Macca

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.

The selectors picked 5 opening batsmen in the original squad (out of 7 specialist batsmen picked) Khawaja is a no.3 and Clarke was the only middle order batsman picked. They added Smith to the squad but it was always a batting squad that had too many openers. Middle order players should be able to play spin well. Openers need to play pace well. That's sounds rather obvious I know, but that's usually the point of difference between both types of players. The no.3 and no.4 traditionally have been able to play both pace and spin well - that's largely why they're regarded as the best players. That's also rather obvious but that should then serve as a way the National side is selected. Warner is an opener, batting at no.6. The 2 batsmen who aren't playing (Cowan and Hughes) are also opening batsmen. Some openers can make the transition (Hussey) but it is rare and because it's rare, it should not be relied upon as a policy. What used to happen was that the States would have their best batsmen batting at 3 and/or 4 and from there the National selectors would then pick a player batting in those positions and he would start his career batting at no.5 or no.6 (in the Test side) (as a general rule) Trying to turn openers into middle order players is a departure from how we've usually done things. It's any wonder we don't play spin well. It stands to reason.

Craig has to get a win here and I reckon we'll see a much more decisive and direct outfit today. We've got more than a few playing today who's career's are on the line and for any of those players that don't play well today, that would probably be it. Or if they want to kiss their careers away, continue to play from behind and spectate. Hopefully Craig has reminded them of that so we should at least be suitably motivated. Fear of failure should always be a huge factor and you'd reckon with Craig's experience, he'd be letting our players know what is at stake here. We need to start well and attack straight down the middle of the ground. To go wide against a team that hasn't won a game would be farcical. Hopefully the whole club has learnt a lesson from the last 3 weeks. Time to step it up. Losing today is totally unacceptable.

Yes, Rogers did bat very well and after the first 2 Tests, he needed to. Full marks to him though and it was his positive batting that set the tone for the rest of the innings. I know this might be shuffling the deck chairs but what about a straight swap between the batting positions of Warner and Watson? Because of his more than handy bowling, Watson will stay in the side for now. But he will need runs in the 2nd innings to justify his opening spot. Warner is struggling against spin and he's more of an opener anyway. The no.6 really needs to be able to play spin well. If Warner could get away to 25 or 30 by the time Swann comes on, he'll at least be 'in' and be in a better position to attack their spinner. Whether Watson could hold down the no.6 spot is the question though. His bowling saves him and we definitely need a decent 5th bowler in this side. Well done to the bowlers in the last session - gave them nothing and that huge score of 527 is a big psychological advantage. Really hope that Lyon can get amongst the wickets. Clarke is using Siddle very intelligently - holding him back probably gets him nice and fired up and England are effectively facing one of our best bowlers, bowling 3rd change!

Maximum of 32 overs to be bowled for the rest of the day. I thought it was another clever declaration by Pup - make them go out in the field again after tea (maybe they thought they'd be out there for another hour) Anything to upset the concentration of their first 3 batsmen. Think we'll see Lyon bowl 3 or 4 overs tonight as well. Nice 2 hour session for our bowlers to go all out.

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