The Roar
The Roar


Roar Rookie

Joined November 2019









One problem is that Burns could become the new Khawaja – the first one dropped, next in line if one needed regardless of how the others are going. Khawaja’s record as an opener for Australia is 90+, yet he has done it only 7 times. Two of which were in tough conditions (saving a test in the UAE batting last, the other in D/N in Adelaide).
The other issue is that the selectors for the last couple of seasons have been talking about scoring runs, which Pucovski is doing. Yes it is only 3 innings, but as mentioned by others, Burns has struggled in more innings. So do you
1. back up your statement about scoring runs?
– Therefore Pucovski gets picked and given the 4 tests regardless
– Others see the reward for being in form and scoring and keep putting their cases forward,
with the incumbents knowing that they need to be on their game.

2. Or do you go with the incumbent ignoring form?
– Others don’t see the reward for being in good form and maybe become a little
– would go against some of the decisions in the recent past – Renshaw, Khawaja, Hodge,
– no first-class cricket for a while will hurt Pucovski or Burns.

3. The Ashes coming up next year
– may not be the best time to someone a debut to open the batting, so it could be a case of
missing the boat with Pucovski

Both have claimants to the opening position, so which way will it go? I would pick Pucovski mainly on the fact that the Aussie selectors have been constantly on about current form and scoring runs. Remember what Langer said about Renshaw a couple of years ago when Renshaw was the incumbent?

Weighing incumbency in a year without Test cricket

Hi Bobby it is based on about 10 to 11 thousand boxes that record the viewer’s age, location, and what they watch. Not much else. So one box could equate to around 2500 – 3000 TV’s. As far as I know, it doesn’t consider the number of people watching the TV unless they individually log on. You can’t ask for a box and you are not supposed to tell anyone you have one. More info can be found here

AFL trades: It's time GWS and Geelong got serious about Jeremy Cameron

And what about the first try the AB’s scored? Foot into touch, yet still, a try was scored.

For the love of God, stop letting the Wallabies play us like this

He did call it a second-rate event though Steven. PVL likes to talk and bringing in the US election as a reason for poor ratings is grasping at straws. If he is as well informed as everyone says he is, PVL would know that the US election would be on at the time. Plus there was no rolling coverage on FTA that I saw, maybe on Foxtel though.
So PVL either knows the NRL relies too heavily on Foxtel, or he knows that a lot of NRL supporters don’t like the ch. 9 coverage.

Origin opener attracts record-low TV ratings

If you are going to blame the US coverage then I think you need to ask PVL why it was scheduled on the date it was. Everyone knows the US election is the 1st Tuesday in November every 4 years (just like the Melbourne Cup every year)!

If you are claiming “fatigue” with all the events that have been on recently, I would only expect that to happen in the 3rd game when the series has been decided. Otherwise, it doesn’t say much about the popularity of SOO. I would say if you love your Rugby League, you wouldn’t forget it was on or you are tired of the game – I mean this is supposed to be the highlight of the RL season isn’t it?

Origin opener attracts record-low TV ratings

Please get it right – the Cats have asked for home finals since the 90’s when they had to play WCE at Waverly. Probably asked before that, but grounds only became rationalised in Melbourne when Docklands was about to open.
Victoria Park – last game in 1999
Princess Park – 2005
Others before that.
The Cats are not a Melbourne team either, yet made to play away from their supporter base in a home final.
The biggest issue is that the Cats rightly ask why they can’t and are told one of two things;
1. Maximise crowd numbers – therefore finances before the integrity of the game
2. Finals to be played at the biggest venue in the state – yet GC and GWS would play at the smaller venues.
Aside from that it actually allows the manipulation of the finals – a Victorian team sitting in 3/4 or 7 likely to face an interstate team (or another MCG-based team), yet level on points with the team below them who could be facing the Cats in week 1. Maybe it becomes like the Freo’s and NM resting players the before the finals furore that brought in the bye before finals and they then face the Cats at the MCG instead of Kardinia Park.
Funny how you bring up the MCG was not a problem before Richmond won when the Melbourne sides for years have been complaining about playing the Cats in Geelong – especially Richmond and Caroline Wilson.

Brisbane, Geelong, Hawthorn or Richmond: Which dynasty has been the best?

Yet the article is talking about an era, not a season. Granted this year has been abnormal for various reasons, but it is not their whole era. Tigers “travelled” 12 times this season now you know how hard it was for the Lions.

Brisbane, Geelong, Hawthorn or Richmond: Which dynasty has been the best?

