*Official* Australia in India 2010

[Jono]

Why? Why is it overstated?

I can see why someone can try and defend this knock. Fine.

But explain to me how his last 24 months have been good for an international player. In what world is his last 24 months the standard of good?

 

[howardj]

Bigger issue for mine is that the tempo of Clarke's innings is risky if he doesn't kick on to a big score. Eating up balls then pushing on to a ton is fine (as I said, put that knock and the last 5 on top of even a mildly decent start and 300+ is the result) but if he spends 60 balls getting 25, all that building looks wasted. Because he doesn't score really quickly any more, he needs to make up for the extra caution with more 50+ scores and let the other guys take the risks. As long as he's doing that, there's a place for him in the team.

A good stand opening is crucial with the balance of the team the way it is. There's enough hitting power down the order to do what happened last night fairly regularly and make up for any slow and low scores by Clarke. With the line-up as it is, Clarke has to bat 3 but yeah, without a good start, the pressure ramps up quickly on the batters below. Not sure of the exact solution either; batting White at 3 and dropping Clarke isn't too bad but he probably won't be as consistent with his scores and no-one hits the ball as well or as regularly as he does down the order so it's a big loss batting him higher and a huge responsibility expecting him to build an innings and go nuts at the end (seriously, very few players can do it).

That's correct. Clarke's innings are usually effective if he kicks on - but otherwise if he doesn't, he wastes many deliveries as he takes a while to get going.

Good recovery mission from Hussey and Clarke last night - I think we need to put their slightly slow early scoring in that context (i.e. they were coming in early doors when we were on the back foot).

That said, I do think in India with such small grounds, you do need to be aiming for 300+ and it is a bit of a crime to have White and Smith etc still sitting in the sheds largely unused if the guys out there are not totally going the tonk from 30 overs onwards (as Hussey and Clarke weren't)

 

[TumTum]

When i first saw Starc today for a moment i thought it was Johnson bowling. haha.

Same. But he didn't get the ball to do as much as Johnson does, better seam position but it looked pretty straight and non-threatening even if he has the pace.

 

[Athlai]

From the 20th over in that match Clarke score 81 runs from 87 runs, after the rebuilding process had been somewhat completed.

As for the last 24 months? Been filled with knocks like this, he is Australia's anchor and lets the more flamboyant players go from his base. It's an important role in the team.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah definitely reckon he was picked for his line and length, consistent seam movement, etc. Was the first thing mentioned when he played his first game for NSW last season. I know he's been compared to McGrath but even he, early days, had a knockout ball. Needs more movement which I'm sure he's working towards.

 

[andyc]

Think the Clarke bashing is justified tbh. You can't tell me he was expecting Cam White to come out and go that mental. The way it was going at the 45 over mark, 250 looked like it would be our best possible outcome, and that is just nowhere near good enough on what seemed to be a 300+ pitch. The middle overs is where we really miss Symonds and Ponting.

 

[Athlai]

Think the Clarke bashing is justified tbh. You can't tell me he was expecting Cam White to come out and go that mental. The way it was going at the 45 over mark, 250 looked like it would be our best possible outcome, and that is just nowhere near good enough on what seemed to be a 300+ pitch. The middle overs is where we really miss Symonds and Ponting.

Clarke went fine in the middle overs it was the first 20 where he went pretty slow IMO. Obviously he is no Symonds or Ponting but you can't expect players like that to just fall out of the sky.

 

[Jono]

As for the last 24 months? Been filled with knocks like this, he is Australia's anchor and lets the more flamboyant players go from his base. It's an important role in the team.

Since January 2008 he's scoring at a strike rate of 70.

And not many knocks like this. It's only his fifth hundred.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Haha, my previous post had a slightly too critical tone in hindsight. But I still think the Aussies- and by that I mainly mean Clarke- left it waaaay too late to accelerate. Not to relinquish the bowlers of any blame because it's a score they should be making a decent fist of defending, but it's an inexperienced attack and the Indian batting lineup is excellent. You need to take these things into account when setting a total imo. If you finish a first innings in India with only three wickets down, you should really have more than 290 runs to play with.

Similarly, below White the batting was rubbish. They couldn't rely on the 7, 8 or 9 to get the job done, especially with all their relative inexperience in these conditions (plus Hopes being ordinary against spin).

 

[Athlai]

Since January 2008 he's scoring at a strike rate of 70.

And not many knocks like this. It's only his fifth hundred.

18 50+ scores since 08.

The only ones with more in this period Dhoni, Hussey, Sangakkara, Gambhir and Ponting. Dilshan, AB, Chanderpaul and Kallis are close with less innings than Clarke.

