Macca

We get 450 and Lyon gets match figures of (minimum) 6/150 and we'll win the match. All the quicks need to contribute but we're already in the box seat. Clarke really knows how to go on with it after reaching 3 figures hey? He's just relentless and puts so much value on his wicket. Maddinson has done very well in the latest Australia A game. Still only 21 years old and a big prospect. Might he get a call up to the Ashes squad? Inverarity did say that players could be added.

Well you've got the divisional games covered if we go on last year's form. Just need to start rackin' up those wins outside your division!

Ok, let's agree to disagree. C'mon Aussies! (I'm sure we'd agree on that one yeah?)

How are you so sure that Clarke isn't already a great captain? I'm not going to call him a great captain yet but he's doing a lot better than many want to give him credit for. The captaincy seems to have enhanced his batting as well. He's our one shining light and you keep looking for faults. Most people I speak to have nothing but praise for his innovative captaincy. Only Bradman could improve this team to be a possible great one and even then he'd have to hog the strike! (which I'm sure he'd be quite capable of doing) He'd probably have to bring O'Reilly and Miller along as well so that we'd be assured of capturing 20 wickets. If we win this Test the England camp will be feeling more than a little uneasy.

I just don't get the negativity surrounding pup. He's a gun batsman who leads by example and is tactically spot on. He can't bat for the other players and no amount of motivation is going to make an ounce of difference if a batsman hasn't got it. Who cares about his personality or what he does outside cricket? Playing personalities is a futile exercise and pointless. Too much is made of that stuff. It is a team game made up of various individual performances. A captain is limited with his influence. The batting order picks itself and bowling changes are often 'no-brainers' (the same goes for field settings) I'd bet Clarke would love McGrath and Warne at his disposal. There's not much a captain can do if the cattle isn't there. Thankfully we've set ourselves up to win this match on the back of .... Clarke himself (although the Rogers knock was very good) By the way, Smith is exceptionally lucky to be still there. He could easily have been out at nought and survived 2 other close calls before he'd reached 26. The last one was out except England had run out of referrals. Just adding a bit of perspective for those who might be interested

Yeah, there's more than a few sports people telling lies about drugs hey! It almost comes across as a justified action which baffles me. Braun will be forgiven soon enough and that's half the problem. The fans will soon forget if he gets back to top form again on his return. Rodgers went into bat for him quite strongly but he shouldn't feel embarrassed or ashamed about doing that. On the contrary, he would feel betrayed and should be getting the public's sympathy (not that he'd want it) He trusted a mate and was let down badly. Wonder if they've spoken since? (now that would have to be a steamy conversation ... starting off with ... "You ....") As for the Jennings comments, that's just all part of the show over there. I like that sort of stuff and besides, Jennings will always be remembered as a Packer champion.

Warner, Lyon and Starc in for Hughes, Agar and Pattinson. Warner to bat an no.6. Clarke is back up to no.4. We've won the toss and we're batting so if we play well, England will have to bat last on this wicket. Mystery burnt pitch greets Aussies for third Test at Old Trafford as spinners expected to prosper

Yes, I agree. This is probably the first time I can remember actually looking forward to the Preseason games (starts tomorrow week on ESPN with Cinci @ Atlanta) There's another game on next Monday (our time) but it's not televised. You've got my Packers first up in week 1 of the regular season in a re-match of the divisional playoff game (the one where Kaepernick went gang busters) Tough one to start for Green Bay Reckon the 49ers will be right up there again but Seattle and the Rams will be tough opposition in your division. Not sure about Arizona but they did win their first 4 games last year (including a win at Foxborough)

Yeah, you hear lots of rumour and innuendo but was any of that stuff ever substantiated? That stuff has nearly always surrounded the team - it goes way back. The old one was that it was harder to go out of the side than get in it! We had an absolute golden era for a long time and there were quite a few very good batsmen who just couldn't get into the side. Law, Lehmann, Siddons, Hodge, Di Venuto, Jamie Cox and others were all churning out stacks of runs and couldn't get a look in (we could do with them now hey?) The tide will turn - you put 2 or 3 very good reliable batsmen into the team and suddenly we'd be a very good outfit again. I still have faith in the Shield system and cricket still has very good participation rates.

I talk about individuals and their talents because that's how I see the game. I acknowledge where your emphasis lies but I don't place as much importance in those areas (though it is important of course) If we were talking about footy and more importantly, the Demons, I would be in almost total agreement with you. Like golf, technique is ultra important in cricket. Specialist coaching is more important in my eyes (that goes for the bowlers as well) I would acknowledge that you don't want a 'toxic culture' in any team sport but I'm not convinced that the culture is all that different to how it's ever been. Winning can cover up a few things as you well know. Losing exposes all sorts of mud.

