Macca

Such is the nature of this sport that the Adelaide side have failed miserably at the worst possible time. I believe both finalists in the big bash qualify for the riches of the champions league so they've missed out big time. Meanwhile, the sixers just got a nice healthy bonus to the coffers.

Well it was often CHF historically but I'm not sure there is one now. No position comes readily to mind ... maybe a gun midfielder sometimes and other times it's a dominant forward or even a backman (Scarlett) The best player awards nearly always go to midfielders now but there's a stack of them in every team. Footy is more of a team game than it's ever been and the last 6 picked are more important than they've ever been (as well) You can't have an average to poor ruckman either - the Tigers found that out when Maric was out for a time (Jamar & Gawn had a lot of influence in our win against them last season when Maric was out - clearances were 42-31 in our favour in that game) Maybe the gun utility? Players like Roughy are very hard to match up on.

My reckoning is the 'Occam's razor' theory ... someone simply got access to the footballs at some time and stuck a pin in 11 of them for about 3-5 seconds each. 2 minutes in total and it's done. I'm thinking the footballs were probably unattended at some stage ... either that or the footballs weren't checked properly (initially) and were all set 2lbs lighter (except for one of them) Or they were somehow switched. The answer will almost certainly be a perfectly logical one but someone probably has to 'talk' for that to happen. Regardless, they'll get done for governance issues you'd reckon. For us here in oz, if a footy is ever over inflated, it doesn't take long to get enough air out so it's just right ... just a few seconds will do it. This incident is going to be very difficult to explain away ... here's the full Tom Brady press conference ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD7i5hQYHZs

In light of the new information re the Pats, I reckon it's perfectly understandable to be able to review your tips and re-do them if either of you want to. If anyone has any objections please say so. Remembering that 3pts are awarded if you pick the winner of the SB. Playoff tipping comp leaderboard 8 - JV7, Go the Biff 7 - pantaloons, Macca 6 - Georgiou R.R. Martin 4 - Gorgoroth

I'd put him at or close to the top ... big occasion player as well. ESPN FC Press Pass featured the 2 goals on their show tonight ... 1st goal & 2nd goal

He's brilliant

Assuming they're guilty I reckon the penalties might take a fair bit of time to eventuate. Anything from what you've indicated to maybe a bit worse. I'm leaning more towards Brady being behind it all but I can't see how Belichick wouldn't know to some degree. Ordinarily I'd reckon fines and loss of draft picks only but they've got some history with spygate and what not. They are repeat offenders. Too much is being connected to the scoreline against the Colts but I reckon that's irrelevant. Cheating is cheating and having the balls deflated to the extent that they were is a significant advantage (in my opinion) The other question is how long have they been doing it - they barely got over the line against the Ravens. We're all brought up kicking a footy in oz and you always know when the footy is even a little bit flat. Brady had to have known and he and Belichick are as thick as thieves. Some over there are saying that Belichick might get a year based on the treatment of Sean Payton by the NFL. If that happens and Brady gets off then Tom would count himself very lucky. That's if they're guilty of course ... there's still a lot to play out. It's certainly added a bit of spice to the Super Bowl

Seems the deflated balls story turns out to be true ... I wonder how long they've been doing it? Years? ... it's entirely possible. 11 of 12 Pats footballs underinflated And this from SI.com ... Report: Ravens believe underinflated balls were used against Patriots

McCarthy will most likely stay but I hope he learns from this game. He'll know inwardly that he made some poor decisions though - even if he most likely wouldn't admit it. Rodgers just needs to be managed and given his head, not necessarily coached. I've never seen the 2 as a team though - it's not like Brady & Belichick. McCarthy is not overly liked amongst Packer fans but I form my own opinion without bias or influence. He's a good and sometimes very good coach who can have B grade days. Not too many B grade days but this game was one of them (in my opinion) The coach sets the pattern on game day - a lot rests with them. I'd much prefer to have a "great" head coach but they're hard to find ... Gruden might yet be coaxed out of retirement As for the SB, at this early stage I'm leaning towards Seattle but I'll put my "official tip" in when I'm more sure. If the Seahawks find their A game (especially their defense) then they should be able to shut down the Pats (more so the Pats offense) Gronk could prove the difference - shut him down and Seattle are well on their way to winning. It's a classic match-up all the same. Should be a top game and lets face it, they are the 2 best teams this year. Every other team has greater flaws than these 2 teams. Both teams are hard to "like" but both are well coached and highly skilled.

What's at issue here is when you've got the opposition reeling, you go for the jugular or the knockout punch ... we weren't aggressive enough or rather McCarthy wasn't. The pattern of play was set early by McCarthy and we just didn't take enough risks throughout the match. The TD after the first 2 field goals made things seem better but in the end, we lost and that's all that matters. And I'm not analysing in hindsight either - I was annoyed at the time and thought that it could come back to bite us later - and it did. Trent Dilfer said as much as well. The thing is that people need to eliminate all pre-game thoughts - most were thinking that the Packers would do well to stay with the Seahawks but as it turned out, it was the other way around. The hunted became the hunter but the hunter didn't go for the kill. It was weak kneed play calling on those 2 goal line 4th downs in the 1st quarter and I reckon most will end up seeing it that way. On the road, you've got to take risks. We played into Seattle's hands - right now, too many are focusing on the last 5 minutes of the match. McCarthy will need to get this team back to the NFC Championship game next year if he wants to keep his job. And he'll probably need to win it and get into the Super Bowl. He had a poor game and for someone who has been in the system for as long as he has, that's unacceptable. My focus remains on the first quarter when we could have completely blown Seattle away. They were always going to come back at us and we didn't have a big enough lead to hold them off (the last 5 minutes was complete mayhem but that mayhem often has a chance of happening) The finish didn't particularly surprise me.

The worst football loss ever? Cousin Sal & Bill Simmons are leaning towards thinking it is. I know I haven't felt this bad about an NFL loss since the 2007 NFC Championship game loss to the Giants (in O/T) Anyway, for lots more chatter about the Packers catastrophic collapse/ meltdown / choke (?) ... here's the BS Report (in this podcast, McCarthy isn't spared nor are all the big moments which led to the loss)

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.

And we still are taking big chances through the draft but we're also endeavoring to improve our list in other ways - specifically targeting players in their early 20's and also bringing in some established experienced talent (of varying degrees) There's a lot more balance to our recruiting and list management now - it should always have been this way of course. High end draft picks - Salem, Hogan, Toumpas, Brayshaw & Petracca (Stretch as a F/S nearly qualifies) Recruits aged in their early 20's - Tyson, Michie, Newton, Frost, Riley & Terlich Experienced talent - Dawes, Garlett, M Jones, Vince, Cross, Pedersen, Lumumba Other young draftees - JKH, Kent, O-Mac, ANB & Hunt All of the above recruiting has mainly happened in the space of 25 months.

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.