2016/17 Summer of Cricket - AUS vs India 2nd test- 4th innings

Cannon82

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 26, 2012
15,214
20,806
AFL Club
Melbourne
I agree. Batting is highly specialised. They're openers, top order and middle order and aside from the odd anomaly, few excel outside of their specialised position. Swap Matthew Hayden and Steve Waugh and both their performances suffer. I've seen statistics on game coverages so often showing different batsmen's averages at various places in the batting order and almost all are significantly stronger in one or two positions only. The only common exception to this is the explosive middle order bat who opens in the short forms.
Not going to re-start the argument all over again, but I disagree on it being "highly specialized". We're not talking about the difference between a prop and a halfback or a ruckman and back pocket - the duties are the same in Test cricket. Watch ball, play on merit, adapt to pitch / match conditions. You switch Matt Hayden and Steve Waugh, and it may make a difference, but they're not suddenly going to average 30 apiece.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

DemonTim

Cancelled
Jul 18, 2013
11,393
8,055
AFL Club
Melbourne
Not going to re-start the argument all over again, but I disagree on it being "highly specialized". We're not talking about the difference between a prop and a halfback or a ruckman and back pocket - the duties are the same in Test cricket. Watch ball, play on merit, adapt to pitch / match conditions. You switch Matt Hayden and Steve Waugh, and it may make a difference, but they're not suddenly going to average 30 apiece.
Even though stats and coaches disagree you still keep pushing an incorrect argument.
 

Cannon82

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 26, 2012
15,214
20,806
AFL Club
Melbourne
Even though stats and coaches disagree you still keep pushing an incorrect argument.
If you're arguing that Khawaja's stats on two bad recent tests in India justify his removal, how do Maxwell's stats of two bad tests in India and none of them recent justify his inclusion? Couple that with his s**t first class form. Where's the consistency in your argument? You keep blithering about stats disproving the argument when Khawaja has 577 runs @ 64 in his last 10 test digs. In what world is that compelling evidence to drop him? He plays for Australia - he's going to play a lot of games in Australia.

Imagine I don't care about your second hand opinions.
 

Klyntonius

Norm Smith Medallist
Jan 9, 2004
6,064
4,228
The nearest twisties
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Kawasaki Racing, Falcons, Pelicans
Not going to re-start the argument all over again, but I disagree on it being "highly specialized". We're not talking about the difference between a prop and a halfback or a ruckman and back pocket - the duties are the same in Test cricket. Watch ball, play on merit, adapt to pitch / match conditions. You switch Matt Hayden and Steve Waugh, and it may make a difference, but they're not suddenly going to average 30 apiece.
That's true in theory but not in reality.
 

DemonTim

Cancelled
Jul 18, 2013
11,393
8,055
AFL Club
Melbourne
If you're arguing that Khawaja's stats on two bad recent tests in India justify his removal, how do Maxwell's stats of two bad tests in India and none of them recent justify his inclusion? Couple that with his s**t first class form. Where's the consistency in your argument? You keep blithering about stats disproving the argument when Khawaja has 577 runs @ 64 in his last 10 test digs. In what world is that compelling evidence to drop him? He plays for Australia - he's going to play a lot of games in Australia.

Imagine I don't care about your second hand opinions.
I was actually talking about your garbage that it doesn't matter what position you bat in. It's not how players are coached, and even all the players you brought in to talk about top order batters being good at 5 or 6 (despite only one of them actually having relevance to your argument) show it's not the case. Discount anecdote all you want but when coaches are coaching players in a specific way, it's idiotic to turn around and say "oh that doesn't matter. I think anyone of the top 6 can bat anywhere"

Lol at you whinging about consistency. Your throwing a tantrum and saying everyone but you is wrong because it's unfair to "dump" khawaja when he's over there, yet apparently any other player taken over can get f’ed.

Where have I complained about khawaja playing in Australia? I specifically pointed out that his average halves overseas. Yet apparently we should ignore that and just concentrate on when he plays good.

What kind of stupid argument is this? You're arguing that a guy who made a ton shouldn't have played in the first place because another guy with a poor average in these conditions should've been given the chance. What's the opposite of hindsight? Looking back on a good decision and screaming for the opposite?
 

