Macca

Wasn't aware of that but the contentious decisions seemed to have evened out as the series has progressed. DRS will forever remain an issue unless it's foolproof. I'd be just as happy to leave things with the umpires anyway. (with maybe the 3rd umpire stepping in for the 'howler') Not sure that many careers were ruined by a poor umpiring decision. The rub of the green evens things up over time. Many are saying the technology is here to stay but I can see the ICC ditching it. We know India aren't for it and all will it take is for a couple of Countries to follow suit and we may see the end of it. The biggest flaw is the LBW decision. Just clipping leg stump was generally given not out for decades and now it's often given as out. (and I have some real doubt about the accuracy of 'Hawk-eye') As for our batting display, as soon as the ball is doing a bit, we look all at sea (although Rogers can tough it out) As much as we need Pup to lead from the front, he's no good to us sitting in the sheds (out) Coming in at 2 for 82 as he did in the 3rd Test is a lot different to coming in at 2 for 12 in this Test or 2 for 19 in the 1st Test. I understand the need for Clarke to bat at no.4 but he's been so productive at no.5. We're robbing Peter to pay Paul but Paul doesn't always get paid. Clarke's only real weakness is he's vulnerable early in his innings if the ball is moving about. I reckon he's an almost perfect no.5 but he may not bat there again (at least for the foreseeable future) Rogers and Smith need to put on a decent partnership and all eyes will be on Watson to produce (he needs to) We haven't got the extended batting line-up that we had in the first 3 Tests. Our Tail may not be able to rescue the team this time. We'll need some runs from Haddin as well.

Mark Waugh is saying that most of the ball must be hitting the stumps for it to be out (under the circumstances of that particular incident) Seems rather cruel to be given out with the double dip anyway. "Ya dipped, ya had your appeal turned down, ya dipped again"

You wonder if it's all a bit of mind games. Jennings may be using all this to get himself going - who knows? It's all a bit different over there and I'm not really surprised. WR's have a certain reputation to uphold. Yeah, saw a bit of the highlights of the Preseason games. From what can be gathered, these games can be used to get structures right without any huge emphasis on scores or winning. Offensive and defensive line formations and the like would probably be high on the agenda for all the teams. The top QB's often don't get much of a run but sometimes they do. It's a real mixed bag. The Packers didn't score against Arizona (Rodgers went 3/5 for 62 yards) but it was good to see our RB James Starks have 12 rushing attempts for 38 yards. Mark Schlereth said it best ...

Aside from Clarke, there isn't one batsman who is assured of playing all 5 Tests when the Ashes are up for grabs in Australia. Normally we'd have at least 4 in total that we could bank on, but who would be willing to stick their neck out for any of them? I reckon that 2 or 3 will probably will probably play in all 5 Tests but which ones? Rogers might play all 5 but he can't afford to fail like he did in the first 2 Tests in England. Hopefully the 80 he made in the 3rd Test is a sign of things to come. Smith is improving and Watson's bowling helps him a lot. Warner, Khawaja and Hughes have youth on their side. Not at all sure where Cowan fits right now. We are not close to having a settled batting line-up. Some will say that we need to stick pat with our current batsmen but it's easier said than done. Losing and losing badly clouds the issue. Aside from Agar's 98 in the 1st Test, we were comprehensively outplayed when the heat was on in both the first 2 Tests. Change is often forced and change is often not really a option. If we lose the 1st Test in Brisbane then the whole debate will rage on again. Our batting has to click in Brisbane. Cross that bridge when we come to it? We're already at the bridge. Our batsmen have to perform well in the next 2 Tests. Let's hope they do. Not all of them will perform well - that's almost a given. There will be at least one batsman in the current 6 who we will be pointing the finger at by the end of the 5th Test. (save for a huge combined batting effort in both these Tests - what are the chances of that?)

If we do get that score of 400-500 then that may well end up posing more questions than it answers. Not sure if that happens that it solves the issues we have with our top 6. If we start the next Ashes series with 6 of the current 8 batsmen who are in England then we may well be heading for another series defeat (it must be remembered that in the last 9 months we've lost series to South Africa, India and England without registering a win against any of those sides) Our batting has been an issue since before those series' began. Now, the batting might magically come together for the next series and we might win the Ashes back but what are the chances? There's every chance that 1 or 2 new batsmen will get an opportunity in the next series but in some ways, that might be a little late. To me, these last 2 Tests were a perfect opportunity to test the waters with 1 new batsman (they're doing it with a bowler - Bird) Unless our batsmen do very well in the next 2 Tests then the question marks will remain. Both Tests as well because if the batsmen fail in either Test (thus incurring a loss) then the selectors will be forced to make a change or 2 for the 1st Test in Brisbane. Looking too far ahead? No. All the plans should now be for the next series. We've lost the Ashes, the series is over and whilst we can salvage something from the wreck, it's the next series that is the most important. We can save a bit of face but that's all. If this current series was being played in Australia then 1 or 2 batsmen might have already been banished. I understand that bringing a player in from outside the squad is rarely done but both Agar & Smith were added to the squad before the 1st Test. Anyway, it will be interesting to note the tone of the conversation in October surrounding the make-up of that 1st Test team in Brisbane. I'm willing to bet that our batting line-up won't be settled by then.

