EagleJack, at times there is a distance difference poor tactics and boring tactics. Fact is Cook has saved matched with dour tactics, whilst Australia have lost from matches from very strong positions. Also you don’t actually think the coach has no role in planning/implementing tactics do you?

I never said Cook was the better tactician, rather I agreed with Zavos’ article at times Clarke could use defensive tactic to save a matches. Moreover I said in the hypothetical situation how I would prefer a captain with Clarke’s attacking mindset. Overall however, I would prefer one with a untied team behind him.

Certain players, not all, don’t see eye to eye with Clarke. Watson was the vice captain and didn’t like the bloke and rather than dealing with it Clarke called Watson ‘a cancer’. Where the is smoke there is generally fire and these rumours have been coming from a number of sources for a long time. Everyone is entitled to their opinion/interpretation however I think these have been to persistent to be disregarded.

Do you think all players want to play for Clarke, and Australia has great team culture?

About the Katich incident, I used it to highlight how even a win doesn’t mean the players will suddenly all get along.

Yes Clarke has a team that is no where near as good Waugh’s or Ponting’s. But isn’t that all the more reason to build good team culture?

Jayden, personally I don’t think the reaction to his century is evidence either way to a divided dressing room. They reacted how you expect, I hardly think they weren’t going to applause and even if they don’t like Clarke.

About Clarke smiling, like I said some of the criticism is unfair. Nothing wrong with smiling, if you get the job done.

The people who don’t want Clarke as captain…I actually think some didn’t like Ricky because they claim and didn’t have the tactics. You can’t win with some people. I personally think both were/are our best, or maybe only real choice. Neither were/are bad captains, but they have knockers who want the perfect captain.

Unlikely, but not impossible. I remember South Africa record breaking run chase, when we thought it impossible. Or the last Ashes test at the Gabba where the Poms made 1/500. Rain is unlikely, but could play a factor as well.

England are very good at winning and saving matches, whilst Australia have lost matches and failed to close out matches they should have.

Like I said they, must win from here in this situation.

Mark, fair points, but I disagree with your premise.

On the Clarke tactics today, I think they did it for two reasons. Firstly, maybe they thought the best chance of getting Clarke was bowling a good ball early, so keep him on strike and hope it would come. Meanwhile Warner is robbed of the strike. Secondly, in that situation, at his best, Warner had the potential to absolutely destroy England. He was, in my opinion, a bigger threat than Clarke. Not to say these tactics were right, but there is probably a justifiable reason behind them.

I think Cook also doesn’t get the praise he should for saving matches his team should have lost and winning tests they shouldn’t have. Winning ugly beats losing with positive tactics. Meanwhile Australia has been in winnable positions to lose tests or concede a draw. If not for bad light, and a bit of complaining about it from Clarke, they would have lost the last test of the series in England, when the Poms had no right to even be close.

A lot of tactics also come from the dressing room or preplanned. Yes the captain has to implement them and has a large say in the planning, but a lot would be coaches and based on video analysis.

Also what this article doesn’t mention is the off field aspect to captaincy. Whilst Australia is plagued by rumours of discontent and not liking Clarke, no such rumours happen for England. All English fans seem to like Cook as well, who conducts himself flawlessly.

If you had a choice between these two captain who would you choose? A captain who is uses positive and inventive tactics, but can’t create a strong team environment, including players who don’t want him as captain. Or a player who uses very dour tactics, with the mentality of play not to lose, but has a untitled team who want to play for him. Honestly, I’d pick the second one.

Thank-you for producing outside square, interesting articles!

Maybe Warner needs a bit of time on pitches outside Australia. Not sure how many first class games hes played outside Australia, but simply correct preparation and experience may be the key. Even getting exposure in one dayers and 20twenty cricket could help.

It maybe however he only ever averages say 35 outside Australia, but 50 plus in Australia.

Even at the time it was absolutely ridiculous to drop him, especially for Agar. He had taken 9 wickets in his previous match and whilst a fine prospect, Agar was/is not ready for test cricket. Not a knock a fine young player, who is better than Lyon was at that age, but Lyon was so far a head in skill its not funny.