Hotdees

All Australian
Feb 18, 2016
612
782
AFL Club
Melbourne
Mate just sent me a good link. Langer only once batted below 4, and that was at 7. His average at 4 was his worst.

Khawaja has batted at 6 3 times with a high score of 26 and an average of 20.

Clarke shouldn't be in the list since he played his best crickey at 5th statistically. And played the most innings there.

Hussey played his best cricket at 5/6 statistically (and only opened 8 times in his career). Spent most of his career at 4.

Ponting is the only one who slightly supports you. But outside opening he played his most innings at 6. (Also played at 7 and 9 and his stats are s**t for it.
To be fair Mike Hussey opened the batting for around 10 years for WA before debuting for Australia. Not sure he would of batted 4/5/6 at all for WA. Opened in his 1st test then went down the order where his success was amazing
 

Cannon82

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 26, 2012
15,214
20,806
AFL Club
Melbourne
That's true in theory but not in reality.
Mmmm, but the differences aren't that significant. Katich, M.Hussey, Hodge, Ponting, Martyn, Blewett all moved around the order from the cricketers I plucked off the top of my head to look at. Hayden is one that never once batted anywhere other than the two opening spots.
 

DemonTim

Cancelled
Jul 18, 2013
11,393
8,055
AFL Club
Melbourne
Mmmm, but the differences aren't that significant. Katich, M.Hussey, Hodge, Ponting, Martyn, Blewett all moved around the order from the cricketers I plucked off the top of my head to look at. Hayden is one that never once batted anywhere other than the two opening spots.
I've already given you the exact stats. Although I notice you leave langer out of "bat 5 or 6" now
 

Klyntonius

Norm Smith Medallist
Jan 9, 2004
6,064
4,228
The nearest twisties
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Kawasaki Racing, Falcons, Pelicans
Mmmm, but the differences aren't that significant. Katich, M.Hussey, Hodge, Ponting, Martyn, Blewett all moved around the order from the cricketers I plucked off the top of my head to look at. Hayden is one that never once batted anywhere other than the two opening spots.
Ponting was blooded as a youngster at 6. When he was established as the teams best batsman, he was promoted to three where he never moved til his twilight years.
Katich and Hodge were top order batsmen.
The rest were all middle order batsmen.
Yes, they played in a few different positions but these are the positions they actually played their best cricket, in one or two positions, and by a significant margin over anywhere else in the lineup. Hussey is the anomaly who could play equally well in a range of positions, but he is very much against the norm. It's like suggesting key position players can be equally effective at either end of the ground because David Neitz was an All Australian defender and Coleman medalist - it's highly unlikely and a very rare thing.

Just remember, when Burns was dropped after the Tasmanian debacle, he was replaced with Renshaw, another opener, and Voges and Fergusson were replaced with Handscomb and Maddinson who play the same positions. Batting is highly specialised.
 

Topkent

Premium Platinum
Aug 29, 2010
34,640
42,291
Canada
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Winnipeg Jets
Ponting was blooded as a youngster at 6. When he was established as the teams best batsman, he was promoted to three where he never moved til his twilight years.
Katich and Hodge were top order batsmen.
The rest were all middle order batsmen.
Yes, they played in a few different positions but these are the positions they actually played their best cricket, in one or two positions, and by a significant margin over anywhere else in the lineup. Hussey is the anomaly who could play equally well in a range of positions, but he is very much against the norm. It's like suggesting key position players can be equally effective at either end of the ground because David Neitz was an All Australian defender and Coleman medalist - it's highly unlikely and a very rare thing.

Just remember, when Burns was dropped after the Tasmanian debacle, he was replaced with Renshaw, another opener, and Voges and Fergusson were replaced with Handscomb and Maddinson who play the same positions. Batting is highly specialised.
I just can't agree with this, you say ponting moved up the order because he was the teams best batsmen. He moved up to a harder position. No one moves down to 6 because of its difficulty
You can't use a FF and FB as an analogy because they have literally the opposite jobs.
Test 3s and 6s have the same Job, scoring runs
If people say Khawaja is a good 3 but a poor 6 because he can't play spin, teams would just bowl a spinner when he comes in to bat
The only difference between 3 and 6 is you have to wait around more often at 6, and if the problem is he can't score freely enough when we are 4-400 then who cares. I only care if he can make runs at 4-36 in the 12th over which is the same time a number 3 would bat
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

