but we tend to place more emphasis on the ending. When you're on the road against a good team you've almost got to factor in that the home team are going to score touchdowns. Seattle would have been happy for us to take those field goals too ... and you should never do what the opposition wants you to do. Poor play calling and I thought it at the time. As we all know it takes 3 field goals to outscore 1 converted TD but often the 3 points feels "safer" ... it can come back to bite later on though. McCarthy would almost certainly be re-evaluating things in the next few days with regards to those 2 goal line 4th downs. For most of the 2nd half they were only 2 scores from leading - in the end, the gap wasn't big enough and watching the game, I never felt comfortable. 2 TD's can be scored in 2 minutes in this sport and that's exactly what happened. Wilson's 2nd half was very good also. Of course I'm annoyed at the loss but there's good reasons why we did lose ... part of it was our own doing and part of it was their own good play and never give in spirit. Considering how poorly Seattle played in the first half we should have been a lot further in front at half time - that's our fault for not taking advantage. Not sure I'd describe it as a choke though ... the game was always within Seattle's reach if they were able to score a TD and then recover an onside kick (it was a terrifically well executed onside kick too - Bostick should have caught it nonetheless) What we saw happen we've seen happen a stack of other times over the years. It's a bit like soccer that way. 1 or 2 late goals happens in soccer quite regularly.

Playoff tipping comp leaderboard 8 - JV7, Go the Biff 7 - pantaloons, Macca 6 - Georgiou R.R. Martin 4 - Gorgoroth 3pts on offer for the SB winner

SI.com have a story on it ... about the 5th story down. It sounds a bit dodgy but we are talking about the Pats - they've got a bit of history in bending the rules Regardless, it looks as though the Colts didn't bother to turn up today ... I've only caught a few highlights of the later game.

Perhaps Bostick could have done with some 'Blu-Tack' on his hands ... that's a costly missed chance. McCarthy let him have it but we lost the game in a few other areas (including not being able to convert enough red zone opportunities) In all honesty we've only got ourselves to blame ... all the way back to losing that game against the Bills (and thus losing home field advantage throughout the playoffs) To play that well and then hand it back to them is hard to cop. 5 field goals and only 1 TD was costly ... we're renowned for getting into the end zone and we just couldn't get it done. The better team won but the Packers were far from disgraced - I hope this loss steels us for next year. It should.

Disappointing we couldn't score at least ... still, it's not a disaster. We're now going to have to defeat China to make the semi's (where we'll probably have to face Japan) Ironically, Japan would probably not be very happy with their potential match-up in the semi final Lots of possession tonight but we didn't create enough real chances.

The Australian Open starts on Monday and here's how things would play out if all the highest ranked seeds survived to the quarter finals, semi finals & the final. Men's Quarter Finals 1. Novak Djokovic vs 8. Milos Raonic 4. Stan Wawrinka vs 5. Kei Nishikori 3. Rafael Nadal vs 7. Tomáš Berdych 2. Roger Federer vs 6. Andy Murray Men's Semi Finals 1. Novak Djokovic vs 4. Stan Wawrinka 2. Roger Federer vs 3. Rafael Nadal Men's Final 1. Novak Djokovic vs 2. Roger Federer Women's Quarter Finals 1. Serena Williams vs 8. Caroline Wozniacki 4. Petra Kvitová vs 6. Agnieszka Radwańska 3. Simona Halep vs 5. Ana Ivanovic 2. Maria Sharapova vs 7. Eugenie Bouchard Women's Semi Finals 1. Serena Williams vs 4. Petra Kvitová 2. Maria Sharapova vs 3. Simona Halep Women's Final 1. Serena Williams vs 2. Maria Sharapova All the Men's seeds All the Women's seeds

I'm struggling to see a Packers win but I have to pick them ... the other game could go either way but it's the Pats - just. Green Bay 30 Seattle 29 Colts 24 New England 26

Where there is a dollar to be made then there's a good chance that that dollar will almost certainly be made ... especially if this new version of tennis is appreciated by both males and females. We probably never had a need for t20 cricket either but that version of cricket is here to stay. Michael Vaughan said the other day that we might look back in 10-15 years time and note that t20 cricket "saved" cricket. A big statement but who's to say he's wrong? Back on the Fast4 Tennis ... I'm left wondering how much Federer & Nadal were paid for their time ... the old adage of "you've got to spend money to make money" might have been in operation. Apparently last night's matches were in aid of the Rafa Nadal Foundation (which assists socially disadvantaged youth) The other bit that I found interesting is that I believe that Tennis Australia (the organisers of this venture) have patented the whole concept. If they can lock in most of the current day big guns I can see it possibly working.

That's the angle ... time. And that time factor might prove to be a reason why it may become quite popular Only time will tell Gv :-)

KP has some strong opinions and that may rub people up the wrong way ... I like him and always have. He's a gun batsman and adds a lot of colour and personality to the sport. I only wish he could come to some sort of agreement with the ECB so he could still play international cricket again. Sadly, I don't think that's going to happen.

