It’s all set up for an Australian win – home grounds, in form team and fast, aggressive bowling attack. Really, anything less than making the final would be a grave disappointment.

For me though the probably contenders and possible other winners are New Zealand. The bowling attack looks great and in favourable conditions, Boult is likely to be a real handful in particular. Then there’s McCullum, who is in sensational form (50 off 19 balls in a ODI just yesterday) and they have an all rounder in Corey Anderson who, while still inexperienced, does hold the record for the fasted ODI century.

Which pretty much says all about you we need to know.

Damn right. How about we get to the real issue here – your inherent right to to have more than 24 (not just a measly 22) horses to throw your money at – rather than horse welfare or any other pesky issue like that. It’s an outrage this is happening.

And ps, it would be much appreciated if you could provide the verifiable figures to back up your claim that marathons “are responsible for many yearly human deaths”. You are a ‘guru’ after all, it appears. Thanks.

You don’t speak for me. So please don’t tell me what ‘society’ – of which I am part – thinks is acceptable.

“Of course it’s very sad that it happened, but remember that if racing hadn’t killed them, something else would have, like a car accident or swine flu or something.”

It’s this sort of casual, blase approach to the death of the two horses which is the most offensive part of the disgusting. Yes of course they would die anyway. They would not, however, die after having been whipped day in, day out while having 50+ kgs of weight fixed to their back and being scared into running 3.2kms in a very short time in amongst 20 other half-ton animals all doing the same thing. And they certainly wouldn’t be dying for the entertainment of millions of drunken bogans who probably are too busy sculling the last of the champers to notice what was going on anyway.

If horse racing supporters insist on calling it a ‘sport’, then fine, let’s apply the same standards as other sporting events. If Greg Inglis and Cameron Smith were to die during and/or at the end of a State of Origin match, would it just calmly go on for the next game without at least an open invesitgation and some consideration of changes to ensure safety? No, it would not. Thus horse racing should be no different. The world once thought bull fighting and cock fighting was all fine and good, then as attitudes evolved common sense prevailed. Perhaps some common sense might prevail here and some revisions made to horse racing, be it the length of races, the age of the horses, the number of entrants in the field and, crucially, the use of the whip and other riding methods.

I resent being told that the death of these two fine animals is just a fact of life. It isn’t. It’s part of a construct and a commercial endeavour. It should be subject to a frank and open enquiry and people should be demanding it happen sooner rather than later.

Love your comment re: Ablett ‘having a say’ about the coach. Let’s be honest, no one will be coaching the Gold Coast who Gary hasn’t firstly approved…

Great analysis. You correctly identify the discrepancy between a stats-based analysis of a game and the far more subjective, umpires-based analysis which contributes to the Brownlow. As you say, umpires don’t know possessions, they judge it on feel and impact happening around them. You only need look at the games Ablett played in this year and the number of times he spoke with umpires – and got free kicks as a result – to know the umpires are always aware of his impact and presence. And one only needs to look at last year’s count where Ablett got votes in games where he was – statistically – underwhelming to reinforce this.

The interesting one from your analysis is Tom Rockliff. Last year with no expectations he nearly got up in the last few rounds. Again, a clear pointer the umpires notice him. He had by all markers a better year this year, although he is ineligible, so it remains a very real possibility he rather than Fyfe will be the one to get the most votes but not win it.

This article, and others like it in recent days, is both ludicrous and offensive.

It’s ludicrous because the idea of a professional footballer ‘owing’ a club something only works if the reverse is also true – namely, the club owes the footballer. As has been seen so many times, a club can very easily get rid of a player once they have outlived their usefulness or become even a little bit problematic. Witness how things have gone with Heretier Lumumba and Collingwood. A year ago, the Pies were pledging support and understanding. Now, it’s “best” if Lumumba leaves. How fickle…

It’s offensive because it perpetuates the idea that a professional football is an indentured servant and who, in the case of Mitch Clark and if this this article by Rose (and another one like it by Mark Robinson in the Herald Sun), is expected to return to the same workplace where he sustained serious physical and mental injuries in some ill-defined attempt to ‘repay’ the very same workplace which has seemingly contributed to his departure in the first place.

It’s also offensive because it seems depression is being passed off by yourself, Robinson and Ross Lyon as some sort of superficial ailment. The “well I don’t much about depression, but I do know that Clark owes Melbourne” line of argument demonstrates just how completely out of your depth you are on this topic.

