Kookaburras laughing at Poms' expense

Not that long ago the Australian mens' hockey team had an uwelcome reputation as a cursed team: they could dominate the world rankings and the Champions Trophy, but every four years, crash out of the Olympic Games at the final (or penultimate) hurdle. It was similar to the great fear that gnaws away at the New Zealand public, that the All Blacks win everything but the World Cup. The Gold medal at Athens in 2004 changed that, and although the Kookaburras were not able to defend their title at Beijing in 2008, the goodwill generated by 2004 meant that the team was not considered to have reverted to the pre-2004 curse. Hockey is a different game now, with the rise of the European powerhouses of Germany, Holland and Spain, and the emerging threat from South Korea, and now the lottery-funding-powered English, making it a mega-competitive world in the upper echelons. But Rick Charlesworth's team has just wrapped up an outstanding Champions Trophy tournament in Germany, winning a third successive Champions Trophy - and Australia's 11th in all - with a comprehensive 4-0 thrashing of England overnight. The undefeated campaign emphatically confirmed Australia's number one ranking, and more importantly, gave the English - who had never finished higher than fifth - a serious bath in their first taste of the big time. In the lead-up to the Ashes, we need all of these kinds of results we can get.

Let's go to the video - before the courts get involved

It's sad for Collingwood (therefore arguably far from sad) that a goal umpiring controversy threatens to take some of the gloss from its high-powered effort on Saturday night, which puts it firmly into favouritism for the flag (not a place Collingwood fans like to be.) The inexplicable decision that denied Geelong Shannon Byrnes a clear goal on Saturday night followed a similar call against Jarrad Waite 24 hours earlier - although Waite's was a lot harder on the goal umpire and less clear-cut than the Cat's - and a dead-set howler against Essendon's Jay Neagle in the same game. Being at the Punt Road end, the Byrnes and Waite decisions raised very uncomfortable memories of Tom Hawkins' poster that was called a goal in last years' Grand Final: imagine if the Cats had prevailed by less than six points - we would still be looking at replays of a decision that robbed St Kilda of either extra time, or outright, of its second flag. So, is the solution more eyes, or use of the available technology? I can't see the case for introduction of a second goal umpire, because the space the goal umpires have to patrol is too confined, and they have to move quickly with their concentration on the ball. (I'm not even going into the grey area of the ‘virtual' goal posts extending upwards into the void.) Two umpires watching the ball would cause certain collisions - or the prospect of both of them leaving a call to the other, and no call being made. No, it has to be technology: either sensors on the goal posts or the ability of a video umpire to make a quick call with the aid of replay technology, and over-ride the umpires on the spot. AFL suffers in comparison with the rugby codes, which have sideline cameras perfectly poised following the advantage line as it moves up the field: for the main scoring opportunity in league and union, the video ref's call and the wait for the try/no try result arguably adds to the game; while for the secondary scoring opportunity, the positioning of the touch judges at either post (and the fact that there are only two posts) makes it a lot easier to adjudicate. I would not like to see AFL become like US football, where the umpire actually leaves the field to check the replay and consult the officials in the stands: but leaving the calling of goals solely to fallible humans is asking for trouble. If the Channel Seven commentators could replay the Neagle non-goal several times in quick succession, once would have been enough for a replay official whose sole function is to call over-rules - in situations when the field umpires decide that one is required.