DemonTim

Cancelled
Jul 18, 2013
11,393
8,055
AFL Club
Melbourne
I just can't agree with this, you say ponting moved up the order because he was the teams best batsmen. He moved up to a harder position. No one moves down to 6 because of its difficulty
You can't use a FF and FB as an analogy because they have literally the opposite jobs.
Test 3s and 6s have the same Job, scoring runs
If people say Khawaja is a good 3 but a poor 6 because he can't play spin, teams would just bowl a spinner when he comes in to bat
The only difference between 3 and 6 is you have to wait around more often at 6, and if the problem is he can't score freely enough when we are 4-400 then who cares. I only care if he can make runs at 4-36 in the 12th over which is the same time a number 3 would bat
Plenty of teams do use spin against Khawaja...

AFL footballers have the same job, win the game. See how stupid it is to dumb a player down to it's very most basic job.

FACT is that players are coached and selected based on where they bat in a line up, i'm not sure how you can argue that there is no difference, when the coaches and selectors all say there is. Or are we just coaching them in pathways in the wrong way and every kid who can bat will play anywhere? No specialised coaching anymore. Klynt just showed evidence of this (players playing specific spots, playing best in specific spots by a large margin and players being selected for the exact same spot as they've played)

The last part doesn't even make sense. So we should play him at 6, because he might end up batting at the same time anyway if we have a huge top order collapse?
 

saj_21

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 30, 2007
7,664
4,649
unlisted
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Warney's IPL team!
People need to go back and watch the Sri Lanka series. There is struggling for form and still being able to play spin, like Warner and then there is being completely clues against spin like Ussie was against sri lanka, particularly when facing herath.

No doubt he was stiff to be dropped but the selectors needed to make some changes and take some risk to try and win in India, they picked a good squad and gave the players plenty of preparation so far it has paid off.
 

Russian Demon

Premiership Player
Mar 26, 2015
3,271
4,111
AFL Club
Melbourne
I was actually talking about your garbage that it doesn't matter what position you bat in. It's not how players are coached, and even all the players you brought in to talk about top order batters being good at 5 or 6 (despite only one of them actually having relevance to your argument) show it's not the case. Discount anecdote all you want but when coaches are coaching players in a specific way, it's idiotic to turn around and say "oh that doesn't matter. I think anyone of the top 6 can bat anywhere"

Lol at you whinging about consistency. Your throwing a tantrum and saying everyone but you is wrong because it's unfair to "dump" khawaja when he's over there, yet apparently any other player taken over can get ******.

Where have I complained about khawaja playing in Australia? I specifically pointed out that his average halves overseas. Yet apparently we should ignore that and just concentrate on when he plays good.

What kind of stupid argument is this? You're arguing that a guy who made a ton shouldn't have played in the first place because another guy with a poor average in these conditions should've been given the chance. What's the opposite of hindsight? Looking back on a good decision and screaming for the opposite?

It sounds like you don't rate Ussie about as much as i don't rate Maxwell.

I agree Ussie can't play spin very well. As you pointed out the numbers reflect that. However like said above, the nuumbers don't support Maxwell either... in fact they are more damning. Add to that that his style is an all or nothing style. If a grinding innings needed to be played, he would throw his wicket away regardless of the team position.

In terms of batting order, yes there are different skill sets which make some better at certain positions than others. And generally higher order can only really be handled consistently by more skillful players. But its not that hard to switch around if you have the skills. Ussie can play at 6 - on average he'll be worse if the top order fires, but better if they collapse as he's a proper batsman - but Maxwell sure as hell can't open.

Gilly went from number 7 to opening in times of great need in Tests. He could have opened for Australia full time had we not had 2 of the greatest openers in a generation.
 

DemonTim

Cancelled
Jul 18, 2013
11,393
8,055
AFL Club
Melbourne
It sounds like you don't rate Ussie about as much as i don't rate Maxwell.

I agree Ussie can't play spin very well. As you pointed out the numbers reflect that. However like said above, the nuumbers don't support Maxwell either... in fact they are more damning. Add to that that his style is an all or nothing style. If a grinding innings needed to be played, he would throw his wicket away regardless of the team position.