It would be great if you could think objectively, just for a moment, before penning articles like this. That way, you might see how bankrupt your arguments are. Presumably, you’d be pleased if Clark did return to Melbourne and suffered a severe and traumatic recurrence of depression. That would have to be, using your argument, his ultimate penance. Maybe that’s really what you were arguing in the first place.

Agree on the final round upsets. Teams are sometimes fired up to give it “one last shot” or to give a retiring player a send-off. So that’s why St Kilda might be dangerous, to try to ‘win it for Lenny’. Other teams might slacken off, so that’s why Richmond might have a shot against Sydney.

All well and good, but what’s your suggested alternative? Nominations by coaches? Fellow players? Journalists? Fans? For all of these, the problem is they have a bigger risk of bringing their inherent biases to the table, much moreso than umpires. More to the point, the pretext of your article relies on an assumption that umpires are not suited to casting votes on players because a number of worthy players have never won the Brownlow and/or there is a disparity between the Brownlow and club best and fairest voting. Why exactly is either situation a bad thing? Determining the winner of the AFL’s highest honour each year should not become about who ‘deserves’ it or whose ‘turn’ it is – leave that sort of thinking to the Oscars.

That’s a pretty major thing to get out of the article.

St Kilda have every chance of winning one of those final two games, particularly the last one, where they’ll want to send Lenny out on a high and end the season on a winning note – witness how they managed to elevate themselves against Freo, after Lenny’s retirement announcement. You can see them managing to find motivation enough to win that game particularly given how flaky Adelaide are.

It’s a big mistake to look at any remaining games this season and assume it’s a “percentage booster” for any team.

Melbourne were just so awful yesterday. I don’t recall ever seeing a team fumble or miss targets as much they did (or have done this year). Clearly, the talent is just not there, and yet earlier in the season, roughly the same team was putting up super-competitive efforts against the best teams in the competition. So this leads one to the conclusion, as noted by Roos after the game, that many of the players had switched off for the season already, which is a real slap in the face for Melbourne supporters and also a really stupid thing to do, given the coach is already on record as saying he’ll be getting rid of players in the off season. GWS showed that while talent, skill and fitness are really important, probably the most important factor in contemporary AFL is attitude. All the comments Roos has made about how the issues of the past continue to effect Melbourne now make sense and you’d think there’s a good third of that side yesterday that will probably have to go in the off-season in order to start producing a better attitude.

The comment about Rockliff highlights a weird type of reverse backlash going on here, that somehow “big stats” are evidence of a player being overrated and that any tangible value that player has during a game gets eliminated on the basis that it’s all “just numbers”, as though that is now a crime and only the subject astheticism of football matters. It’s the type of argumen that suggests Rockliff’s 40+ possession game is, by definition, neither as useful nor pleasing as 15 possesions for, say, Cyril Rioli. If Rockliff makes all-Australian this year, as is being suggested by many, can we expect a retraction of this ridiculous argument?

At the heart of htis entire sorry case is the question “Did Essendon players take banned substances?” and then a follow-up question, “if so, what health impacts might they have?”. After 18 months and this current legal action, neither question can yet be answered. Unbelievable, and yet totally believable at the same time.

It’s little wonder then that the public presentation of Hird, Little and all the other main players seems so offensive to the average football fan. Witness the smug post-hearing press conference yesterday in which Hird smirked about having finally had “a fair hearing” and Little’s remarkble, hysterical comment that he didn’t “want things played out in the media” – this entire story has been about playing EVERYTHING out in the media. New Limited/Fox has leapt upon the story and rushed headfirst to be Essendon’s mouthpiece/cheerleader while on the other side, Fairfax has been hammering Hird at every juncture. What a depressing indictment on not just sport, but the politics of sport and the complete absence of media credibility in this country.

And has been pointed out, ASADA can simply turn around and restart things seemingly as it pleases. Dear god, is it any wonder public interest in AFL has been on such a slide this season.

I just love how the casual observer, watching a TV broadcast, can conclusively say there is a flaw in a bowler’s action when it usually takes a team of biomechanics experts to do just that. Who knew there were so many biomechanists writing for the Roar, eh?

The purpose is for Essendon/Hird to obstruct, delay and cause subterfuge around the issue of supplements.