I doubt whether Arthur, Lehmann or any other coach for that matter could turn an average batsman into a great batsman. It just doesn't work that way in cricket. Do you reckon Buchanan made Ponting a better batsman or Warne a better bowler? Hughes' numbers might have been good in Shield cricket but there are no guarantees anyone can make the next step. Any good young batsman from Shield cricket tried at the Test level either makes it or he doesn't. Plenty don't make it but that doesn't mean you abandon the idea and start picking blokes who are past it or too old to start off with. Hughes had technique issues which were exposed when he got to Test level. It was only a couple of years ago when he was giving slips practice to the fieldsmen behind the wicket. He's come back a better player but I'm far from convinced he'll ever be a great player. Same goes for Smith and to a lesser extent, Warner. Watson is a limited player and can't seem to score freely when the field is set in a run saving fashion. You've just got to keep turning young players over until you find a gem (though a young player should be given a good go at it) Older players like Rogers, Cowan, North and Quiney need to fire almost immediately. Quiney played 2 Tests and unless Rogers makes runs soon, he won't play many Tests either.

Yeah, that's all well and good and I don't disagree, however, it still comes down to individual talent. Cricket is made up of individual performances that add up to a team effort. It doesn't resemble a lot of other team sports. Baseball for instance, is more of a team sport yet is probably looked upon as more of an individual thing. Cricketers in a lot of ways need to be selfish (but not to the point of upsetting team harmony) A coach and or captain can only do so much in cricket. They can help you prepare for games with the right specialist training and the right environment, but the player himself still has to have the talent to get the job done. When a batsman is facing Shane Warne or Dale Steyn he needs to have excellent technique, patience, temperament, good attitude and good fighting qualities. A top batsman should have those type of qualities before he makes it to the Test side. By the time a batsman gets to Test level they should be ready to go. That is a lot different to many other team sports. Allowing for nerves and getting adjusted to a higher level, a batsman is going to get 'tested' immediately. There's nowhere to hide (although we used to have a policy of batting a new young batsman at no.6 or sometimes even as low as no.7) My view of wanting to place the faith in youth is a conservative one 'dl', yet you may see it as high risk. Just about all our best batsmen in history were picked when they were young and with a few exceptions, most were largely unknown. I see no reason to go away from that tried and true method of picking our future stars.

It's been so long since we've had to rebuild that people have forgotten that the last time we did it, we did it with youth. Border was the only real mainstay when we last did it. If we draw a line through the 1989 Ashes team as when we 'finally' came good after a horrible period, then it's interesting to look at the ages of players in that team when they debuted (and I'm specifically talking about the batsman) Player ... Age on debut ... Age just prior during the 1989 tour. Marsh ........ 26 ... 30 Taylor ........ 24 ... 24 Boon ......... 23 ... 28 Jones ........ 22 ... 28 Border ....... 23 ... 33 S Waugh ... 20 ... 24 Summary ... we picked them when they were young and we bore the fruits at a later date. We did the hard yards through the mid to late 80's but it paid off (apart from when we persevered with Hilditch, Wood and a few others for too long) Picking young blokes in cricket is the way to go. If you pick an old bloke and it doesn't work you've got nothing to fall back on. For this reason I believe that Rogers, Cowan, Katich, Jacques and others should be overlooked. You would only pick an older batsman if he's had an outstanding few years. You might look at Bailey (30) or North in a 'bridging' fashion but ordinarily no.

15 - 20 Tests tops (and they have to have shown something) Steve Waugh was a real late bloomer and really, an aberration. Most batsmen start hitting their straps after they've played 10 - 15 Tests (or earlier) Or, they get found out. If a player hasn't established himself after 15 - 20 Tests then it's time for a spell. A young player can always make a reappearance later on down the track. Langer, Hayden, Martyn and others have come back better players after being dropped for lengthy spells. You can't just gift a player 15 - 20 Tests either - they have to perform. The key is to pick them when they're young. It is a tried and true method in Australian cricket and for the most part, it works. England do it now and many other countries do as well. We've gone away from it a little bit but it's not the sole reason we are struggling. A generation of gun players all retired over a 5 year period and we always had to rebuild.