A draw will secure top spot but Ange likes to play to win. In the crossover matches (in the QF's) we'd be up against the runners up in group B if we win our group and ... we'd play the winner of group B if we finish runners up in our group - hope that makes sense ... Group B In a nutshell we'll now avoid Japan until at least the SF's and we may well avoid them until the final (if both teams make it that far) if we win our group and Japan win their group.

You may or not be part of the target audience, TD. They would have done a few surveys you'd reckon - data bases of tennis goers and the like. There was a fair crowd there and they seemed quite enthused by the whole concept. It's on again tonight but ch9 got lucky on Monday night with the t20 game on ch10 being interrupted by rain. I've no idea whether it will work or not but I watched the last hour of the match and I didn't "dislike" it. The people launching this brand of tennis will probably see my attitude as a win. I much prefer traditional tennis with those 5 set marathons being favs of mine. One thing I do know is that a popular view is a popular view. If it finds an audience, so be it.

It's interesting that ch9 are the broadcast partners and they're showing the games in prime time ... if it was hidden away on one of the cable channels then one might not take much notice. The other thing to consider is the money on offer to the players ... they're going to need the big guns involved and the tournaments are going to need to have some meaning to the public & the players. Like anything new, it's a wait and see process and a lot will depend on ratings numbers - apparently the numbers were quite good (all things considered)

Peyton has been carrying a bad quad injury as well according to reports

It's becoming a long season for Peyton but I still believe he's got a fair bit to offer ... the alternative is who or what? Obviously he can't play forever but he might be able to be managed differently. Denver are still a probable playoff team if Peyton can be healthy most of the time ... for a lot of this season he's been very good. His numbers were right up there despite the way he finished off the season. I wouldn't be ruling a line through him just yet. The trouble is that the position of QB tends to be all or nothing ... how does Denver rest Peyton within games or rest him for complete games if indeed they even want to manage him that way? It may be possible to do so but I can't ever remember a veteran top line QB being used in this way before. As for next week, I reckon there's more chance of the Colts upsetting the Pats than the Packers beating Seattle. If Rodgers was 100% fit then we'd have a much better chance but even though he had a terrific game today, he was nowhere near full throttle. Seattle's offense isn't great so I guess if we can remain within striking distance then we're a sneaky chance. On the other hand it might just be the Colts time. After seeing how well the Ravens did in New England they'll believe they've got a real chance.

Ha! This version of the game is rapidly gaining acceptance ... I've found the whole concept to be quite fascinating with regards to how it all fits into our summer. It's not going away in a hurry. ... and just when you thought we'd exhausted all avenues for new sports we've now got another one to deal with ... 'Fast4 Tennis' ... Lleyton vs Roger on ch9 right now. The sporting purists will be beside themselves with grief

Playoff tipping comp leaderboard 6 - JV7, Go the Biff, Macca 5 - pantaloons, Georgiou R.R. Martin 4 - Gorgoroth (a clean sweep this week) 3 more games to go and don't forget that the SB is worth 3 points.

The ground caused the ball to move but in my opinion it should be ruled a catch unless the ball spills free. As it was, it was a spectacular play and those sort of highlights need to be kept in the game. I'm more thinking about future incidents like these. Not sure there's any grey area either - if the ball is being controlled and isn't moving before a player and the ball hits the surface then in my opinion it should be ruled a catch (unless the ball spills free) Edit: The other thing to consider is what if by 'reaching out', Bryant had have broken the plane of the goal line? (he was probably only about a foot short) Is that then ruled a TD? We've seen numerous examples of where a ball gets knocked free just after a player breaks the plane of the goal line (a TD is normally awarded in these instances)

I could hazard a guess on who that wouldn't have been

A Des Bryant catch or non catch on the goal line with under 5 minutes to go. In the end it wasn't paid NFL.com will probably have it highlighted if you can access it. A tense game and the commentators were calling it a good one. I was just hoping for a win :-)

Was it a catch or wasn't it? It seemed unfair not to pay it but normally it isn't paid under those sort of circumstances ... however, it could be argued he was making a football move after completing the catch. Again, they've probably ruled that the ground dislodged the ball and caused the bobble. Watching it live I thought I saw the ball move and once it moves, they'll often rule it to not be a catch. Murray also fumbled the ball in the 3rd quarter which helped turn the game. Rodgers finished strong after looking shaky in the first half ... happy to get the win but the Cowboys put up a terrific fight.

No doubt he'll play (or at least start) ... how well and for how long, that's the question. You just never know in this sport ... anything could happen including Rodgers not being incapacitated at all. I'm prepared for any outcome but obviously hoping for the best. Seattle in the end were just far too good and whoever is up against them next week is in for a torrid time. The crowd was seriously loud and I thought the Panthers did well to hang in for as long as they did. The Ravens had their chances and could have won ... credit to the Pats though - too good in the end. The match was not without it's controversy though ... Tom Brady: Study the rulebook