In terms of batting order, yes there are different skill sets which make some better at certain positions than others. And generally higher order can only really be handled consistently by more skillful players. But its not that hard to switch around if you have the skills. Ussie can play at 6 - on average he'll be worse if the top order fires, but better if they collapse as he's a proper batsman - but Maxwell sure as hell can't open.

Gilly went from number 7 to opening in times of great need in Tests. He could have opened for Australia full time had we not had 2 of the greatest openers in a generation.
Again an exception that does not disprove the rule. Stats show that players play much much better in a grounded position, whether that be openers/top order, or middle order.

I rate khawaja. But I'm not stupid enough to think he should come in, in conditions he doesn't handle, when the spot he plays isn't even open. I don't rate maxwell all that highly and am a huge critic of him, I have a few of his mates on Facebook and I've been blasted by them for ragging on maxwell.

I just understand that players are coached and play best in a position in the order, you don't take a bloke over, who bats at the position you need, then shift the team or play someone from another position in that position. You've taken cover for middle order. You use it. You don't force your top order cover in

I'm still unsure why people are whinging about maxwell being selected at 6, where he bats, after he has scored a ton. Why is all the sooking about maxwell in over khawaja, and not "why is either marsh there?" Or "what can we do about warner struggling over there and to play spin?" Instead it's "why did we pick our middle order cover to cover a middle order player, even though he scored a ton, he shouldn't have been chosen"
 

Russian Demon

Premiership Player
Mar 26, 2015
3,271
4,111
AFL Club
Melbourne
Again an exception that does not disprove the rule. Stats show that players play much much better in a grounded position, whether that be openers/top order, or middle order.

I rate khawaja. But I'm not stupid enough to think he should come in, in conditions he doesn't handle, when the spot he plays isn't even open. I don't rate maxwell all that highly and am a huge critic of him, I have a few of his mates on Facebook and I've been blasted by them for ragging on maxwell.

I just understand that players are coached and play best in a position in the order, you don't take a bloke over, who bats at the position you need, then shift the team or play someone from another position in that position. You've taken cover for middle order. You use it. You don't force your top order cover in

I'm still unsure why people are whinging about maxwell being selected at 6, where he bats, after he has scored a ton. Why is all the sooking about maxwell in over khawaja, and not "why is either marsh there?" Or "what can we do about warner struggling over there and to play spin?" Instead it's "why did we pick our middle order cover to cover a middle order player, even though he scored a ton, he shouldn't have been chosen"
For me, the fact he scored a ton is irrelevant, simply because its an outcome that could never have been realistically hoped for based on the evidence. Its the logic of the decision I'm skeptical of. If Maxwell keeps scoring and playing well, then the evidence will be sufficient to keep him there.

Yes i agree... players should generally play in a position. But if needs dictate that you shuffle a player or two around to accommodate something that is important in the broader picture of the game, then the benefit to the team as a whole can be more than the hit you take to the players' stability.

In the case thats being argued (despite the outcome), I would have argued that a proper patient test batsman would give a better return than bringing in a loose cannon who will go out there swinging, regardless of the hit to individual players' stability. To me, Maxwell was a 1 in 10 shot he'd not go out cheap. The 1 hit this time. Doesn't make it a balanced or good decision the other 9 times, and it will ultimately lead to poorer performance in the long run.
 

Topkent

Premium Platinum
Aug 29, 2010
34,640
42,291
Canada
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Winnipeg Jets
No one seems to be able to answer why if Khawaja is so diabolical against spin (which I've never disagreed with) why he was even brought on tour then
 

DemonTim

Cancelled
Jul 18, 2013
11,393
8,055
AFL Club
Melbourne
No one seems to be able to answer why if Khawaja is so diabolical against spin (which I've never disagreed with) why he was even brought on tour then
Because we don't have top level openers who are any better at it. It's like trying to say jake spencer is a good ruckman because he's still on a list. He's there as a "just in case".

For me, the fact he scored a ton is irrelevant, simply because its an outcome that could never have been realistically hoped for based on the evidence. Its the logic of the decision I'm skeptical of. If Maxwell keeps scoring and playing well, then the evidence will be sufficient to keep him there.

