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.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).
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.When i first saw Starc today for a moment i thought it was Johnson bowling. haha.
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.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.
Since January 2008 he's scoring at a strike rate of 70.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.
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).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.
18 50+ scores since 08.Since January 2008 he's scoring at a strike rate of 70.
And not many knocks like this. It's only his fifth hundred.
But then why are they in the team? Steve Smith ended up bowling 3 overs, and Hopes effectively played as a bowler.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).
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.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.
Acting as if pushing Yuvraj's darts around is easy on a slow deck.Considering the circumstances? You guys are acting as if pushing and working Yuvraj Singh for singles is risky business.