This will hurt me...

The Picton River rages. Tahune State Forest, September 2010. The Picton is not quite the raging torrent that the Australian selectors find themselves in today - you know you're in trouble when a grown adult who 'earned' a million bucks last year for i) not spinning the ball, and ii) getting hit for sixes has his dad doing your public whining for you - but an impressive little river nonetheless. Today's topical Sunday Top Five ? Five People Who Deserve To Be Picked In The Australian Test Team Ahead Of Dreadful "Spinner" Nathan Hauritz! Xavier Doherty. Bob "Dutchy" Holland. Dirt Girl (from Dirtgirlworld). That homeless guy I see drunk and staggering up Elizabeth Street each morning. That little Quentin bloke. You know the little fellow I mean. Squeaky voice. Stunted limbs. Smokes a lot of dope (allegedly). Yeah, him. I think that he's Ray Martin's love child through Jeannie Little. He deserves a run trundle.

I am not sure the extent to which the world has been exposed to current art versus child porn debate that has been raging all week in Australia. I have been mulling over whether to post some thoughts on the current debate over the exhibition of Australian photographer Bill Henson . The Prime Minister has had his say , as had the art crowd . As is always so very useful, they appear to have set their tents in polar opposition to each other. I have not commented mainly because I have not really had the time to devote to expressing myself with the clarity that I would like. As might be expected, venturing into the mine field that is a discussion that pits the notions of ‘artistic merit’ and ‘contextuality’ versus ‘the rights of the child’ and the legislative and judicial protection of minors is not one that I want to go in half arsed (not that this has stopped many commentators!) Moreover, my footing is not too sure when I venture into the legal notions that appear to underwrite the shu...

Alright, I promise that I won't say any more, it's been done to death and he's now been cleared , but I'd like one last word on the whole sorry Roos saga. My understanding of the rule breach that Paul Roos was investigated over states that one is not supposed to "intentionally induce or encourage any player to perform otherwise than on his merits". Roos said that any comment that he may or may not have made was simply in jest. Fair enough, but I struggle with that given that the other part of his defence appeared to be "why would I seriously tell him to not kick a goal (and throw the game), I didn't need to because he knew that we never intended to win the game!" Now, I have no doubt that he's telling the truth. Footage of the game showed McVeigh run on to the groundlaughing after receiving his instructions from Roos, so it probably was all a funny little comment about not kicking a goal that the four witnesses probably heared (albeit their s...

Really just a rehash of a comment that I left on the Political Umpire's blog , but it is something that I've thought about for a while and it may just drag Steve Davis out of hibernation if he's out there! It concerns the criticism of Ponting and the current team, and it is a criticism that I just don't get. I know people think that they're nasty, thin skinned and cliquey (and they may have a point), but surely the side under Border/Simpson was far, far worse. Remember, this was where you could get someone like Jones dropped (because he didn’t get along with Simpson), and Mark Waugh retained (because he was a good 'team man') even though the previous Sri Lankan tour saw Jones averaging 40-odd and Waugh around 2. Even more so, surely they were a far ‘harder’ unit, not to mention more spiteful and less likable lot then. The team was structured around severe, rough, surely types like AB, McDermott, Healy, Boon, Marsh, and perhaps even nastier annoying blokes li...

Can I first say that I like Peter Roebuck. I think that he always is an interesting and engaging commentator and writer. I own all of his books and have enjoyed them immensely. However, I can help but feel his piece in the SMH today was poor (and I’m trying to be kind here). Really, take this, for example: "Harbhajan Singh can be an irritating young man but he is head of a family and responsible for raising nine people. And all the Australian elders want to do is to hunt him from the game. Australian fieldsmen fire insults from the corners of their mouths, an intemperate Sikh warrior overreacts and his rudeness is seized upon. It might impress barrack room lawyers." What on earth have Harbhajan's dependents got to do with it? How does this change his guilt or innocence? Is Roebuck attempting to suggest that a suspension will cause nine people to go hungry? Should only bachelors be suspended? What if they’re helping out their mum? It really is nonsense. Similarly, he writ...