Selectors need to get over their obsession with players who turn the ball away from right handers and trying to find another Warne. Lyon is a very good player and has time on his side to get better.

Ronan, interesting take on todays play. If I wrote a similar review, I probably wouldn’t have mentioned any of these points.

On will Lyon over take Swann, before those facts I probably would have said I highly doubt it. Now I’d say its possible, if the selectors show a bit of faith in Lyon and reward his good form. I agreed on your forum yesterday he has been treated unfairly.

To me, although there is a hugh gap in skill and accomplishment, he’s a bit like Anil Kumble. Not a big turner, but dips and topspins the ball. Although Kumble didn’t have to face Indians, he bowled roughly half his career in the dustbowls of India and took 600 wicket. Aussie sectors should take note.

On the tactics to Clarke I guess it was a bit risk/reward. They knew the dangers, however in full flight, in this situation Warner had the potential to be more devastating. Maybe they thought their best chance was to try and get Clarke with a good ball before he settled?

On Warner, too early to say if he’s turned the corner. He must stay out of trouble and improve outside Australia. Really with his skill, there is no reason why he shouldn’t average 40 plus at strike rate of 80, with a few more quick fire 50’s and 100’s.

On another point, I think Australia MUST win from here. They won’t get a better chance and if England salvage a draw they go to Adelaide (which will favour them) with momentum. Saving a test is just as important as winning a test that should be a draw.

Interesting article mate. When I saw the headline and Lealiifano tagged, I thought it could be a knee jerk reaction to situation brought on by unfortunate circumstances. Just on the current situation, I thought Tomane was a shoe in, given I understand he played a bit of 13 in Super Rugby and some fans suggested he be trailed there for the Wallabies.

But you only touched the current situation and made some very well reasoned and logical points.

In saying that, I disagree with your premise that this could be death quality outside centres. All it takes it one or two superstar’s to come along and suddenly we would see it as a position of strength. Before Folau played rugby, I thought his best position would be outside centre. He could potentially be a superstar there, allowing Beale, Foley, O’Connor (assuming he returns and pulls his head in), Mogg or Ashely-Cooper to play fullback.

I also for a long time thought Ashely-Cooper was best suit to 13. He is one of those players who is a little underrated, partly because of his utility value.

In saying that Australia has lacked depth there, and as you say in world rugby there is no real superstar there.

Australia also seems to have a lack of genuine in side centres at the moment. It seems they either play a fly-half there or someone better suited to playing wider. Nothing wrong with, if its the best we have, but I’d rather a specialised who combines ball playing with quality running and defence. Or a big strong centre, who combines hard running and defence with quality kicking and passing.

Matt T has done well there, but Taps (at his best) could be a better option. I’ve heard a lot about Goodwin and I’ve always thought O’Connor’s best position would be inside centre.

TH, didn’t mean Australia shouldn’t be subject to criticism. Rather in comparison to England, even factoring in the difference in severity, they cop a lot. Moreover media go over the top reporting, rather than offering a bit more analysis and possible solutions. Whats more, all fans know we collapse, at times the amount of reporting on it is a bit like flogging a dead horse.

By the way I was talking about media report and collapses in general not just this test. On this test, the Aussies copped it, yet they out preformed England. Over the top, unfair criticism.

And Ronan, well said, very apt saying.

Yeah good point. Funny how when a side isn’t travelling as well the cop countless flack, yet a team traveling better cops none. Also makes a good story saying the Australia top order has collapsed – happy doesn’t sell papers.

Ronan, nice article, good summary.

Everyone probably says this, but when Johnson batted well I thought he would bowl well. Very much a confidence player and an exception to Freddy’s rule generally only one skill of an allrounder is working at a time.

In saying that Johnson could well lose us the next test with erratic bowling. Had every reason to doubt his selection. Impossible to say, but could we have gotten England out for say 200 even without Johnson (though we wouldn’t have had the total to defend without him).

