The Roar
The Roar


Roar Pro

Joined July 2017







His tinder profiles states: Average looking sports fan seeks a female. Can’t be choosy. And I think that speaks volumes...



Where's my moral outrage?

It’s dark out here beyond the circle. There air is sweet with smoke and sweat. Angry eyes all wet and vacant. Teeth glint off burning lanterns. Hey, what’s going on in there? I clench my pitchfork all the same. Tonight, they seethe, there’s witches afoot.

Thanks. I guess it depends on your criteria for judging halfbacks. You might say creativity outweighs game management, and others might not. Someone might weight “not getting belted about by Jamie Goddard” even higher, for example.

Cooper Cronk, the undisputed No. 7 king

Thanks. So you’re saying that Cronk gets marked down because he played in, ostensibly, what was considered better company? And despite his better record at all levels of the game?

That’s a slippery slope. You could then argue the best halfback played in a bush league because, weighted by the quality of his peers, he was relatively that much better.

And I have to disagree that winning record is not a criteria for success. Rather, it’s the ultimate one. Maybe head to head johns would have outplayed Cronk – who knows. But if Cronks team ended up winning – then he arguably had played his role better, and winning is the goal.

Cooper Cronk, the undisputed No. 7 king

Re: “I think rugby league, more than any other sport is a true team effort. So to point to team results as an indicator of greatness has some limitations” – isn’t statement this inconsistent within itself? If it’s a team effort, then by definition, shouldn’t individual results be judged in context of the team?

I argue that if Cronk was from NSW he’d have a lot more individual accolades

Cooper Cronk, the undisputed No. 7 king

What? You mean because Qld will have a less flashy team on paper they won’t be right in it. Agree. If history has taught us anything, it’s that it can never repeat…and repeat…and repeat…

VOTE: Pick your Queensland Maroons team for Origin 1

Thanks for your contribution – but I feel you’ve framed the discussion wrong.

No-one is claiming that his employment is under threat because he is “exercising his right to free speech”. The line is (a) whether he acted in breach of his contract, and if so, (b) whether the relevant conditions are consistent with, and enforceable within, commonwealth employment law. That’s what they’re trying to sort out.

It’s an interesting case – as, on the surface, it appears that RA are trying to enforce a particular editorial line on their employees. For arguments sake, what happens if that line isn’t consistent with mainstream community values? Consider this – if RA were sponsored by Adani, would they be in their rights to censure Dave Pocock online?

A pastor preaches, and a teacher teaches. So, in your analogies, they would be failing to meet the basic criteria for fulfilling their positions. Your comparisons would be closer to the mark if IF insisted on playing waterpolo while representing the WBs. He’s not employed to tweet.

FWIW – I’m a drunken fornicating atheist. But i’d hate to see him go.

The Folau freedom of speech double standard

Ha! Welcome to the roar James Sutherland. I agree. Let’s extend the most petty and patently unfair penalties in the history of Australian sport. And keep a captain who’se not even close to our best keeer batsman at the moment. Cheers for the article mate. But I couldn’t disagree more

A golden opportunity: Don't pick Smith and Warner

Thanks. Glad you liked it. The standard “X talking points from Y match” gets a bit stale.

Cook, BJ and Root: My all-time greatest verb eleven

Cheers. Good suggestions. Guess I’m just a present-perfect kind of guy. Each to their own.

Cook, BJ and Root: My all-time greatest verb eleven

In order, our innings durations were:
1st test: 98.4, 119.5
2nd test: 108.3, 93.2
3rd test: 66.5, 89.3,
4th test: 104.5

Based on this worst-ever series batting results, and assuming a Normal distribution, the probability of surviving less than 100 overs is around 55%. But this is (a) with 6 batsmen and not 11, (b) not just batting for time, and (c) losing the toss three times.

Pulling the goalie: why Australia should play eleven batsmen in every Test

Cheers. This is how I see it…

If your opponent bats for 250 overs there would be a maximum of 200 of overs left in the match. Assuming you don’t make the follow on, and they enforce it, each of your batsmen would need to survive around 55 balls per innings for earn a draw. This is a fair bit less than the expected value. The probability of all your batsmen surviving less than their long term average, and twice each in a match, is very low. And that’s not even considering the low probability of any team batting for 250 overs to start with – regardless of opposition or pitch condition.

Pulling the goalie: why Australia should play eleven batsmen in every Test

At least you’d have a mandatory defence against a worthy challenger. India are clearly gaming the current system – either consciously or not

The Lineal Test Cricket Championship: Get on board!