He isn't at the top but he is certainly up there for anchoring innings albeit slower than any of the others.

 

[Jono]

Similarly, below White the batting was rubbish. They couldn't rely on the 7, 8 or 9 to get the job done, especially with all their relative inexperience in these conditions (plus Hopes being ordinary against spin).

But then why are they in the team? Steve Smith ended up bowling 3 overs, and Hopes effectively played as a bowler.

The whole point of playing kids in this series was not to protect them. It was to play to win, but by throwing them in the heat of the fire.

And Hopes has been playing for so long now, if you're playing out dot balls to protect him from batting, there is a serious issue.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah but it's easy to make that claim post-hoc. The captain, Clarke, still has to be mindful of the batting to come and bat accordingly. Throwing the lower-order in the deep end sound good in theory but if they threw the bat and only got 250, Clarke would still have been pillored except it'd be justified. There's a fine line between throwing players into the deep end and throwing them under a bus.

Anyway, what exactly are you advocating? All you're doing here is complaining about his knock, what's your solution? They won't drop Clarke so don't even bother with that.

 

[Jono]

Not once did I say he should have hit out more. About four times I've pointed out his lack of ability to take singles was the problem.

And let's not pretend he was up against a great bowling attack, like some seem to pretend. It was a slow track yes, but only 8 wickets fell for the match, and Kohli's was a gift from a guy who cbf'ed batting with cramps. In the middle overs he was facing the almighty Vinay Kumar and Yuvraj Singh bowling at him. ****ing bunt it into the offside and run FFS.

I would advocate him taking singles tbh. I am pointing out his flaws in his batting. I'm not saying revolutionise the batting order. This isn't even a full strength team anyway so arguing who should be batting 3 in this team is silly.

 

[vic_orthdox]

It's not a case of protecting him, its a case of taking ownership. You have three seniors guys in the team (maybe a fourth in Hopes), and they put their hand up to try and ensure that they got the team to a defendable total. Clarke getting out in the 35th wouldn't have necessarily been beneficial to the team, like people are making out.

Why the hell would you try to go boonta in the 30-40 period in that situation? Lose a wicket like that, expose a new batsman (whether he's Bradman or Steve Smith) and put yourself at greater risk of losing multiple wickets and you have to shut up shop because you're five/six down. What he did allowed White to get settled at his own pace, and go nuts at the end.

There's so much revisionism that goes on it's ridiculous; what was the alternative to Clarke's innings? I don't see how he could have paced it much differently aside from the first 20 balls.

EDIT: I'd agree that his single taking in the middle is an issue, especially for a guy who generally comes in after the 15th over.

 

[Jono]

It's not revisionism when people were saying it DURING the innings. That is the opposite of revisionism. The claims just happened to be proven true.

People said Clarke's innings was poor before Cam White went nuts.
Others tried to use Cam White's innings as a justification for Clarke's.
And then people continued to criticise Clarke's innings, and it was proven right.

To call it revisionism is wrong. The fears were outlined during the innings.

 

[Top_Cat]

Completely agree. I'm one of the last to defend Clarke's batting but geez, considering the circumstances, I honestly don't see how he could have paced it any better.

 

[vic_orthdox]

You aren't protecting Hopes, you are making sure that your number 7 batsmen isn't in before the 44th over.

 

[vic_orthdox]

It's not revisionism when people were saying it DURING the innings. That is the opposite of revisionism. The claims just happened to be proven true.

People said Clarke's innings was poor before Cam White went nuts.
Others tried to use Cam White's innings as a justification for Clarke's.
And then people continued to criticise Clarke's innings, and it was proven right.

To call it revisionism is wrong. The fears were outlined during the innings.

Yes, there were concerns, but without what Clarke did, White isn't necessarily able to perform such a role. In the end, Australia got themselves to a good total and a large part of that is because of Clarke's innings.

Australia will back themselves to defend 290, even on a good ground/pitch for batting, the majority of the time.

 

[Jono]

Considering the circumstances? You guys are acting as if pushing and working Yuvraj Singh for singles is risky business.

You're building straw man arguments by saying he shouldn't have thrown his wicket away. No one is advocating that he should have.

 

[Top_Cat]

Considering the circumstances? You guys are acting as if pushing and working Yuvraj Singh for singles is risky business.

Acting as if pushing Yuvraj's darts around is easy on a slow deck.

Right, that's it, had enough. Settling this on the playing field in Melbourne. Next weekend, only Kanga cricket bats and balls allowed followed by a chicken parmi/a eating contest.

****s.