On are England as prone to collapses as us…I don’t think so. They are notorious for failing in the first innings of series. Moreover its one thing for the top order to fail the the middle order to save them, it another thing for the whole side to fail. Or to fail in one innings but go great in the other.

Can we lose? Bloody oath. Or we could fail to close out a win, giving England momentum. I said before the series I thought our best chance of winning is 2-1 (given I couldn’t see us winning 3 matches, nor England failing to win a match). Its vital to go 1 up, and the Gabba and WACCA are by far our best chance of winning, with the MCG a close second.

Couldn’t agree more guys. Selectors are obsessed with another Warne, rather that the best of what we have. Seriously dropping a guy after he took nine wickets in the last match is ridiculous. Also get over this obsession with left arm spinners. Lyon is the best we have and has gotten KP out before, partly because of KP’s ego (one of the reasons they justified picking Agar was that he was a left armer).

This talk of not playing him was stupid as well. Firstly, last time they spoke about not playing him (at the Gabba), but did, Im pretty sure he took seven wickets. Secondly with Watson there is no real need for a four seamer.

Bernard, this is bloody brilliant, great work. Sean’s suggestions were gold as well.

How I see it:

Despite have 386 cameras at every game, with the ability to show a bullet flying through the air, video refs still can’t rule on forward passes. Blind referees are also trailed.

William Mason, new CEO of the NRL, brings in a raft of change that result in experiential growth, internationals against all teams being a contest and a record 1 trillion dollar tv deal. Despite this, Rothfield finds reason to criticise the game and Phil Gould quits the Panthers in protest. All Panthers fans send Manson a thank-you card.

Prior to quitting the Panthers, Gus, after his failed five year plan, had announced a 50 year plan, with the aim of making the finals by year 47. Also leads quality NSW teams against QLD but gets smashed because he can’t win without Joey.

Anthony Mudine’s return to league, announced 5 years ago, is “very close to being official”. Also wins a tough points decision over an armless, bind, 93 year old, but says this is a stepping stone to being the best in the world.

Parramatta, in time, smash the record of winning 11 straight by getting 28 straight and counting. Except they’ve won wooden spoons instead.

The Sharks to have won a premiership. Just kidding.

Video refs don’t make blatant mistakes. Stop dreaming.

Channel Nine to provide decent commentary…..seriously. Ok, you know Im joking.

Also Channel Nine to show the only telecast of grand final the after the day the match. They claim it suits people who attend the game. allows for more editing to enhance viewer experience and gives lead commentator Tom Waterhouse more time to think of clever ways to incorporate witty betting puns in.

Thanks Gav, hope you enjoyed it.

I think one could make a compelling case for Clarke at either four or five, but for mine he has to bat at five. Its a bit like how a number 3 can come out in the first over and score a century, but is a failure as an opener. They have the skill, not the mind. Ideally Clarke would probably bat at three, but realistically he should be able to bat four and it would be better for the team if is success there rather than at 5.

I think all fans want Bailey to succeed. Added bonus if he does, what be brings besides his batting.

On the plus side however, if he failed he would still be part of the limited overs teams and doesn’t seem like the sort of player who would end up in a scape heap.

Thanks SC. Its good to know I had least one reader too!

I agree Adelaide doesn’t look good for our prospects. Perhaps Australia should consider playing a defensive bowler like Hilfenhaus and set defensive fields, but bowl aggressive. Also tell batsmen to forget strike rates – play your natural game but it doesn’t matter if you score slowly.

Nothing wrong with saying don’t have great spinner, Lyon is solid, but not great – and our best option. Perhaps they should consider Steven O’Keefe to support him (not that it will happen). Added bonus he good with the bat to help the Aussie’s chances.

I agree the Gabba and the WACA are by far our best chances, with Melbourne a clearly next in line.

Great article mate, agree with all the points. I wanted to publish a similar article but didn’t have time.