To continue the boxing analogy – how about treat all non-title-belt series as qualifiers. Teams could play for the right to host Championship series, with all the financial incentive that brings.

Playing on doctored pitches is a problem for all systems, so no loss there. At least it ensures the batton gets handed around a bit. Turns out even Zimbabwe would have held it a few years ago.

The Lineal Test Cricket Championship: Get on board!

Well said. I’m not a huge fan of Kohli as a personality, but love to watch him bat.
I have no issue whatsoever with him carrying on. Good on him. He looks like a bit of a tool, but that’s his business.
If he wasn’t any good no one would even be talking about this.

All this double speak like “we’re australian and we’re above all that, but all power to the rest of them” is sanctimonious post colonial rubbish. One rule for all. Either it’s ok across the board or it isn’t.

The double standard: If Virat Kohli can show passion, Australia can too

Ignoring, or choosing not to compete in, the sharp mental side of the game is a disadvantage. To deny its importance it is akin to ignoring leg spin, or the cut shot, or not training players to dive in the field.

Granted, there is a line between being competitive and being abusive, and that line is pretty pretty clearly defined in general life – don’t use vulgar profanity, and don’t make personal attacks. The rest is fair game.

The author points out that “good hard cricket” has been difficult to define. Well the same argument applies to “good polite cricket”. If the way the team conducts themselves isn’t the sole responsibility of the team and management, then how is it anyone else’s business?

Australian greats can't see the 'good hard cricket' lie

Thanks for the feedback.

My point is that the behaviour of the Australian team was entirely consistent with our national culture and values.

To hold them to higher account than any of other cultural reference points – be they national sporting teams, personalities, institutions, or otherwise – is unfounded.

Our hubris and fake outrage at the ball tampering incident speaks more to our misplaced self image than to anything else.

The culture within our cricket team was a microcosm for our wider national identity. Like it or loathe it.

Aspirations versus reality: Cricket and our national culture wars

Thanks. Well constructed and entertaining. However, I have to disagree with your main thesis – and suggest that attempting to intellectualise both (a) a largely irrelevant boxing match, and (b) Anthony Mundine, is a bit rich.

Re: “The fight certainly will encapsulate not only a great sporting event but one that will challenge the very social fabric of a nation which is still to reconcile its history”.

That maxed out my histrionics gauge. Suggest you could submit this on The Conversation.

Good read though.

Anthony Mundine agitates 'the man' and leaves them on the Horn of a dilemma

I like your optimism. But, unfortunately, from what I’ve seen I feel a lot of our ‘development’ type players aren’t yet at SR standard. I’m certainly no coach – but it would be helpful to have them develop around a few key players…like, say, Liam gill and James slipper. Or will Genia and maybe later Campbell Magnay.

The 2018 roster looks very light and very green. How many rebuilding years can we justify?

I’m sorry Reds. But it’s not me, it’s you

Sorry if you’re offended. But, for the record, I didn’t place a value judgement on the profession of a scaffolder. That was all you mate ????

I’m sorry Reds. But it’s not me, it’s you

Ha. Cheers mate. Did they not teach satire in your school of the hard knocks?

I’m sorry Reds. But it’s not me, it’s you

Cheers. We can only hope they’ll be a bit more competitive. But the squad looks weaker if anything

I’m sorry Reds. But it’s not me, it’s you

I think that’s the most sensible outcome. Maybe a provision like “…unless the attempt did not make contact with the head, and effecting a conventional tackle would not have reasonably been expected to prevent a try in a try scoring position.”

This would bring it in broad agreement with the tackled in the air rule.

Billy lives: Thank god that’s over

I genuinely don’t see an issue. He was charged based on an unforeseen technicality and was able to use another one to make it right.

Grand final bound! Billy Slater free to play NRL decider

I hope you never see me waiting in a loading zone and attempt a citizens arrest mate

If Billy Slater plays on Sunday, I won't be watching

I don’t think anyone’s actually arguing he should play simply because he deserves a fairytale. To suggest this is slow witted at best, and disingenuous at worst.

Most objections regard either (a) it wasn’t strictly a letter-of-the-law shoulder charge, or (b) the citing is an unintended consequence of introducing the rule.

To fit your speeding analogy – Slater was clocked on a private road.

Why Billy Slater isn't entitled to his fairytale ending

‘The rule was never intended for this’ is the argument

Context, monkeys and bananas: Why Slater should be cleared