So the Tigers degree of difficulty is/was greater than the Lions? They had to travel more often than the Tigers, played only 6 of their finals at home, and had to travel interstate to play the Grand Final.
Richmond’s record is skewed because of Covid-19. Their away record is very poor, just above the Lions who at the time would have traveled interstate at least 11 times during the H&A where Richmond would barely leave for 6 games. Covid-19 has skewed those values this year.
I would Rank
1. Brisbane – 3 in a row/4 GF’s in a row (Played all GF’s away)
2. Hawthorn – 3 in row/4 GF’s in a row (though played at their HG)
3. Richmond – 3 out 4 (would have been all on HG if not for Covid)
4. Geelong – 3 out of 5 (all played away)

Brisbane, Geelong, Hawthorn or Richmond: Which dynasty has been the best?

Using another analogy from another sport to get my point across. Soccer, you can dominate the game and still lose. You can
1. have the most of the possession,
2. never let the opposition into the 16-yard box,
3. the opponent’s goalkeeper has the game of his life, getting a finger that deflects the ball just enough to parry the ball onto the post.
4. The opposition has a player sent off with 2 yellow cards
and then someone pulls of the fantastic goal from 30 yards that just curls under the crossbar in the left corner. This leads to a 1-0 loss even though you have dominated the game.

Five talking points from the AFL preliminary finals

You missed the point sven, the better team on the ground can have a shocking time in front of goals and still lose. They can dominate everywhere except converting inside 50’s to goals by having a poor efficiency in front of goals.

Five talking points from the AFL preliminary finals

Since when does winning/losing the free-kick mean the umpires favoured a team? You can still lose the free-kick count and have the benefit of the 50-50 calls. Also, the count doesn’t take into consideration the;
1. the type of free awarded (a team could give away 10 free-kicks through; out on the full, deliberate out of bounds, too many in the centre square at the bounce) but win the contested free kicks and still be behind in the free-kick count.
2. where the free was awarded (different umpires in different positions and interpretations)
3. when the free was awarded (when the game was up for grabs or when a team has no hope and starts giving away sill free kicks).

And if PA had won 9.1 to 7.9 – would the better team have won? Maybe 5 of those points were rushed or hit the post.

Five talking points from the AFL preliminary finals

What about 1-6 play for final ladder positions, 7-12 play for the last 2 spots in the 8 and 13-18 playoff for draft order? 13th gets 1st pick, 14th – 2nd, etc.

Still going to have “dead” games, especially if there is a huge gap between teams but at least the top 6 is settled for the finals, 7th & 8th can still stay or drop depending on results (which can happen most years). At least, 13th – 18th have something to play for in a positive manner. Giving no. 1 pick to the bottom team is not the best anyway when it comes to drafting.

Just an idea.

Seventeen-five? The way to securing a better 22-round fixture

Agree 100%. They could even use the little line about the width of the stumps away on the bowling crease that could be used. So tired of the batter stepping across and the ball just passes the pads and a wide is scored.

Indoor cricket rules state that if the ball passes between this line and the stumps (at the popping crease) it is a legal delivery as long as the batter doesn’t hit the ball.

Has cricket got ahead of itself?

So you don’t care about consistency or integrity in the competition?
That would mean GC play finals at the GABBA, GWS would play at the SCG if Geelong can’t play in Geelong when the earn it. Marvel based teams should also be given the right to play at Marvel when they finish with the right to host.

That would mean that if a team finishes 1,2,5 or 6 get to choose where the game is played not the most money or crowd dictating. That allows teams to manipulate where they finish. Consider any team whose home ground is the MCG and the ladder is
1. Geelong 60pts 120%
2. WCE 56pts 118%
3. Richmond 52pts 106%
4. Brisbane 48pts 110% (or same points less %)
Richmond knows if they lose the game or percentage drops with the Lions winning, they suddenly go from playing in Perth to playing at the MCG. If they win the 1st week they don’t leave the MCG, even though they finished 4th. Could be more pronounced if they are in 7th, with 8th (if they win) play the lower of 1st v 4th, and then if no non-Victorian teams and say the top 2 teams are Victorian, they don’t leave the MCG either.
The point is that teams should get the right to choose home ground advantage or play elsewhere not the AFL looking after money over integrity and consistency.

The mystery of AFL finals fixturing

But Richmond has got to play at the ground of their choice in the past even when they haven’t earnt it.

AFL reveal semi-final and preliminary final fixtures

Yes the lost to WCE and Collingwood in Perth. Lost by 7pts to WCE on a short break and after a slog in the wet against Freo.
However, PA lost convincingly to the Cats yet turned it around with wayward kicking helping. The Cats will have an extra couple of days rest and not have to fly from Perth. Time will tell but you can’t use the argument lost convincingly when PA turned it around on their home ground and didn’t put the Cats away really

Power surge into prelims with win over Geelong

Me too – just can’t shake it. After the bye, finals and in Adelaide – what can go wrong (should I say right)?