The essence of this current legal action boils down to Essendon/Hird arguing that because ASADA did not have it explicitly stated anywhere (i.e., in legislation) they could undertake a joint investigation with the AFL, then they had no jurisdiction to do so and thus the result – a joint investigation – is invalid. ASADA’s argument is that because there is nothing to say they could not undertake a joint investigation, they were perfectly entitled to do so.

There is nothing in this court case about the actual nature of substances administered, their legality or what effects these have on the health – short or long term – of the players.

So while all and sundry get excited about who said what to whom and when, while Hird says he was “under duress” and talks about Demetriou tipping off someone or not, remember that while all of that is interesting and relevant, up to a point, absolutely none of it goes to the heart of the matter – the substances administered. Indeed, it’s clear that even if this legal challenge by Essendon succeeds, ASADA will simply utilise a different process and end up at the same point, the issuing of show-cause notices.

Essendon/Hird are absolutely entitled to undertake whatever legal action they see fit, but it is essential to remember what this action is all about – and crucially, what it is NOT all about. Once the judge hands down a verdict, the players will still be in a position where they face sanctions and James Hird will still not be taking responsibility for any of it.

All it takes is one or two injuries and a team to be maybe only 5-10% ‘off’ on a given day, and suddenly, that seemingly impenetrable top 4 of teams becomes vulnerable. I absolutely agree that Hawthorn, Geelong and Sydney (and maybe Fremantle) deserve to be considered the best teams but no team is unbeatable and the nature of finals is that one loss can put you out of business, no matter how great you’ve been all season. Hinkley is right when he says Port aren’t good enough – they’re certainly not good enough right now. If they were to rediscover their best form in 2-3 weeks, though, they will be. Outcomes cannot be taken for granted, certainly not this AFL season where pretty much anything and everything has happened.

That presupposes that Watson won’t be suspended for a long period as a result of the ASADA case, along with the bulk of the team, which would put paid to any talk of an Essendon premiership over the next few years.

And if Hird remains coach then I think Watson’s chances of a premiership decrease rather than increase. Hird has not covered himself in glory as a coach or a frontman for the club.

As a Lions supporter I find the fervour over Brisbane both interesting and a little odd. Let’s remember this current outpouring of excitement over Brisbane comes after a win over Melbourne in a game widely acknowledged as one of the worst of the year (in which Brisbane were trailing until quite late in the match).

Let’s also remember that Brisbane were just a point away from playing in the finals last season. So when you look at it from that perspective, they’ve actually gone backwards this season, not forwards.

It’s when you look at it from the perspecitve of the players leaving at the end of last year, losing Brown this year and the coaching appointment debacle that yes, Brisbane looks in much better shape and with promise ahead. Particularly the addition of Aish and Taylor to the team has worked wonders and the elevation of Rockliff to a deserved “elite” status has also been great.

I’d just urge caution, however – let’s not forget, Brisbane could only kick 1 point to half time against the Dockers and were soundly beaten by GWS. It hasn’t been all beer and skittles this season…

Aish or Taylor from the Lions have been the most consistently performed best first-year players this season. I’d be thinking one of them will win it.

Interesting that since the Suns’ loss on Saturday, there have been a number of comments/unsubstantiated stories about Ablett’s influence on the team – a suggestion on On the Couch last night that the Suns weren’t happy he opted to have surgery, another elsewhere questioning why he did not attend the game on Saturday. While interesting, none of this goes any way towards explaining how it might have compelled the team to play as badly as it did.

Using the ladder predictor tool and also being a bit conservative with results, I found that the grand final is likely to be Sydney v Geelong, based on the assumptions that: (a) Geelong have Hawthorn’s measure more often than not and (b) Port would not win a final against Geelong, even at home.

While Sydney and Hawthorn definitely look like the teams to beat, all it takes is one loss here or there and suddenly you come up with a very different set of circumstances.

I’d also add that the result on Saturday night required Franklin to have gotten two of the behinds he missed and the win would have been Sydney’s and we’d be now talking about their alleged “invincibility”. I’d further add that he has kicked 5.12 in his two games against Hawthorn. Again, reverse that outcome and it’s a very different scenario you’re looking at now.

Agreed. It’s amazing how many column inches are devoted each week to why Team A or Team B is/are now the only real contenders, and then of course either Team A or B don’t do so well while Teams C, D and E do just fine and then suddenly the week after, they’re back in contention. Remarkable that after one, admittedly bad, loss, Freo are now suddenly exposed as pretenders. Oh for a piece of analysis that wasn’t bandwagon-jumping and was able to objectively consider a longer line of form.