Dismal Prismall points to night abysmal

I promise this is the last time that I will write about Essendon this year. I know that it's painful if you do barrack for them and boring if you don't. I've always had a reliable sensor that tells me very early in a game whether the Bombers are ‘on'. I'm sure everyone has it. Sometimes this sensor - part neurological, part gastrological - gives me a wonderful surprise, as it did only ten days ago against St Kilda. Sometimes, it gives nothing but bad news - as it did on Friday night. (Its all-time low was the chilling stab of premonition it sent down my spine on a crisp October afternoon in 1990, informing me that the Bombers were about to lose a Grand Final to Collingwood.) What sparked the electro-muscular warning to the pit of the stomach on Friday night was Brent Prismall kicking into Eddie Betts, ten minutes in the first quarter, with Essendon leading 12-6. It wasn't that Betts brilliantly followed up his smother to pick out Garlett alone inside 50 for a goal - that was immaterial - it was the sheer laziness of Prismall's attempted kick. Followed as it was by Jay Neagle's pair of atrocious, unprofessional missed set-shots, and set amid a litany of missed tackles, kicks to nowhere and handball chains that followed the law of diminishing returns to its logical conclusion, the first quarter made for a nauseatingly familiar sight for Essendon supporters. And what really sticks in the guts is that Carlton, which had been promising a fire-and-brimstone approach to the match, didn't actually turn up with that at all. Prior to Prismall's half-hearted effort to hit a target, the Blues had actually been tentative and diffident. Betts' effort sparked them a bit, they got going and their victory ultimately became every bit as emphatic as they had wanted - but it certainly wasn't that from the outset. Had Prismall taken the care that his pay-packet should guarantee, Carlton could have been 18-6 down and assailed by fresh doubt. As it was, Essendon's over-confident and under-determined approach to the game in the early exchanges told its long-suffering fans all they needed to know. It seems ridiculous to contend that a 76-point loss was foretold by one incident 10 minutes into the game - which levelled the scores - but trust me, it was.

Weather it's better?

It's an interesting discussion as to who would be the more satisfied after the weekend: St Kilda's Ross Lyon or his Bulldogs counterpart, Rodney Eade. Both had smiles on their faces after the weekend's games, Lyon after his Saints had annihilated Port Adelaide on a beautifully dry and crisp Sunday afternoon in Melbourne, and Eade after the Bulldogs held off Adelaide in wet and greasy conditions in South Australia. The positives for the Saints were many: their ball use was scintillating, their run was outstanding, they had options to burn at all times, they linked out of defence in a seamless manner, and all up, they ran around playing like the Harlem Globetrotters - but against a team that had given up. The Bulldogs, in contrast, did it very tough on a slippery surface, with heavy rain and a cake of soap being used in lieu of a Sherrin, making for very little in the way of skill on display, but truckloads of in-and-under grunt - against a team desperately trying to win. I suspect that, given this difference, Eade would have had more of a spring in his step post-match; but you can only play what's in front of you, and once Port Adelaide had decided to fly the white flag, the Saints put on about as comprehensive a thrashing as any AFL team can inflict on another. They had every reason to be highly satisfied with their work, but the Bulldogs ticked more boxes solely by virtue of the differing workplace conditions - and opponent's effort - they encountered.

Stars shine but rarely in southern skies

Looking at the result of the Third Test between Sri Lanka and India, I was struck by a couple of things. The first was the power that still resides in the Indian batting line-up, despite the march of time. There are only ten batsmen currently averaging 50 or more in Test Cricket, and India has three of them (Tendulkar, Sehwag and Dravid), as well as Laxman, averaging 47.22. But the big four are getting on: Tendulkar and Dravid are 37, Laxman is 35 and Sehwag is 31. Spots in that order are hard to crack, which tells you how good the 23 year-old Suresh Raina must be to do so - I guess we'll soon find out. The other thing that stood out was how short-changed Australian fans have been in the cases of Sri Lanka's outstanding pair of Kumar Sangakkara and Mahela Jayawardene. The 32-year-old Sangakkara, the captain, has the highest Test average of any active batsman - at 56.92 - and has played 91 Tests for 7,913 runs. But he has played only six times against Australia, and only three times in this country. (He averages 41.92 against Australia.) His imperious team-mate Jayawardene, 33, has played 113 Tests, for a total of 9,408 runs at an average of 54.06. He has played ten Tests against Australia, for an average of 30. The pair has played respectively six and eight Test innings in Australia - and never in Melbourne or Sydney. In this country we have largely missed out on the careers of two of the great Test batsmen, which seems a pity - unless you happened to be at Hobart in November 2007, to see them both make their solitary centuries against Australia.