Macca

He's come along way in a very short space of time ... Steve Smith scores fourth century of series, could bat No. 3 in Ashes series

I like Belichick's idea where the challenge flags that the coaches can use extends to penalties such as pass interference or holding penalties. They often use up their challenge flags anyway so it wouldn't necessarily add any extra time to the games. Think they get 2 challenge flags and an extra one if the first 2 are used successful. Anyway, most NFL fans are used to time outs and replay anyway - as long as the games don't descend to "flag football", I reckon it adds a bit more drama to the sport and I see it as just another part of the sport. The hold on Suh which wasn't called was fairly blatant but if we were to analyse every play of every game, they could find a reason to throw a penalty flag with even more frequency than they do now.

Baltimore 26 New England 29 Carolina 10 Seattle 33 Dallas 27 Green Bay 35 Indianapolis 19 Denver 25

What you see is what you get wisedog. Not only do I not compare t20 to test cricket, I've never really compared ODI's to test cricket - I see all 3 as separate sports with test cricket being miles ahead of the other 2 versions with regards to my preference. t20's has a high appeal to the holiday crowd, women and young people - the eyes say it all and popular culture is popular culture. Having said all that, I'm not in a hurry to watch the games ... what does interest me is the progression of this version of the game and what will happen to cricket in the future because of the presence of t20's - I'm certainly not concerned in a negative way though. The overall interest in cricket in Australia is quite high and the crowds and TV viewers reflect that opinion.

Big reversal of a pass interference call with 8.18 left in the 4th quarter in the Dallas game ... no explanation given Perhaps a call came in from Vegas Home town decisions are always likely to occur and must be factored in but the defensive player (Hitchens) doesn't look like he ever had eyes for the ball. If the original call had have stood, Detroit would have been within field goal range with a 1st down (the Lions were leading 20-17 at the time) To be fair, there were probably a number of other "iffy" pass interference calls throughout the game (there always seems to be) so I guess things evened themselves out in the end. Still, Detroit would probably feel a little aggrieved. The incident is certainly a talking point ... Pete Morelli: Penalty not warranted Leaderboard in the Playoff Comp 3 - Go the Biff, JV7, Macca 2 - pantaloons, Georgiou R.R. Martin 0 - everyone else Sunday Jan 11 8.30am Baltimore @ New England 12.15pm Carolina @ Seattle Monday Jan 12 5.00am Dallas @ Green Bay 8.30am Iindianapolis @ Denver

Ravens D getting it done ... Big Ben needs to find something

Not a lot different to your summation rjay and with the talent pool being spread so thin, it's hard to see a lot of discernible change with ladder positions and win totals. We couldn't always say that in the past.

We might be talking about this trade in the years to come ... It's already looking long odds that the trade is a loss with break even being worse case scenario. Of course, we won't know who we might have picked if we'd kept pick 23 but the likelihood that whoever we might have picked ending up a star is remote. The chances of ever unearthing a star with a pick in the low 20's isn't great. I'm happy to call it a win already ... hoping to be able to call it a huge win in the future ... all 3 of Frost, O-Mc & ANB could end up being reasonable players for us - at a minimum.

Yep, and whilst none of their fans would happily admit it, they wanted their team to tank that game and indeed, their team did tank ... not well enough though hey? Amazing how 1 goal can change the course of hstory. Of course, a couple of weeks later in that year we smashed Freo in a game which didn't effect that priority pick but if McMahon had have missed that goal that day I'm tipping the course of events that followed would have been vastly different. The Tigers would have almost certainly got the no.1 pick and they probably would have taken Scully. We would have probably only had the no.2 pick (without a priority pick) and it's doubtful there would have ever been the tanking investigation. Well, that's in theory anyway. I goal and a matter of seconds made all the difference.