Yes i agree... players should generally play in a position. But if needs dictate that you shuffle a player or two around to accommodate something that is important in the broader picture of the game, then the benefit to the team as a whole can be more than the hit you take to the players' stability.

In the case thats being argued (despite the outcome), I would have argued that a proper patient test batsman would give a better return than bringing in a loose cannon who will go out there swinging, regardless of the hit to individual players' stability. To me, Maxwell was a 1 in 10 shot he'd not go out cheap. The 1 hit this time. Doesn't make it a balanced or good decision the other 9 times, and it will ultimately lead to poorer performance in the long run.
The logic of the decision that maxwell plays those conditions well and plays that exact spot.

The logic your using is non existent, you wanted to bring in someone who has failed in these conditions, and move the squad to accommodate, because the other option is using someone new, who doesn't require the squad to move

Again, as with the other poster, just seems you dislike maxwell. Crack it because he was taken over in the squad then, not that he's picked to play the position he was taken over for.
 

Sando22

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 3, 2016
8,207
7,639
AFL Club
Melbourne
I'd pick the current best 6 bats. Khawaja is in there. Really don't know why that is such a strange concept for you blokes. I can respect the fact you may disagree, but this idea that you are "right" is tosh. Bang on if you it makes you feel better.

Good on Maxwell for getting his ton, but he has 82 runs in 7 other test digs and 39 in 4 digs in India before this match. His first class average this year is 26. Wonderful player of spin, pace and everything in-between indeed. Add in the shocking revelation that a Victorian coach thinks a Victorian player should be in the Australian team and you've made a very compelling case indeed.
Khawaja isn't in our best 6 bats in these conditions.
I reckon most experts and those who've played there have mentioned this at some point and it's why he's never really been considered and won't be unless something drastic happens.
He's there for backup if the worst case scenario occurs where a top 3 bat is injured and the order cannot be shuffled to allow someone else to slot in. Stoinis was also shipped across mid series but wasn't picked, do you have the same issue with him?
 

Topkent

Premium Platinum
Aug 29, 2010
34,640
42,291
Canada
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Winnipeg Jets
Khawaja isn't in our best 6 bats in these conditions.
I reckon most experts and those who've played there have mentioned this at some point and it's why he's never really been considered and won't be unless something drastic happens.
He's there for backup if the worst case scenario occurs where a top 3 bat is injured and the order cannot be shuffled to allow someone else to slot in. Stoinis was also shipped across mid series but wasn't picked, do you have the same issue with him?
Yes because stoinis isn't in the top 50 bats in Australia and our all rounders have bowled about 10 overs for the series, baffling decision
 

Russian Demon

Premiership Player
Mar 26, 2015
3,271
4,111
AFL Club
Melbourne
Because we don't have top level openers who are any better at it. It's like trying to say jake spencer is a good ruckman because he's still on a list. He's there as a "just in case".


The logic of the decision that maxwell plays those conditions well and plays that exact spot.

The logic your using is non existent, you wanted to bring in someone who has failed in these conditions, and move the squad to accommodate, because the other option is using someone new, who doesn't require the squad to move

Again, as with the other poster, just seems you dislike maxwell. Crack it because he was taken over in the squad then, not that he's picked to play the position he was taken over for.
How do you arrive at that? You use the numbers to kill off Ussie, but ignore them to defend maxwell and throw in assertions with no basis.

I conceded that batsmen are better in a stable position. But on all the evidence, picking Maxwell was worse than picking Ussie. If you look at Maxwell's playing style in tests, its completely inflexible. He's the cherry on top you carry when you have 5 proper batsmen above.

I'm not arguing that Khwaja would have been better on the day. I'm arguing that the logic used to make the decision was a complete hail mary. I admitted up front i don't like Maxwell, but i don't like him because he has none of the traits of a professional test cricketer. You seem to not like Khwaja. i'll take half of khwaja's usual average consistently over a ton from Maxwell every 10th innings separated by single digit scores.