I read in an above comment Wayne Bennet said times have changed about having four teams in the world cup – my thoughts exactly. I dare that goose Rothfield to go to the middle of patriotic PNG and say they shouldn’t be at the world cup. How about saying it to the face of players from lesser nations who are the best in the country, but are hardly know and are paid bugger all. Or how about telling the Irish player who swapped jerseys with Cooper Cronk that they shouldn’t be at world cup.

There are floggings at in every sport, particularly at world cups. By that logic, Australia shouldn’t be part of the next soccer world cup given we’d flogged on current form. Likewise on the fact that only three teams are chances to win it – that happens in a few different sports (and so what anyway, it isn’t just about who wins it). And I’m sure there are other sports that would kill for those crowd figures.

As far as rating go they’d be better in they weren’t in the middle of the night, but such is life. Besides do they really expect other nations games to get massive ratings? And to the point that not all Aussie have 7mate, not many Aussies have Fox Sports either, so that hardly takes away credibly.

100% that players seem to act like bits of show ponies….they need an Allan Border style captain to pull them into line. In saying that though this side doesn’t have the skill of previous teams and acting less like millionaires wouldn’t solve all our woes. Hopefully Bailey, who seems down to earth, can be a positive influence and help stop some of the fractions within the team.

Also agree, they need players who can be dull and boring and hang tough at times. Winning ugly beats losing. In low scoring innings often they only need two players to score 50’s and they have a decent score. Perhaps its part of the reason the selectors wanted Cowan to succeed so badly

Sheek: I disagree that is takes balls to write a negative story. Worst case scenario he get a lot of attention and then his next story is more popular. As the saying goes, happiness doesn’t make a good story and doesn’t sell papers.

The issue isn’t that he’s negative, it some of his logic and that he treats his opinion like fact.

On some his logic: doesn’t like that its being played at either 1 or 6 in the morning. What can be done about that? Happens in lots of sports and besides it part of the fun waking at to watch the game or some times being able to watch a game before uni. Besides, 7 are good enough to show replays which is great.

He said he lost interest he Nine didn’t have the rights. So what? Besides thats a blessing a number of fans can’t stand Nine’s coverage of the NRL.

My other issue is that he always knocks and never admits when he was wrong. For example a and half into Neil Henry stay the Cowboys he was calling for him to be sack and calling the board gutless for not doing to. Then earlier this he again knocked and the Cowboys for underachieving and saying they shouldn’t have given him an extension. Then the Cowboys went on their winning streak and suddenly he was sing the praises of Henry, saying the Cowboys board should be sacked for going back on his extension (though they saw out his original five year deal). He also said Henry should be given the Eels coaching job.

So one minute, he knocking the board for keeping Henry and later that year when they were winning (though he said nothing when they actually sacked him) he knocking the board for getting rid of him.

My point is that he writes A LOT negative garbage (that doesn’t take balls IMO) and fails to credit where is its due or simply appreciate what the game is doing right.

AT, yeah I know for a fact there are many, many far better writer for the Roar. I made the comment in my post that most can argue their point more logically than Rothfeild. Some writers, many of whom aren’t professional writers, I always get excited when I see they’ve posted an article or commented on something of mine I because I know they write well reasoned and logically, even if I don’t agree with what the write.

The difference is that Rothfield often doesn’t use proper logic, he considers his opinions facts, he acts like he knows so much about league and sport in general when he is just an armchair expert and when some disagrees with him he calls them childish names rather than responding with logic.

Will, when I open the paper and see one of his articles, every time I think ‘I shouldn’t read this it will just annoy me’. And yet I still do, because its hard not to when its right there. I agree though really I shouldn’t read his stuff.

However I think there are a number of fans like me generally disagree with what he writes, but still read it given the amount of negative comments here about him.

Also sometimes, when its not frustrating reading what he writes, it is kinda cause its such nonsense.

Good question, Tim, I’m sure everyone wants to know. IMO the key is to try and be a little more consistent. We can’t expect this line up to continually make massive scores or bat sides out a Test in the first innings. However we can hope for less batting collapses, and one or two players showing a bit of grit during those tough innings and making the score respectable. Also when they collapse, make sure it is only once per test match.

