Stuart Clark - ODIs

[Richard]

Plus, I'd listen to some members here before 90% of journalists on cricketing issues, who actually think about what they type as opposed to the stupid knee-jerk articles that they have to produce on deadline.

Good to see someone else expressing said sentiment.

 

[Richard]

Disagree. Keepers are standing up to all sorts of bowlers these days. e.g. James Franklin bowling 135-138kph, who is about Clark's height. He just has to adjust his length.

Franklin is seriously that quick? I've only ever seen him around the 130-131kph mark.

And is he really as tall as Clark? Clark always seems pretty giant to me, if not quite Garner giant.

 

[Richard]

If clark's gonna bowl full-tosses, half-volley's and balls down the leg-side(which he has done so far in odi cricket), then what difference can a keeper standing up to the stumps make.

If the wicketkeeper can stand-up to the stumps to him, there's no reason to presume he can't bowl as we've seen him bowl in the Tests - almost universal wisdom seems to suggest the reason he's bowling Full-Tosses, leg-side balls and Half-Volleys is to do with batsmen using their feet, which having the wicketkeeper up puts a stop to.

 

[Richard]

btw... it's hard to beleive a reporter has a valid opinion on cricket when he has on two occassions called Shaun Tait a lefty

I'd substitute "hard" for "impossible", personally...

 

[vic_orthdox]

Despite pace readings, guys who bowl a heavier ball and extract bounce will be forever harder to keep up to than guys like Bracken and Franklin whom aim to bowl slightly fuller and look to swing the ball. The ball will come through at a much more comfortable height off them for the keeper up to the stumps than for a McGrath/Clark type.

 

[Richard]

Exactly - pace off the wicket is the thing, not pace outta ' hand.

 

[Fiery]

btw Fiery, really struggling in this thread, sounding like someone who has listened to too much RadioSport and Martin Crowe and maybe even spent hours pondering the erudite opinions of Richard Book to boot.

Right. Yes, I listen to Radio Sport in my car sometimes and yes I agree with Martin Crowe and Richard Boock sometimes. A lot of times I don't. I don't need someone half my age telling me that I'm "struggling in this thread" just because you might not agree with me. Have some respect for other people's opinions please theirry henry and keep the condescending bull**** to yourself

 

[Richard]

How'd you know how old t h is?

(How old are you, BTW?)

 

[Fiery]

I don't know how old he is, just guessing he's between 17 and 21. Maybe you can confirm that thierry henry? The opinion of ex-players such as Martin Crowe and scribes such as Richard Boock (and, it seems, myself) are generally disputed by people in this age-bracket. It's an age when young guys have that over-inflated opinion of their own wisdom and seem to think an extra 20 or so years of experience of watching and following the game, and of life experience, count for nothing. I've never been a great fan of Martin Crowe, the person or commentator btw (loved him as a player mind you) but his opinions are certainly as valid as the next guys. I'm 36 btw Richard.

 

[Richard]

Well I'm certainly one of those 17-21 guys (and have been throughout my time on CW) and I don't see that an extra 20 years of following the game live count for a hell of a lot. Not nothing, but as I've said a good few times, there's not a lot you can't learn if you read, and watch (where available), and listen. Yes, sometimes to those guys in the "older" bracket.

My own ethic - and one I've always rather presumed everyone else subscribes to - is "listen(\read) where you don't know". Ie, if someone who knows something about something that you don't know anything about talks, listen.

Therefore I'd kinda assume that us 17-21-year-olds know what they're on about when they dispute an oldie. I don't think that because you've had more game-watching experience, that means you're a better judge.

And there's simply no disputing that plenty and plenty of so-called "expert" people make one hell of a lot of poor calls, and yet they're retained in prominent positions simply because of being very fine ex-players. IMO most of the best cricket journalists haven't been especially good players (you look at the Arlotts, Swantons, CMJs, Johnstons, Agnews, etc.) and you see a pattern. Yes, there are exceptions (Benaud, Laker) obviously, but IMO too much emphasis is placed by many people on being a good ex-player

 

[Fiery]

It's an age when young guys have that over-inflated opinion of their own wisdom and seem to think an extra 20 or so years of experience of watching and following the game, and of life experience, count for nothing.

I was actually going to put ", take Richard for example" at the end of the sentence above too

 

[Richard]

Well most people have an over-inflated idea of their own opinion if you want to put it that way.

There's no point in having an opinion unless you believe that opinion is right!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Fiery]

Well most people have an over-inflated idea of their own opinion if you want to put it that way.

There's no point in having an opinion unless you believe that opinion is right!!!!!!!!!!!

That's not what I said. I said (to quote myself) "over-inflated opinion of their own wisdom". There's a difference.

 

[Richard]

OK, true.

I don't think my wisdom is inferior to that of someone 20 years older than me by default, which is what you seemed to be suggesting it invariably has to be. If you move myself on by 20 years, obviously there's a pretty decent chance of the me of 20 years' time being more knowledgeable than the me of now, but each person is individual and each case should be judged on it's own merits, not the age of the person in question.

 

[Fiery]

OK, true.

I don't think my wisdom is inferior to that of someone 20 years older than me by default, which is what you seemed to be suggesting it invariably has to be. If you move myself on by 20 years, obviously there's a pretty decent chance of the me of 20 years' time being more knowledgeable than the me of now, but each person is individual and each case should be judged on it's own merits, not the age of the person in question.

I have no doubt that another 20 years of cricket and life experience and you will be much more knowledgable than you are now (if you don't kill most of your brain-cells with alcohol like I have). And given that you are obviously quite an intelligent bloke now I predict you will be a very wise man in 20 years Richard.

 

[Richard]

Haha, thanks.

But that don't mean I'm not fairly wise now.

 

[Fiery]

Haha, thanks.

But that don't mean I'm not fairly wise now.

Yes Richard, you are wise compared to most people now but I think you're not quite as wise as you think you are, and that's a symptom of being the age you are imo. (It's a broad generalisation I know)

 

[Richard]

Well it all depends on how wise I think I am and how wise you think I think I am.

Which means it's pretty unquantifiable.

As is how wise those I'm contradicting are.

 

[Bob Bamber]

Clark reminds me a bit of Hoggard really. He is a very good test bowler but cannot transfer that form into the shorter form of the game. OK Clark is a very up and coming bowler and he hasn't had the kind of matches that Hoggard has. But its kind of a similar situation.

 

[Richard]

Clark is 2 years older than Hoggard.