But yes...i am arguing that Khwaja going to 6 is a better move than Maxwell in at 6 with no other changes in position. After all, we are taking a test top order batsman and putting them in at 6. Its not like they were asking it to be changed in the opposite direction
 

Sando22

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 3, 2016
8,207
7,639
AFL Club
Melbourne
Yes because stoinis isn't in the top 50 bats in Australia and our all rounders have bowled about 10 overs for the series, baffling decision
Was more eluding to the fact he was sent there to then not be selected.
In the same way Khawaja is there and not selected.
Fairly clear I'd have thought.

Khawaja isn't in our best 6 bats in these conditions.
I reckon most experts and those who've played there have mentioned this at some point and it's why he's never really been considered and won't be unless something drastic happens.
He's there for backup if the worst case scenario occurs where a top 3 bat is injured and the order cannot be shuffled to allow someone else to slot in. Stoinis was also shipped across mid series but wasn't picked, do you have the same issue with him?
 

DemonTim

Cancelled
Jul 18, 2013
11,393
8,055
AFL Club
Melbourne
How do you arrive at that? You use the numbers to kill off Ussie, but ignore them to defend maxwell and throw in assertions with no basis.

I conceded that batsmen are better in a stable position. But on all the evidence, picking Maxwell was worse than picking Ussie. If you look at Maxwell's playing style in tests, its completely inflexible. He's the cherry on top you carry when you have 5 proper batsmen above.

I'm not arguing that Khwaja would have been better on the day. I'm arguing that the logic used to make the decision was a complete hail mary. I admitted up front i don't like Maxwell, but i don't like him because he has none of the traits of a professional test cricketer. You seem to not like Khwaja. i'll take half of khwaja's usual average consistently over a ton from Maxwell every 10th innings separated by single digit scores.



But yes...i am arguing that Khwaja going to 6 is a better move than Maxwell in at 6 with no other changes in position. After all, we are taking a test top order batsman and putting them in at 6. Its not like they were asking it to be changed in the opposite direction
That's what his coaches say about him? Or do you think a team he's on the outer with are lying to justify why he was selected, and he's s**t in those conditions and Cricket Aus took a player the captain hates as some conspiracy?

I haven't brought up any numbers, but considering Khawaja has a high score in the sub continent of 26, and made 117 in 7 innings over there. His last 4 scores (2016) in Lanka were 26, 18, 11 and 0, and indian conditions are much more difficult than that, these scores were made batting as his preferred 3rd position. Khawaja made an average of 16.7 an innings overall, and 13.75 in his most recent outing. Playing his preferred position.

Maxwell has played 6 innings over there (well 4 in india and 2 in the UAE, over the 2013 and 2014 seasons) scoring 13, 8 10, 8, 37 and 4. Maxwell even without playing there for 4 years prior averages 13.33.

So what you're saying is we shouldve moved the team, because Khawaja averages between 0.42 and 3.37 over there?

So it was a hail mary, to select a player, in his batting position, over a player who doesn't play that position, despite them having similar averages?

And why do people keep coming up with this "oh its easy to change a batsmans position". THEY ARE COACHED FOR THEIR SPECIFIC POSITION! At state and national level. It is completely false, and unless you want to show some evidence about how the u16 pathways right up to national level are coaching their bats wrong, then stop with the myth.

You whinge about conclusions but:
I rate khawaja. But I'm not stupid enough to think he should come in, in conditions he doesn't handle, when the spot he plays isn't even open. I don't rate maxwell all that highly and am a huge critic of him, I have a few of his mates on Facebook and I've been blasted by them for ragging on maxwell.
You seem to not like Khwaja. i'll take half of khwaja's usual average consistently over a ton from Maxwell every 10th innings separated by single digit scores.
 

Russian Demon

Premiership Player
Mar 26, 2015
3,271
4,111
AFL Club
Melbourne
Look we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Maxwell's attitude to his wicket and the way he plays is not, in my opinion, compatible with long term success in Test cricket. I'd still take a player with good technique who can improve, over a cowboy who has no other tools but to hit big.

As far as the averages go, the data is too incomplete to conclude anything. Maxwells scores are 4 years old, his dismissals when playing 6 (he opened for some of that tour) do not suggest he was trying to dig in or steady the ship. Khwaja's scores are terrible. But I believe the underlying player is a better long term prospect to improve and be more consistent.

Go dig out more stats if you like, but i think I've been fairly clear on what my opinions are and why i have them.
 
Top Bottom