Bird strikes with a 'McGrath' like delivery to get rid of Cook. If he can reproduce that sort of leg cutter regularly, he'll have quite a career. Bowls with very good rhythm and makes the batsmen play consistently. Ideal 2nd or 3rd seamer. You may well be right about him, 'Biff'. We're building up quite a battery of fast bowlers. (especially when Cummins and Pattinson are fit and raring to go again) Lyon has also bowled well. Trott and KP are a couple of handy scalps on a day 1 pitch. Hope he gets a bag here. He's copped a bit of unnecessary stick from quite a few of the English commentators (notably Boycott, Vaughan and Gower) Whilst he may never achieve greatness, he's still quite a good offie.

Maxwell is certainly very talented and likes to play his shots (like a number of the young batsmen in Shield cricket) His first class batting average is around about the same as Burns, Maddinson, Silk and Doolan's (high 30's or low 40's) I could see him possibly batting at no.6 in the future but only if we had a strong batting line-up. The National selectors would probably be looking at batsmen who bat in the top 3 or 4 for their State (Burns, Maddinson, Silk and Doolan fall into this category) Glenn probably has to bat higher for Victoria to be considered right now. But at 24, Maxwell is too young to write off just yet. At least his bowling is handy (35 wickets at 35.22) Many of our batsmen or potential new batsmen don't bowl much at all and when your top 4 bowlers aren't great (yet), you need 1 or 2 of your batsmen to bowl a certain number of overs. Smith, Warner and Clarke's bowling can't be relied upon. We would miss Watson's bowling if he wasn't replaced with a 'like for like'. For that reason, I was surprised that Henriques wasn't in the Ashes squad (especially when we consider Watto's history with injuries)

The latest news is that the Packers 'brainwashed' Jennings ... Perhaps if we get 'Roosey', he can brainwash our midfield into believing they're all Gary Ablett jnr types

Save it for the Vikes, Bears and Lions fella's ... just ease up a bit! Green Bay Packers fighting like crazy in training camp ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HAuXR-x7TY

On Cricinfo there is a facility where you can break down the scoring shots of a batsman in any given match. Here is a breakdown of scoring shots in the just completed 3rd Test ... scoring shots graph (with this link you can click on different players who played in the 3rd Test) After clicking on Michael Clarke to bring up his graph, it does highlight Clarke's ability to knock the ball into the gaps for a single and rotate the strike (or get off strike) It can be an underrated feature of a very good batsman and often the lesser batsman doesn't have the same skill. If we look at all our batsmen apart from Clarke, they are not known for their ability to take a single (although Steve Smith seems to be adding it to his game and Rogers is probably good at it) In Clarke's score of 187 he had a total of 94 scoring shots of which 52 were singles. Smith's score included 50 scoring shots of which 31 were singles. In contrast Rogers score included 32 scoring shots with only 10 singles. Without checking the numbers it seems that Warner, Watson, Hughes and Khawaja don't seem to take enough singles. Cowan isn't too bad from memory and it's hard to judge Rogers as we haven't seen enough of his 1st class career. Chris does look like he'd be good at nudging the ball into the gaps. Alistair Cook stands out as a batsman who knows how to take a single. Hashim Amla is another. In fact, all the best batsmen seem to have this skill and of those who fall short of very good or great, they often don't have the same capacity. Too busy looking for the 4 ball or the glory shot? ... ... ICC Player rankings - batting (Clarke is no.2 and our next best is Warner at no.38)

I don't have a problem changing a player if he's not producing or not great. Would have started with Lyon in England but not sure about giving him a whole series. 2 or 3 Tests and if he's bowling well you keep him in the side. Same goes for any non established player. I don't share the belief that a player needs security of selection to produce the goods at any given moment. The same argument surrounds Hughes and Khawaja. On the contrary, being on the edge can bring out the best in a player. Lyon, Khawaja and Hughes just aren't that good - (yet) Many were calling for Ahmed to start in this series and it was good to have a look at Agar (who has now had a taste of it and shows a bit of promise) Not picking Lyon in the first 2 Tests would have made very little difference to the result but I still believe we should have started Nathan. We can't have it both ways ... i.e ... give a spinner a whole series and at the same time want to try someone else (Ahmed) I think the policy should be to give a new player or a non established player 2 or 3 Tests and if they show something, they stay. But they've got to show something otherwise you end up giving players too many Tests to prove themselves (and at the same time denying someone else an opportunity) Xavier or Bryce a whole series? I don't think so.