Trying to have a logical discussion with a tiger supporter about footy is often a fruitless task - they've got chips on their shoulders the size of boulders and they often possess a nasty streak that is Collingwood like ... and I come across a lot of them. All supporters have their traits don't they? Or "perceived" traits. I don't mind most of the jibes that come our way but the bit that annoys me is our supposed lack of loyalty and how our supporters are somehow at fault because of our lack of success on the field (of late) It's just pure rot. What on earth could we have done as supporters to make the team play better? Cheer louder?

Never really been to BF but I'm assuming that you're talking to supporters of all the other clubs ... good luck with that. The way you presented your argument was a good one though Gonzo - you might have educated a portion of them. In terms of membership and our ability to turn supporters into members, we punch way above our weight. We're a lot more loyal than we're given credit for. As for attendance at the games, all teams have the same sort of drop off rate amongst their supporters when their team isn't winning games. The QB numbers goes against that trend though. The Blues/Tigers season opener is another that is normally well attended. I'd like to see our club start the season with a clash against a big drawing club - we've got the Pies locked in for QB and hopefully the Tigers on Anzac eve. Perhaps the Bombers for round 1? (home one year, away the next) If we did that we'd at least start the season off with a win That wouldn't mean that we couldn't get another clash against both the Tigers & Dons in the 2nd half of the year (that in turn, would ensure we'd get at least 3 home games against 3 big drawing clubs - every season) We need to have that opportunity to catch up to the more financially viable clubs. We also need to start winning a lot more games in order to have a stronger case.

I didn't watch it Smithy ... but, I watched the end of the Heat's innings. Didn't give the Tassie side much of a chance to be honest but that must have been a terrific run chase by them. The 2 Melbourne sides go at it tonight at Docklands ... Stars are 0-3 and the Renegades are 1-2 so if the Stars lose, they'll almost certainly be out of it - KP might put on a show though and there's sure to be a big crowd.

From where we're coming from 8-9 wins is a realistic aim ... and if a team is good enough to get to 8-9 wins then it is usually good enough to get to 11-12 wins (there's not a great deal of difference between the 2 categories) I've always felt that a team needs at least 6 very good players (or A grade, A+) to be able to make the finals ... depth needs to be decent as well to make the finals (the last 6 picked in any given week need to be able to play a bit or play a role) So, there's a "formula" involved whether we want to accept that or not ... some supporters dream big and others prefer to take a far more conservative view but the players and everyone associated with the club needs to believe that we're capable of winning any game. Winning is often about belief but without enough good players, it's hard to win. We need a number of players to take more than one step up - that's entirely possible. We've seen a countless amount of players take a quantum leap before - we just need to see that happen at our club. Again, there's no reason why that can't happen. There isn't one player on our list who can't improve - some more so than others. Above all else, Roos needs to breed a good level of confidence within the group - we need to start believing in ourselves. Us supporters can really only hope for the best. I'd also like to see the team play in a far more direct fashion.

Many attacking shots are just an extension of defensive shots ... t20 creates a situation where young players are playing the extension of the defensive shots as a first option but again, it's nothing to be too worried about. Batting is an artform but there's no reason it can't be learnt with an aggressive intent. In fact, that is what is happening a fair bit of the time. The new breed of batsmen are going to be more aggressive. Take Maxwell for example - he's got all the shots and he can play defensively but ... it's his temperament and decision making which is the issue. ... and temperament and decision making can be taught & learnt. Warner is living proof of that. He's now a much more solid player - many might have thought he'd never make it as a test player. In the future, there will be many like Warner - it stands to reason. A lot of the young Indian batsmen are and will be gravitating from t20 cricket. Like most things in sport, the cream rises to the top. Kohli & Vijay have each played 6 or 7 seasons of IPL and are in high demand in the shortest form of the game. Both can play.

