Michael Clarke - all hype, no performance

[Crazy Sam]

Symonds is currently 30 and to be totally honest I could still see him playing great cricket at 38-40. He hasn't lost any of his athleticism and he has not had any real injury worries at all in his career - certainly not like watson, gillespie, lee etc.

I'm sure clarke will come good but he ain't gonna do it by staying at test level. Not to mention the south african bowling line-up should be better than the west indies one.

And I reckon Phil Jaques will be in the team as soon as hayden or langer is out of the test side permanently.

 

[luckyeddie]

it was Hodge's fault too.

Really? How do you work that out?

It's not as if there was a "Yes/No Interlude" between them. Both batsmen set off, there was an easy run, Cheaty was running to what should have been the danger end, but then Krusty had a brain melting moment, putting the brakes on before starting to run again.

 

[Slow Love™]

Always, the team's interests come first. I guess it's all a matter of what your definition of 'team's interests' is. (ie - is it the short term interest of Australia scoring the most possible runs in the next Test/Test series?; or should 'team interests' be looked at in the mid-to-longer term?). But I agree with your broader point that, yes, selection is a performance based exercise - not exclusively though.

Both definitions (picking the best immediate side and looking at the long-term future) are valid selection concerns, but neither provide a reason that Clarke shouldn't be dropped at this point. I'm not saying you shouldn't select on promise, or that a comparison of first class average is the be-all and end-all of whether somebody should be given a run or not.

But Australia is just as well served should Hussey or Hodge play for another three years and be successful in their position(s) - and if Clarke is right to go either then or sooner, it's all good. If he doesn't recover enough confidence and/or form to make it on the international stage after being dropped, then he just didn't have what it takes. In all honesty, I think he's probably tougher than that, and the whole kid-gloves thing doesn't really wash with me.

 

[howardj]

Not saying that he definitely shouldn't be dropped. I just hope, with young, promising guys like Clarke and Watson, that the selectors err of the side of retention, if it's a line-ball call. They probably didnt see it as line-ball though - which is fair enough - and hence he is back playing for NSW.

 

[howardj]

Anyway, Clarke is back playing against Qld this Saturday against two rampant Test players - Bichel (last performance: 7 for 56) and Kasprowicz (last performance: 8 for 44). Just what the poor bugger needs

 

[Slow Love™]

Not saying that he definitely shouldn't be dropped. I just hope, with young, promising guys like Clarke and Watson, that the selectors err of the side of retention, if it's a line-ball call. They probably didnt see it as line-ball though - which is fair enough - and hence he is back playing for NSW.

Yeah. I was gonna edit my post and add that I thought that Clarke's potential should afford him some degree of latitude - just that by now, I think it's been exhausted.

 

[Mister Wright]

Because I don't feel the need to call for a player to be dropped every time they fail just because I don't like them?

There is a fair case to drop Clarke now, of course. If he fails again in Adelaide, I'd look at bringing someone else in for the series against South Africa. His Ashes was certainly good enough to retain his spot, but a series of failures against the West Indies would justify him being dropped, I think. He's certainly young enough to come back later, and both Hodge and Hussey have impressed.

I haven't been calling for his dropping (until recently), not after he scored 2 hundreds in his first test match. I may have in some drunken state or complete Anger at people over-rating him. My objections with Clarke being in the side was his initial selection with a first class average of under 40 and no consecutive consistent seasons. I also had doubts about his ability to face fast bowling at test level (which has been proven true). I think Clarke has massive potential, however I didn't see why he should get picked on potential while other more worthy players should have been picked on performance. I hope like so many others before him have he returns to domestic cricket and refines his game.

 

[Mister Wright]

Don't Sack Clarke, Says Slater

This is an interesting view from Michael Slater.

More generally, I think you have to be careful in dropping players who you actually think and hope (as the selectors do) will play a big part in the team's future. I mean, dropping a player can have a devastating effect on them mentally, and sometimes they never - even if they do make it back - quite recover.

Dropping an insecure personality like Slater for instance (when he was averaging 47) was probably the worst thing the selectors could have done to him. What made that sacking even more bizarre was that, as he points out above, he returned to the team exactly the same player as when he was dropped (ie still impulsive). Anyway, I think they should think long and hard before (and if) they drop Clarke.

You don't select players on their personalities (but you do drop them because of them if their form is not so good), you select them because of the runs they are making. If a player is making runs, whether they are a fragile personality like Slater or a rock like Waugh, they can't be dropped.

 

[Mister Wright]

It was only a matter of time really. This must have made Mister Wright's day who has been calling for this for a long time.

I had fears that Hussey or Symonds would have been dropped. I really do hope he goes back to domestic cricket and makes a fist of it, after the next game against Qld of course.

 

[Mister Wright]

I would have dropped Symonds and given Clarke one more game. However, the decision is understandable.

Yeah, that makes sense. Let's give Clarke all the chances in the world and give Symonds just one game. Good call!

I mean Clarke would have been just as likely to score a hundred in Adelaide then go another year without a test century and learnt absolutely nothing about his game. The dropping will be the making of him as a player. He will be one of three players - the next Ponting, the next Blewett or the next (whoever didn't make it back). Time will tell.

 

[howardj]

....or the next Wayne Phillips

 

[Mister Wright]

....or the next Wayne Phillips

Thanks...

 

[Shahid_Afridi_6]

Yeah, that makes sense. Let's give Clarke all the chances in the world and give Symonds just one game. Good call!

I mean Clarke would have been just as likely to score a hundred in Adelaide then go another year without a test century and learnt absolutely nothing about his game. The dropping will be the making of him as a player. He will be one of three players - the next Ponting, the next Blewett or the next (whoever didn't make it back). Time will tell.

You are correct sir. Great response.

Symonds should stay, Clarke should go.

 

[Perm]

I read the first few pages and just had to laugh at Richard. Clarke's a poor fielder apparantly.

 

[Craig]

I read the first few pages and just had to laugh at Richard. Clarke's a poor fielder apparantly.

Got a discount at the hardware store for shovels?

 

[Perm]

Got a discount at the hardware store for shovels?

Richard linked to this thread in another, more current thread.

 

[Craig]

Richard linked to this thread in another, more current thread.

Doesn't surprise me

If anybody can read the whole 52 pages then they have plenty of spare time IMO

 

[Johnners]

Haha, sheesh, i'm finding it hard to beleive that ANYONE, even Richard, would be able to call Clarke a "poor fielder". I guess i was wrong...

 

[andyc]

Haha

http://cricketweb.net/forum/showpost.php?p=423739&postcount=50
http://cricketweb.net/forum/showpost.php?p=427589&postcount=100
http://cricketweb.net/forum/showpost.php?p=437333&postcount=173

 

[Turbinator]

Got a discount at the hardware store for shovels?

Richard's a friggin' shovel store himself.