The Roar's AFL expert tips and predictions: Finals Week 1

And he wasn’t an English bunny, like Warner.
Also, I said his mannerisms and approach – not fussed, not fidgety. I didn’t say he was like Mark Waugh in talent.
I know who I would rather be representing Australia if it came to choosing between Warner and Khawaja – Usman every time.

Australia and English cricket teams miss important symbolism of kneeling for BLM

I never mentioned racial grounds. I did mention I would like to see some others of Asian backgrounds coming through and given the chance. Maybe it is anecdotal, but they can appear to not get the same support as others.
If you look at the comments made by people, Khawaja is always targeted for whatever reason. Many believe he is lazy and doesn’t care for his wicket when I think he is more like Mark Waugh in his mannerisms and approach to the game.

Australia and English cricket teams miss important symbolism of kneeling for BLM

No, I want them picked on ability but I realise that maybe if it comes to a 50/50 call or even 45/55 call that they may be selected for the long term future of Australian Cricket. Sometimes the call needs to be made.

When it comes to a call between Warner and Khawaja, Warner gets the nod every time even when his current form is worse than Khawaja’s. You do realise with the few opportunities to open for Australia, Khawaja averages over 90? Yet he is overlooked every time – why?

Australia and English cricket teams miss important symbolism of kneeling for BLM

So why Ben is he always the first to be dropped even with a better record as a test opener than anyone currently – including Warner? He averages over 90 when opening! Even on the last Ashes tour he scored more runs than Warner, yet was dropped. Wouldn’t have done any worse than Warner, who became a deer in headlights, yet wasn’t given the opportunity. Khawaja has never been given a good run staying in the same batting position either. And don’t give the reason for a RH/LH opening combination. Some of the best combos have been Langer and Hayden (both LH) and Warner and Rogers (both LH).
I would rather Khawaja’s temperament than Warner’s.

Australia and English cricket teams miss important symbolism of kneeling for BLM

Yes sorry, can’t believe I mucked that up! I loved the way he bowled and who cares if he can’t bowl 145+? We have an obsession with out and out quicks, sometimes the guile is better.

Australia and English cricket teams miss important symbolism of kneeling for BLM

Have you seen the way the public goes after Khawaja? No wonder they don’t play as much. Look at the discussion over Warner and Khawaja, most prefer Warner for their various reasons. Personally I prefer Khawaja and see him as a beacon for cricket in this country. Gurinder Singh is/was a very good T20 player, yet would hardly get picked. I’m hoping Jason Sanga and Arjun Nair get more of a go as well.
More needs to be done, but I’m not sure the protest is going to make it happen, it is the actions after that count not taking a knee. We can all support and still, nothing may change.

Australia and English cricket teams miss important symbolism of kneeling for BLM

I’ve no problem with academies – if used properly. I would prefer the old zoning system updated to cater for the SA & WA teams as the NSW & QLD teams already them. This would get rid of NGA’s as they should already be there. Prospects like Borlase shouldn’t be allowed in them as his dad played SANFL and was in Egypt for work and returned only a few years later. He would have been in the system anyway.
NGA’s should only cater to;
1. Overseas born players (including 1 parent and this is where they spent most of their youth)
2. Those from another sport
3. Father-Son recruits
Zone academies would cater to the rest. Maybe the team looking after that area should be allowed first access to a max of 5 players a year however the mix of academy and zone?
The rort is because of people like Eddie Maguire and co who bleat about the “extra” benefits that the Northern teams get, yet are quite happy to benefit from raiding those clubs later on.

Clarko may be deflecting, but he isn't wrong about the AFL's compromised draft

Marc Murphy could have gone to Brisbane as a FS but chose not too. He was a Melbourne boy anyway. Yes, the rules were a bit skew in terms of the Crows, Port, WCE, and Fremantle, but some got around it.

Also, not all FS selections work out. People talk about Geelong with Scarlett, Ablett, and Hawkins but have you heard of Marc Woolnough, Tim Clark, Adam Donohue, Nathan Ablett, Tim Callan, or Simon Fletcher? What about Tom Couch? Even Oscar Brownless and Sam Simpson were put on the rookie lists.

Carlton’s strike rate with FS is not great either or Collingwoods (until now and still may not be). Half the problem is good players have had girls – look at St Kilda. The success rate is lower than you think, most are less than 50%. It isn’t the golden goose as many people like to think.

Clarko may be deflecting, but he isn't wrong about the AFL's compromised draft