Lomax

In acquiring Brandin Cooks and Kony Ealy, the Patirots have given up their picks in the first two rounds. As it now stands, their top pick is the Panthers' third-rounder - 72nd overall. This seems a bit risky, particularly as they had no first-rounder last year.

Unless ... the Patriots already KNOW they're going to get a stack of picks for Jimmy Garoppolo and are biding their time before breaking the news.

So basically, the Texans are giving the Browns a second-round pick in 2018, in return for $10 million of cap space?

Is this the start of a new trend?

Discuss.

To golf, in fact. The powers that be have announced a new event, with music and fireworks, to be played over a mere six holes.

O tempora, o mores.

Apart from having a wonderful name, she was a ground-breaking captain of England's women's cricket team, at a time when the women's game was viewed more than a little condescendingly. She went on to become the first woman to serve on the MCC committee. She was also the first woman cricketer to hit a six in a Test match.

My favourite story about her is from a charity match, in which her team played a side made up of prominent male players. Whilst she was batting, she heard two of the slips stage-whisper the following -

First slip "Do women wear a box while batting?"

Second slip "Yes, but they call them manhole covers."

Flint lost neither her sense of humour, not her wicket.

After three days, the Test between Bangladesh and England is fascinatingly poised. Regardless of how it turns out, it has already been - by a country mile - more interesting than many a high-scoring draw. The pendulum of advantage has swung back and forth several times, and there's almost certainly more than one swing to come.

Which brings me to my point about administrators. As a general rule, moderate-scoring games are a better spectacle than high-scoring ones. The game is so much more when there is a genuine contest between bat and ball, rather than when bowlers are mere cannon-fodder.

So why is it that so many (too many?) pitches are prepared in such a way that all the advantages are stacked with the batsmen? Is there any chance of the game's administrators grasping the fact that this is a grievous error?

I though it was Kasbah, but on looking it up, found that was something else, whilst a Caravanserai is a travellers' inn. What's the word I'm looking for?

Which living Indian cricketer was a jackpot-winning answer on the BBC television quiz Pointless?

Go on - guess

The death has just been announced of Hanif Mohammed. I trust all cricket fans will pause to remember him for a moment. A great servant to Pakistani cricket, he was a veteran of her inaugural Test match, and is best remembered for the finest defensive ever played. In Barbados in 1958, Pakistan were forced to follow on 473 runs behind, but Hanif saved the game with an innings of 337, lasting more than sixteen hours.

In first-class cricket, his highest score was 499 (at which point he ran himself out).

Hanif Mohammed: 81 declared.

What odds could you have got against both McCowns passing for 300+ yards in the same week?

True you would have got much shorter odds against them both finishing on the losing side...

England's results in their last seven Tests, against the West Indies, New Zealand and Australia are -

Win Loss Win Loss Win Loss Win.

Does this make them predictable or unpredictable? And what does it portend for Trent Bridge?

The recent death of Clive Rice prompts me to speculate on what might have been. Whilst in no way a defender of Apartheid, I do think it a sad loss that the world of Test cricket was denied the sight of a full-strength South African side for so long. Consider this potential line-up from 1980 or so -

Barry Richards

Jimmy Cook or Keppler Wessels

Ken McEwan

Graeme Pollock

Peter Kirsten or Allan Lamb

Clive Rice

Mike Procter

Ray Jennings

Garth LeRoux

Denys Hobson or Alan Kourie

Vincent van der Bijl

No modern side could hope to hold their own against that line-up, which, I dare venture, might have a claim to being the best ever, even if they never took the field.

Had it been possible for this side to play a five-Test series against the 1980 West Indians - that would have been something for the ages.

Not all of them, true: but you often find them deriding the Big Bang theory as being incompatible with a belief in a god.

I find this odd. Indeed, I would go so far as saying that the opposite ought to be the case - that theists ought to be embracing the Big Bang theory as something that SUPPORTS their beliefs.

The Big Bang theory postulates that space and time (ie the whole of existence) were created together in a single cataclysmic moment. We know an awful lot about what happened afterwards, but as far as I know, no physicist or cosmologist has ever explained (or even tried to explain) why the Big Bang happened when it did, and in the manner it did; or what (if anything) happened beforehand.

This, I would have thought, should be where the theists leap in. The Christian bible (I'm aware that there are other creation myths, but this is the one that I know most about) says that a god created the universe; but doesn't go into any detail as to how exactly he did it.

What if it were: "Let there be light!" ... BANG.

And there you have it. God the creator starting the ball rolling, and scientific observation confirming the fact. Surely everyone ought to be happy with this?

But no. It's "How dare you believe in the Big Bang - it conflicts with Genesis."

I am at a loss to understand this point of view.

The death of Christopher Lee was announced today. Of all his films, which was your favourite?

I'll make the first nomination with The Wicker Man.

I keep hearing it said that atheists are by definition immoral (possibly they mean amoral, but never mind). But consider:

Are suicide bombings moral acts? They're certainly religious.

Was 9/11 a moral act? It was certainly religious.

Were the Charlie Hebdo murders moral acts? They were certainly religious.

Were the Boko Haram kidnappings moral acts? They were certainly religious.

Is ISIS a moral organisation? It's certainly religious.

Were the crusades moral acts? They were certainly religious.

Were the tortures perpetrated by the Spanish Inquisition moral acts? They were certainly religious.

Were the Salem witch trials moral acts? They were certainly religious.

Were all the Catholic priests who abused children moral people? They were certainly religious.

Are the Westboro Baptists moral people? They're certainly religious.

Et cetera et cetera.

Which begs the question: Is it actually possible to be both moral AND religious?

And if not, which do you prefer?

In your opinion, does Miskatonic University qualify as Ivy League?

Justify your answer.

Can't seem to find this on any obvious website -

What is the largest number of players from the same team selected for the Pro-Bowl in any one season?

I am a divorced man. My son turns nine years old today. As a treat, I'm taking him and one of his friends (same age, plus or minus a couple of months) to the cinema. Mr Peabody and Sherman, if that matters.

My plan was to buy two tickets, escort them in, then leave them to watch the film in peace whilst I waited outside with a cup of tea and a newspaper. Unfortunately, somebody blabbed.

So I get herself yelling down the phone at me accusing me of being grossly irresponsible. It is unsafe, she tells me, to leave two boys that age alone in the cinema for ninety minutes, in case they encounter an axe-murderer or something.

My argument - that being free of parental oversight for a bit is at least half the fun - cut no ice. My other argument - that he was far more likely to encounter a paedophile (yes, she did use that word) walking to or from school (which she lets him do, albeit accompanied by his eleven-year-old brother) than at a random film screening - was also dismissed as irrelevant.

Now I HAVE to buy another ticket and go in with them. Not that the expense bothers me; but I've sat through enough kids' films in my time, and surely I can stop now?

Am I the one who's crazy, or is she?

That, for those who don't recognise it, is taken from a certain eighteenth century American document.

Actually, I have much sympathy to the sentiment expressed - and believe it should apply to god as well, if (and I do mean IF - I am not convinced on the subject) god does indeed exist and has just power over us, should he not equally have to apply for our consent?

I would like to hear his application before I cast my vote.