*Official* England in Australia (2 T20 & 7 ODIs)

[Uppercut]

Fact is, Aussie supporters have been spoilt for a long time by having Ponting waltzing out at three in a situation like tonight, and keeping things ticking from the get-go.

You mean Ponting and all the other batsmen. Andrew Symonds, Callum Ferguson, Mike Hussey, Cameron White.

It's not surprising that they want to stick with the tactics that saw them win three consecutive World Cups but the game's changed, there's no room for a player like Clarke, especially in India where even if he scores an unbeaten century and Cameron White goes bat**** crazy at the other end Kohli and Raina will merrily knock the runs off without too much bother.

 

[TumTum]

AWTA. You'll never see a knock as impressive as Wattos in a T20 imo.

That hundred from Pathan in the IPL was impressive though, especially coming in the middle order.

 

[Furball]

Oh, and it's difficult to claim that ODIs are/should be dead when matches like this are on offer.

I'd still prefer the series to be taking place in a non-Ashes year. Really enjoyed the series in England 6 months ago because it didn't have a Test series to go with it.

7 match series can gagf, although another 6 matches like this one (assuming the Brisbane match goes ahead) and we'll be cursing the fact that it was only 7 matches!

 

[vcs]

4 years ago he was the best in the world at eliminating dot balls and keeping the scoreboard ticking along, and could launch the ball into the stands if he needed/wanted to. Played a brilliant knock against South Africa in the group stages of the last WC. 4 years ago he would walk into an ODI World XI.

Since then he seems to have lost all the attributes that made him such and excellent batsman. I think his numbers in the last year or so are actually pretty good from memory though (apart from his SR), if he can find a way to fix that then he's an excellent asset for Australia.

Agree. It's inexplicable how he's turned into a completely different ODI batsman to what he was in WC '07.

 

[Furball]

That hundred from Pathan in the IPL was impressive though, especially coming in the middle order.

Pathan's a hack, nothin he does is enjoyable. Jayawardene's hundred at the T20 World Cup is a much better example.

 

[vcs]

Pathan's a hack, nothin he does is enjoyable. Jayawardene's hundred at the T20 World Cup is a much better example.

While I'm not a fan of the Pathan/Afridi type player, that's incredibly unfair. He also played a terrific innings against NZ recently.

 

[pup11]

I'm certainly not interested in bashing Clarke without any reason, but as an Australia cricket fan its just annoying and frustrating to see a batsman as good as Clarke scratching around and batting like a strokeless wonder.
I just can't figure out how a guy who until recently was one of the best LO batsmen in the world has turned into such a one dimensional stone-waller.
He certainly has all the talent a batsman can wish for, but despite that if he is not willing to show some heart and back his skills then its just a shame really.

 

[Spark]

You mean Ponting and all the other batsmen. Andrew Symonds, Callum Ferguson, Mike Hussey, Cameron White.

It's not surprising that they want to stick with the tactics that saw them win three consecutive World Cups but the game's changed, there's no room for a player like Clarke, especially in India where even if he scores an unbeaten century and Cameron White goes bat**** crazy at the other end Kohli and Raina will merrily knock the runs off without too much bother.

Our bowling attack was piss-poor though, they probably would've knocked off 320-330 without too much bother.

 

[Ikki]

but we didn't really need someone to smack it around. 7 an over at that stage was easy as someone pointed out above. if watson was the one who got out i could understand it but to me it was just a waste of a wicket

(and in any case i back mj to do it better than smith)

The reason we didn't need to is because Watson scored so many runs at such a fast rate.

Having a batsman like Clarke in your team is a hindrance. Just because it won't always cost you matches doesn't stop the fact that it will eventually. At the moment I think they should drop him. I'm serious.

 

[Uppercut]

Our bowling attack was piss-poor though, they probably would've knocked off 320-330 without too much bother.

India were missing a lot of players too, though. Hitting a century and still needing Cameron White to get 80*(45) or something ridiculous to get you to 290 is just beyond dire. Get Sehwag/Tendulkar/Gambhir back in the Indian lineup and they'll back themselves to chase that at least 8 out of 10 times on that deck against any attack. And that's Clarke's absolute best-case scenario!

 

[benchmark00]

Nothing wrong with Clarke's innings if he kicks on and finishes unbeaten and strikes at 85+.

But if you're going to strike at 63, you can't just get out and leave the guys behind you to do the work.

Benchy would defend Clarke if he went at 35 strike rate.

Wrong and wrong.

You can't have it two ways. You can't go around saying that the middle order are useless when they lose wickets in in groups when you criticise a player who bats sensibly (without dominating) to ensure wickets are in hand for the last 20 overs.