Also put enough runs on the board so we don’t get belted by and innings and post some decent scores consistently to make the series competitive.

James, I find it funny how he criticised the hell out of David Gallop and when it was mentioned about the commission taking over he went on how the game would be so much better. Now he knocks the hell out of the current admins, while singing the praises of soccer which is run by Gallop!

As Lenard said to someone on the Big Bang Theory who was arguing will Sheldon “Just give up, your arguing with a crazy person”.

Raymond, good article. Clear and well reasoned points. However even if you Rothfield read this his response would probably be to call you a ‘dribbler’ or tell you to ‘seek urgent medical attention’ (which is IMO inappropriate from a professional journalist). On his blogs he calls me names who disagree with him and sings the praises of those who agree, rather than using logic to come up with an answer.

Rothfield is total joke. He is no better than anyone writes for the Roar, in that he only writes opinion (though he treats it like fact and most Roars can justify their point of view better). Won’t admit his clear biases towards the Sharks who can do no wrong. One week he attends an NRL game and is singing its praises, the next week he is criticising the hell out of the game and saying how much better soccer or AFL.

I remember once Billy Slater had three great club games in a row where the Storm smash opponents, two of which were very average teams. Next thing you Slater dubbed by Rothfeild as possibly not only the greatest fullback, but the greatest player of all time. Another time Gallen had three or four weeks where he had three or four great club games and he was suddenly unquestionably the best player in the game.

I annoys me to no end as well how he states with a certainty how a player is going to another club, but then the players ‘backflips’ at the last minute. Did he ever consider the player was just using gullible journalists such as himself to increase his price tag?

To your points about the World Cup, I agree with everything you wrote. He clearly is not a genuine league fan. Having a World Cup with four teams is ridiculous and besides watching the watching the minnows compete is great to watch, especially when players from my club are competing.

As far as it being a 3 horse rare, I bet most people would predicted before the Rugby World Cup in New Zealand that either the hosts, South Africa or Australia would win it. Yes it is a lot more competitive than league, but so what. Besides at Rugby World cups people often criticise them for not being as competitive as soccer world cup.

I could go on with a lot more points about Rothfield. I’ve though a few times about writing articles here in response to the rubbish he writes, but have never actually gotten around to it. So well done for actually doing it, and I hope some sends him a link to this article.

‘Had concessions put into his contract’…so you mean to say conditions just for him and not others? Isn’t that setting a double standard? Sure he deserves some lean way given his standing but missing training altogether is a bit when he is off promoting another code and sport.

All players look out for themselves, but a certain amount of give and take in required. I’d say SBW only gives as much as he takes, if not more.

If say Jennings, Pearce, Maloney, JWH and Cordner all only wanted one year deals, so they could box and play another code in the off season would the Rooster allow it?

As far as everything you say he did, if you put SBW in the 2012 Rooster would they have won the GF? I highly doubt it. No doubt he played a key role but he is no God, despite what the ‘experts’ at channel 9 say.

You also speak as though he is perfect off the field. Implying the judges of Geale-Mundine fight were corrupt, not bothering to front the media on GF week when other players had to and the back flip over the World Cup, when he was contacted two days earlier checking his availability hardly makes him an angel.

I never said clubs should give JOC concessions, the opposite actually I said he would need behavioural clauses. I agree JOC is not a team player, but I believe he’s young enough to change and doesn’t have shady manager whispering in his ear. He would need to change or he would kicked out.

When I spoke about talent I only spoke about on field talent. On field, going only on natural talent, I don’t think there is daylight between them. JOC played for the Wallabies as a teenager and has got by using his natural talent thus far.

Doug: The Just Bieber is a type of Beaver, originally from Canada. The males are known for there femininity (particularly sound) and homosexual-like-traits. Other distinguishing features include arrogance, cockiness and FIG JAM syndrome. It is not known what the beaver actually, but for some reason it appeals to girls of around 12 years old. If sighted it should not be approached and the authorities should be contracted immediately.