I went to a number of Bushranger games (before the instigation of the big bash) and whilst I enjoyed the games back then, I lost a bit of interest because I was trying too take the games too seriously. Now, I just have the games on without watching it too intently. Most people I know watch the games for the same type of reason. Strangely enough, I watch the tennis and the footy in a similar way (apart from demon games) When I want to watch sport in a serious way, I will. t20 cricket appeals to the holiday crowd - it's a bit of fun and it's harmless. It's certainly not going to be the ruination of test cricket. In fact, the crossover of players and spectators helps the sport on an overall basis. What I find to be fascinating is how a new sport like this can take hold of the public's interest. The positive is that the public get to have a look at our players who aren't in the test side - albeit at breakneck speed

I'm kinda liking seeing all these old timers doing well in this frenetic form of the game - in some ways it doesn't make sense but of course, class is permanent. Kallis was great to watch tonight I'm thinking that this version of the game is terrific for those summer nights. Light entertainment at it's best. Not to be taken too seriously - that's the whole key.

Yeah, well ... in Warne's first 2 series he took a total of 4 wickets for 386. We should have turfed Shane out there and then ... well, those without any patience might have. Your view on Lee is a popular one but it's not one I share - our best bowlers can't all be DK Lillee/McGrath like. I watched Lee live and in my opinion he was a top player. Contrarily, I sometimes feel for the best batsmen whose average is often compared to Bradman's. It's unfair because the Don was right out there on his own. By the way, even Bradman had a poor series or 2 (by his own standards) The bit I've highlighted can't be underestimated. He was better than just being a genuine quick anyway. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one TD - I don't believe that there were too many batsmen around the world who relished facing him for that 6-7 year period. He softened them up nicely for McGrath, Gillespie, Warne et al. I'd agree that he's certainly not an all time great but that's not what I'm arguing. My argument would be somewhat similar for McDermott (another player who gets unfairly maligned because he wasn't "great") Warne was a miles better bowler than his average indicates too - averages aren't everything. Aggregates are often a better indication - not always, but 708 wickets is 708 wickets (Warne's bowling average was 25.41) Re Stoinis ... hadn't realised that he also bowls a bit of medium pace - don't know much about him but I find it interesting that he's made his way to Victoria after making his debut for WA (when he was just 19) Bats in the top 3 as well ... one to watch?

I somewhat agree with you re Ahmed but Lyon has done too well to be rested or dropped. Boyce, Muirhead and a couple of others have merit as well but we don't often pick 2 front line spinners at home these days. I see Agar as more of an all rounder right now - not a great one but who is great? Mitch Marsh would almost certainly be playing if he was fit but would we have Watson in the same team as well? I honestly believe the selectors are looking at improving the depth of our bowling within the side ... we'll get an indication of that if Agar does play in the match. My guess is that he may not play ... but, if he does play then Burns will probably make way. That might seem harsh but I'm thinking it's just for this particular test. Also, we've got a world cup coming up and then we go to the West Indies where the wickets have more recently offered a bit for the spinners. Agar could bat in the Sydney test behind Haddin in that scenario (no.7) It might also be Watson who makes way but we're in a bit of a bind with the no.3 batting spot. Burns or Marsh could bat in that spot but they do seem to want to persevere with Watson at 3. My "speculative" eleven ... Rogers Warner Watson Smith S Marsh Haddin Agar Johnson Harris Lyon Hazlewood In an ideal world I'd rest Johnson & Harris (Starc & Siddle are both in the squad so at least one of Johnson or Harris might be rested)

It's a speculative pick Smithy ... treat is as such and the merit can be seen. We've done so in the past with spectacular results ... Warne, Border and S Waugh hadn't done very much at all before they were picked for Australia ... now, I'm not for a minute putting Agar in the same category of those 3 players but I can't see what the issue is. This "banging down the door" stuff is pure rubbish if we were to completely analyse the way our players have advanced to the test side throughout history ... I even heard Border say it the other day. Honestly, when Border was first picked it was Allan who? Our memory plays tricks with us. Even Bradman hadn't done a great deal before he first got picked ... so much so that he batted at no.7 in his first test and then was promptly dropped ... if they knew he was going to average 99.94 throughout his career then why bat him so low and why drop him after 1 test? The truth is that he was a speculative pick (like most of our other greats have been) We shouldn't be at all concerned about giving some of our young blokes a go (especially in a dead rubber) If we took the same attitude in footy then when would the stars be first picked? When they're 25? Greg Chappell said it best ... "You learn how to play test cricket by playing test cricket" ... Chappell would know.