The A-Rod story is just a sad and tragic one now. It's all about the money, sports politics, lies, denial etc, etc. What a mess. It seems there's just been a total disregard of the drugs policy by a number of players. They've really got to lift the 50 game ban for a first offence to a couple of seasons. With so much money at stake though, you wonder if any sort of penalty will act as a deterrent. ... Brennan: Alex Rodriguez like the party guest who won't leave

Yep, agree with what you've said there TD. Lyon deserves another Test and they might give Ahmed a go in the 5th Test. Think we might see a one new batsman for the Ist Test in Brisbane but for now, a few of our batsmen are playing for their future's. They may keep the same 6 although the selectors might shuffle things around with the batting order (Warner to open?) Hughes might be given another chance or perhaps even Matty Wade. Like to see Bird and/or Faulkner given a go. We could rest Harris at least. Even though the next 2 matches are dead rubbers, there's still a bit to play for and the Aussies will be desperate to win at least one of the 2 remaining Tests. Heard Cook say that they want to win the series so they won't be taking it easy. Graeme Onions is a possible replacement for Bresnan for the next match in Durham (although they may rest Anderson or Broad) We played well in this Test but when we had to perform in the first 2 matches, we were found wanting. Still, there's a bit of hope there and we need at least 1 or 2 batsmen other than Clarke to post centuries in the last 2 Tests. I can see the selectors experimenting a little bit in the next 2 matches.

The Aussies have bowled very well ... especially Harris. Siddle being held back again - reckon it's a clever ploy. 2 down but another 2 before lunch would be ideal. The umpires gave England the option of bowling 2 spinners late yesterday when they went off for bad light so if they're consistent, we will have that option ourselves if the light fades. The rain is holding off - the sun is out! Miraculous. Lyon getting a bit of turn. We're in with a chance.

We may now get a declaration by default. Fairly close to my 330 pick but I won't claim it! I reckon WJ was heading for the correct tip with 350. With the overcast conditions will they get back on tonight?

I believe the days play has to finish at 6.30pm (local time) so the Aussies might have to race through their overs to get them all in. It's a flaw in the rules that one team can slow the over rate to their own advantage. Whilst I can understand any team slowing down the over rate, the authorities should clean up the rule and/or the umpires should be instructed to hurry up a team. We should always see at least 90 overs in a day unless there is some major time lost. We lead by 311 TD My tip is a 330 lead before we see the declaration.

Yeah, Clarke is a bit of a gambler. I reckon he'll bet against history being made so setting 300 - 320 might be enough. Just on Clarke's captaincy, his bowling changes are top notch. Doesn't let the batsmen settle and he doesn't let the game drift away too much. Having a decent 5th bowler helps and if we only had 4 bowlers, it would be a much more difficult task to rotate them. He's not afraid to ring the changes early in an innings and he uses Siddle very intelligently. As for Grimmett, his action is a little round arm but although it's hard to pick up, he gets into a nice side on position before his action opens up. Of course, Clarrie and Bill O'Reilly were bowling flippers, zooters, wrong-uns and all sorts of different deliveries way before many thought Warnie invented them. They must have been a great combination. From what I've read, O'Reilly bowled at lively pace for a leggie.

Excellent article there, TD. I see the Aussies have got Warnie involved a bit over there which can only be a plus for our spinners. Once heard Richie Benaud say that if he could have his career over again, he'd have Warne as his coach. That's high praise from Richie. Grimmett must have been some sort of bowler. In his last 3 Tests in South Africa he took 33 wickets at the age of 44! Amazing effort. Here's a little snippet of Clarrie's action from nearly 90 years ago. England's tactics might be to slow things down and set a reasonably defensive field (which is their right of course) Just got a feeling that Clarke will set a sporting declaration. The rain is imminent (probably more so tomorrow) and obviously, we have to win this.

Warner is opening and with a bit of unsightly weather about, Clarke may be looking at a declaration at the tea break. A lot is going to depend on how big our lead is. 350 should be enough but we'd have to score 190 in a session plus half an hour. It's possible.

What are you talking about? Stop comparing cricket to footy and more importantly the Test side to the MFC. You are a wounded demon and like many others, you're carrying that over to everything else in your life. My advice? - always keep a large degree of separation from the footy club and make sure you have a lot of other interests. I wouldn't blame anyone for being down about the footy club but there's a lot of other things in life that can be enjoyed. All footy clubs have youth policies. Every single one of them. Look at Geelong as a prime example. Do you ever see a footy club not participate in the National Draft? Playing a 22 year old in the Test side is vastly different to playing an 18 year old in the footy side. What do you want to do with Hogan? Give him back? Lets just never play young players - is that your answer? You're mixing things up too much and you're not making any sense.