'dl' ... it's almost impossible to judge players (batsmen) who haven't played Test cricket yet. And those who haven't played Test cricket need to play a certain amount of games in order for anyone to be able to judge their ability against pace and spin. Of those who have played, the only player who does very well against pace and spin is Clarke. That's it. The rest have one issue or another ... Hughes has struggled against spin but at times has played pace well. Smith plays spin ok and is now playing better against pace. Warner struggles against spin but plays pace well. Cowan is reasonable against both pace and spin but gets out when he is set. Watson just can't go on with it after getting starts. I believe we have to place our faith in youth but not all at once. I'd have Maddinson and Burns in now but that probably can't happen for a while. It's rare for the selectors to go outside the squad when picking the batsmen in the team on an overseas tour (although Smith was added to the squad) Interesting aside ...Maddinson is 21 years old and has made 5 first class centuries. Steve Waugh was 20 years old when he made his Test debut and had only made 2 first class centuries leading up to his debut. And ... Burns is 23 years old and has made 5 first class centuries. Allan Border was 23 years when he made his Test debut and again, had made only 2 first class centuries leading up to his debut. Both Border and Steve Waugh were virtual unknowns before they played Test cricket (our memory plays tricks with us) The only 2 young batsmen (in the last 30 years) who were quite well known before their Test debut's were Ponting and Clarke. Mark Waugh was well known but a bit older (25) Hussey and Gilly the same. Comparing a young batsman in cricket to an 18 year old draftee in footy is like comparing chalk and cheese. For the most part a young batsmen has been playing grade or district cricket for 6 or 7 years (against men) and will probably have played Ist class cricket for at least a couple of years.

I reckon it might be because the selectors are taking the 'safe' route. Or what they perceive as the safe route. I doubt that many of the players I listed who were aged 24 or younger when they debuted, were dominating at Shield ranks at the time (apart from Ponting?) It's a bit like hugging the boundary line in footy, I see that as high risk, not low risk. Picking older blokes in cricket is probably a higher risk in cricket (unless they are an obvious star like Hussey or Gilly) T20 is a lousy excuse and is another way for people to look for an easy way out. The South African players play just as much t20 cricket and it doesn't seem to effect them. In fact, all the countries play t20 except perhaps England (who invented the game). 50 over cricket has been extremely popular since the late 70's so that's another excuse. It comes down to technique, temperament, attitude and placing faith in youth. (except perhaps in the case of spinners) Oh and 'dl', I might try and find out the aggregates and averages of those listed players before they debuted. At a guess I reckon their averages might range between 35 and 45 (with the odd exception) Right now, the young batsmen in the Sheffield Shield may not be setting the world on fire but I'm guessing that's nearly always been the case (except for maybe Ponting and 1 or 2 others)

Cowan out for 66 and Hughes out for 84 in the tour match against Sussex ... currently 2/171 ... scorecard Further to that list of top bats or gun bats to emerge in the last 30 years is the age of the players on debut. S Waugh (20) Ponting (20) Martyn (21) Clarke (21) Jones (22) Hayden (22) Langer (22) Slater (23) Boon (23) Border (23) Taylor (24) M Waugh (25) Katich (25) Marsh (26) Gilchrist (27) Hussey (30)

Keiko Matsui with 'Black Lion' Macca's jazz 6.5

My biggest controversy of the year will most probably involve Rex, the Jets, a tattoo and Geno!

There are a surprising amount of away winners in the NFL. I counted up 7 or 8 away winners in 3 of the first 4 weeks last season. Anyway, we'll see how it goes. If enough people join in then we can keep it going - if not, no harm done. Just a recap ... 1 point to anyone who gets all 3 (or 4?) right and we could also have a few 'bonus' weeks where 2 points are up for grabs. Keeping it small and straight forward is probably the best way to go. I remember Dappa, myself and 1 or 2 others having a go at all the games a couple of years ago but it took a bit of time. Just picking 3 or 4 away winners is far easier. Don't believe we need another thread for it either. I'd probably just keep it at 3 so that we can at least get 1 winner per week! As for the season prediction, I've no doubt I'll make a complete mess of things again. I had the Eagles and Packers meeting in the NFC Championship game last season for instance. Can't remember any of my other predictions but they would have been way off the mark

Here's the cable schedule for the Preseason games ... Fri 9th August 10am ... Cincinnati at Atlanta ESPN 2 Fri 16th August 10am ... San Diego at Chicago ESPN 2 Tues 20th August 10am ... Pittsburgh at Washington ESPN Fri 23rd August 10am ... Carolina at Baltimore ESPN It's not much although there might be some other games added at the last minute (OneHD may well be covering a few games) The above games will no doubt be replayed at night. Nothing scheduled for week 4 of the Preseason games (yet) 'Monday Night Countdown' precedes the scheduled Preseason games and 'NFL Live' returns as well.