"Toorak Park" would fit our image to a nicety Just did a 'google' and apparently Prahran (two blues) and Old Xav's still play there (as well as the Prahran cricket club in the summer) Nice thought though dc

I reckon even AB would be still surprised at his match figures in this particular match ... Australia vs West Indies 4th Test 1988/89 ... not too shabby for a left arm trundler! (7/46 in the first dig) We touched on it the other day about the drop-in wickets ... the SCG wicket was often renowned as a "turner" but it's not looked upon in the same way these days ... in that particular game (above) we picked 4 front line bowlers (including 2 spinners) and 2 of our batsmen were players who often bowled in our games (S Waugh & Border) The other thing to consider is that the bowling of Warner & Smith hasn't really come on.

Lee was an absolute gun in his prime ... his ability to bowl express pace was underrated. The opposition would have had him on their minds constantly - a genuine fear factor. Like most genuinely quick bowlers he created wickets at the other end. He also did happen to pick up 300 odd wickets himself ... I've never understood why many didn't rate him highly - his critics couldn't see the intangibles that Lee brought to the sport. I suspect that's the main reason he gets marked down. We've nearly always had half decent 5th and 6th bowlers ... not genuine all rounder types but Steve and Mark Waugh were more than handy ... Greg Chappell, Border and various others could more than play their role as back-up bowlers. Agar has just turned 21 - he should be judged in 3-4 years time when he's had a lot more exposure. Right now, he's a young up and comer who is more a batsman than a bowler ... he's got plenty of time to develop all areas of his game. I like the selection. It's not often the selectors get a chance to invest in the future with a speculative pick. Now is the time ... I might also add that we'll have that same opportunity when we go to the West Indies in May/June next year.

They'll be looking at Agar's all round ability ... the 5th bowler who can bat at no.6 or no.7 Currently it's Watson but he bats at no.3 ... would be Mitch Marsh but he's injured. Other candidates are Faulkner & Maxwell. We need a 5th bowler because our front 4 aren't Lee, McGrath, Gillespie & Warne ... Lyon can be got at and our quicks have had their injury issues (including the odd quick breaking down in a game) Agar shouldn't necessarily be looked at as the 2nd spinner - more like the back-up spinner/5th bowler.

Playoff Schedule ... it looks like all the playoff games will be shown live on 7mate & ESPN Sunday Jan 4 8.25am Arizona (5) @ Carolina (4) 12.15pm Baltimore (6) @ Pittsburgh (3) Monday Jan 5 5.00am Cincinnati (5) @ Indianapolis (4) 8.30am Detroit (6) @ Dallas (3) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sunday Jan 11 8.30am Indi/Cin/Balt @ New England 12.15pm Car/Ari/Det @ Seattle Monday Jan 12 5.00am Dal/Car/Ari @ Green Bay 8.30am Pit/Indi/Cin @ Denver

It has to happen one day ... just some blue sky thinking on my part. It is still December Who we play against in our home games probably wouldn't be such an issue if we were having winning seasons ... if that was the case our membership and crowd numbers would increase in far more than an incremental way. We'd hopefully be getting more prime time TV games and the flow on effects would happen as a matter of course (as long as we were being well run as a club) We're actually well set up to do well financially - we just need to start winning on a far more consistent basis ... I reckon we need another decent off season for that to happen - 2 decent free agents in one hit would help things immeasurably. Just like the QB clash, we need to get along in our droves to that Anzac eve game against Richmond - we're sure to beat them anyway. They'll get ahead of themselves again and plummet down the ladder - there's nothing surer.