We really need Lyon to get amongst them. I thought he bowled ok but he needs to mix it up a bit more. He needs to vary his pace and use the crease more. We've seen him bowl a lot better and hopefully he rediscovers his stuff for the remainder of this Test. The major concern is that there's a big chance of rain on day 5 Clarke can't be too adventurous with a declaration just in case it doesn't rain (that's assuming we knock these 3 wickets over reasonably quickly) If England do retain the Ashes after this Test (hope not) then it will be interesting to see what the selectors do for the final 2 Tests. I reckon Ahmed and/or Maddinson might get a call up. Smith and Agar have been added to the squad so the precedent has been set.

The Test team could be (in theory) a gun side again within 18 months and CA is flush with funds. The footy club - read any of the footy threads for the bad news! The cricket team just needs a few star players (batsmen mainly). Our bowling stocks are looking good and I believe there are some talented young batsmen in the Shield that are worth a go. The Shield has one of the best (if not the best) systems in the world in terms of producing 'ready to go' Test players. Just because the games can't pull a crowd and is largely ignored by the general public is irrelevant. The talent is there and probably always will be. Many of our best Test batsmen in history were not gunning it at Shield level before they debuted in the Test side. S Waugh and Border had each only made 2 first class centuries before they debuted in the Test side. 2 of our all time greats who were largely unheard of and came from relative obscurity. Right now Maddinson, Burns, Doolan and the like are unknowns, but things can change rather quickly in cricket. On one hand you're highly critical of our current batsmen (and their abilities) and on the other hand you don't want them replaced. If you sit on your hands, nothing ever changes. I'm advocating change but done at the right time without mass sackings. Bringing one or 2 new batsman in either now or in the next series is hardly a radical step. Especially when you consider we've slipped to number 4 in the Test rankings.

I understand your point of view but I believe that a new young batsman should be added to the team at every opportunity. Bit hard to do that when a team wins 16 Tests in a row (twice) but even when we were a powerful combination we did have the odd chance to add a young batsman (Clarke instead of Hodge?) I'm sharing the view of the selectors from the past. As previously mentioned, mine is a conservative view. Sticking with a batting combination that isn't taking you to the top, is high risk. Do you believe any of Watson, Hughes, Smith, Warner, Cowan, Khawaja or Rogers will ever be great? (average high 40's or better) My answer is that Khawaja might but wouldn't be backing any of the others to make it. Rogers could churn out some runs but we're going to have a problem with him in a couple of years regardless (when he turns 38) Wouldn't it be better to try out Silk now instead of Rogers? If it comes off, we've landed ourselves an 8 - 13 year batsman. If it doesn't work, you can always try another young player. It's a fine line between picking a side that can win and at the same time picking a team for the future. I've nothing against Rogers and he can bat .. it's just his age. The selectors have given Agar a taste of it. He's been dropped but we'll see him again. He may not be seen again for a year or 2 but if or when he does force his way back in, there's a fair chance his bowling will have come on quite a bit.

We need to add 2 new young batsmen to the team. The problem is that you don't want to add 2 for the first Test in Brisbane so you could add one now. To my way of thinking, that would be a positive move not a panic move. I'd bring Maddinson in for the 4th Test (regardless of the outcome of this Test) and another new batsman for Brisbane (Burns, Doolan, Silk?) Out of the 5 openers who are in England, 2 could stay (or only one if Silk gets a call up) It's got to be remembered that Hughes, Cowan, Warner and Watson have all played enough Tests for the selectors to make a judgement. Rogers needs to keep performing and Khawaja and Smith are nowhere near established yet. Watson should only be replaced if it's a 'like for like' (a batting all rounder like Henriques, Maxwell or even Mitch Marsh) We won't have the same problem facing Swann in our conditions but at some stage we must bite the bullet and make some moves for the future. We've done it with the bowlers (Cummins, Pattinson, Starc) and when those 3 are fit and raring to go we'll have quite a top attack. Our current lot of batsmen aren't going to take us to no.1 in the world. The only star is Clarke and it's highly doubtful any of the others will become stars. We need to find 2 or 3 more star batsmen. A young batsman doesn't have to be starring at Shield level to be an eventual star Test batsman. The aim is to be the very best. The process has always been to pick young players from the Shield ranks and give them a decent go at Test level. On an overall basis, it's a tried and true method and largely explains why we have the best Test record of all the countries.