The thing that has to be remembered is that in some sports (like Cycling and Track & Field) there is a lot of testing done. In some sports like those 2 examples, an athlete might be tested 50 or more times a year (Craig Mottram reckons he gets tested every week - on average) In other sports (especially team sports) there is hardly any testing done in comparison. Transparency vs non transparency needs to be factored in. Boomer Harvey of the Roos said a couple of years ago that over a 10 year period, he was never tested. Not once. Whilst not excusing O'Grady, I often wonder how many athletes in some team sports have gotten away with taking PED's for their entire career's. Baseball is in the news in the States but their drug testing and actions against PED's is getting quite strong (compared to other team sports around the world) Why should sports which take a pro-active stance against PED's be copping it when other sports who often only have 'token' testing, escape the same scrutiny? Those who think we should just give up and let the chemists and scientists control sport haven't thought of the end result. Many or most sports followers would lose interest and it would then become a battle between the athletes who can withstand the most 'roids in their system. It doesn't bear thinking about. Oh and Cards, I agree with your sentiments on the UCI but we could point the finger at a number of other organisations in other sports. Many sports still don't test for HGH or do blood testing. Cycling and Track & Field catch the most cheats because they test the most.

How's it go, Biff ... ...yes, no, wait, oh .... !

Lost in translation probably jazza ... I don't have an issue with Cowan's technique (although, like most of the others in the squad, he's not great against spin) It's his possible inability to become a bona fide top batsman going forward. He's not alone though, as apart from Clarke and perhaps Khawaja, the rest of our batsmen in the touring party have one issue or another. At some stage the sample size becomes big enough where we can start making a reasonable appraisal. My reckoning with batsmen is if they are not a 'Star' by the time they reach the age of 26 - 28 they probably never will be. Hussey was a star at that age - he just wasn't playing Test cricket. Ditto for Gilly. To my way of thinking, a player must be a potential star when they get picked for the Test side. 'Ok's', 'all right's', 'role players', 'fill in player's' and 'NQR's won't take you anywhere in the long term. It's not like footy where you have to put up with those sort of players. In fact, the comparisons to a footy side are often largely irrelevant. You can often end up with a whole team of NQR's if you continue to accept 2nd best. Graeme Wood played 59 Tests and in the end only averaged 31.83. He always seemed to make a big score to save his bacon but on an overall basis, he played far too many Tests. There are a number of other examples where the selectors have shown too much faith. Sometimes they don't show enough faith. It's a fine balance. I'd be making changes to the Test side now (from outside the squad) My reckoning is that we're most probably going to have to make those changes sooner or later and you don't necessarily want to be doing that at the start of an important series (like the one starting in November this year) We probably will stick pat with the current lot but what happens if they continue to get smashed? We'll then start the November series in a real quandary.

Whatever the reason might be, we are just not producing Test class batsmen and haven't really produced one since Michael Hussey debuted. All others since then either haven't come on or were good for a while and then fell away. Since Greg Chappell retired we've had a number of top bats or gun bats. I'm not telling anyone here anything new when listing the following batsmen (age on debut in brackets) ... Border (23) , S Waugh (20), Boon (23), Marsh (26), Jones (22), Taylor (24), M Waugh (25), Ponting (20), Slater (23), Hayden (22), Langer (22), Martyn (21), Gilchrist (27), Clarke (21), Katich (25) and Hussey (30) were all either gun bats or top bats who could be relied upon. It would be easy to point the finger at t20 cricket but the South Africans are living proof that that can't necessarily be the reason. Most of their players play in the IPL and their own domestic t20 comp (as well as other comps in some cases) That article with Greg Chappell as the centrepiece did outline a number of reasons for our dearth of talented batsmen and I guess we just have to wade things out until good batsmen emerge. Happy to be proven wrong on our current lot (apart from Clarke and maybe Khawaja) but I reckon we've seen a big enough sample size with a few of them. If Warner comes into the side and bats at no.6 then he will be facing Swann 1st up. That's the reality and most other Test nations now know that probably our biggest issue is the ability of our batsmen to play good spin bowling. Out of Warner, Hughes, Smith and Watson, I can maybe only see one or 2 of them surviving long term. And it's a fairly big maybe. Rogers and Cowan need big runs right now to survive. From all accounts the Manchester wicket takes a bit of spin so there will be no respite. There was some talk that Panesar might play as well but that would mean that Prior would have to bat at no.6. (a 7,8 and 9 of Bresnan, Broad and Swann is fairly handy though!)