People are going on about how the game has changed and you can't carry a player who strikes under 80 or so. You're right, the game has changed and it's now more important than ever to have wickets in hand so in the last 20 overs or so you can easily score at 8+ an over.

The issue would be if Clarke was in at overs 40-50 and was striking at 70. The middle overs are the time where you set your team up for a huge finish by ensuring there are wickets in the shed, particularly when you have explosive players in there.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Random thought occurred to me, I reckon Australia is one of the easiest places in the world to chase in ODIs. Unless it is played on a lively track such as the WACA, you never feel confident even if you post 290.

The comms on our broadcast said this was the highest successful chase at the MCG, actually. CBA to check if it's true.

 

[Ikki]

On raw statistics alone, Shane Watson is a more impressive allrounder than Dev, Khan and Botham. Tonights innings has surely won over a lot of fans. To think 8 years back when he fell injured prior to the world cup just what a fragile talent he was. Nobody could imagine how much of a great he would become. He is without doubt an Australian ATG in limited overs cricket now.

Without injuries he could've been the greatest all-rounder in either format. He's still very good with the ball but will bowl less now. He is, still, though, incredible.

Which was his job.

The start of his innings was incredibly dire though. Something like 6 off 20 at one stage.

His job is to score runs at a high rate. Something he isn't doing.

 

[TumTum]

The reason we didn't need to is because Watson scored so many runs at such a fast rate.

Having a batsman like Clarke in your team is a hindrance. Just because it won't always cost you matches doesn't stop the fact that it will eventually. At the moment I think they should drop him. I'm serious.

Didn't Clarke lose us a game in NZ? Think it was a T20 though.

 

[pup11]

You mean Ponting and all the other batsmen. Andrew Symonds, Callum Ferguson, Mike Hussey, Cameron White.

It's not surprising that they want to stick with the tactics that saw them win three consecutive World Cups but the game's changed, there's no room for a player like Clarke, especially in India where even if he scores an unbeaten century and Cameron White goes bat**** crazy at the other end Kohli and Raina will merrily knock the runs off without too much bother.

So true, don't know what Burgey is saying there. Its true that atm we don't have nobody good enough to tie Ponting's shoe-laces, but that doesn't mean that standard of LO batting has fallen so much in Australia that, we should allow Clarke to come in at the pivotal #3 position and carve out an innings at SR of 60 and then just take it in our stride.

 

[benchmark00]

The comms on our broadcast said this was the highest successful chase at the MCG, actually. CBA to check if it's true.

Yeah, the MCG is typically the ground where you should be confident after posting 270+ because it generally becomes slow and low in the second innings.

 

[Ikki]

Didn't Clarke lose us a game in NZ? Think it was a T20 though.

I'm ****-scared he is going to do something like this in the WC in the knock-outs. He, on his own, can cost us a tight match.

Benchy: play a solid innings when those around you have collapsed. Don't ****ing prod for dot balls when we've scored a ****load of runs for the loss of only 1 wicket. We had 213 on the board before Clarke went.

 

[pup11]

The comms on our broadcast said this was the highest successful chase at the MCG, actually. CBA to check if it's true.

No, don't agree with TumTum that Oz is a great place to chase, infact at places like the Gabba, Perth and SCG its pretty much impossible to chase down a good total.

 

[benchmark00]

I'm ****-scared he is going to do something like this in the WC in the knock-outs. He, on his own, can cost us a tight match.

Benchy: play a solid innings when those around you have collapsed. Don't ****ing prod for dot balls when we've scored a ****load of runs for the loss of only 1 wicket. We had 213 on the board before Clarke went.

When you come in after the loss of a wicket, you need to consolodate so you can treat the last 20 overs like a t20. That's the approach I'd be taking every day of the week over a helter skelter approach that looks fantastic when you get 400, but can more often than not be very ordinary when you slump to 7/150.

 

[Furball]

Wrong and wrong.

You can't have it two ways. You can't go around saying that the middle order are useless when they lose wickets in in groups when you criticise a player who bats sensibly (without dominating) to ensure wickets are in hand for the last 20 overs.

People are going on about how the game has changed and you can't carry a player who strikes under 80 or so. You're right, the game has changed and it's now more important than ever to have wickets in hand so in the last 20 overs or so you can easily score at 8+ an over.

The issue would be if Clarke was in at overs 40-50 and was striking at 70. The middle overs are the time where you set your team up for a huge finish by ensuring there are wickets in the shed, particularly when you have explosive players in there.

Wickets in hand are useless if the required run rate rises to the point where chasing a score down becomes almost impossible (which, granted, didn't happen this morning.) My criticism of Clarke isn't based on the fact he struck at 63 - it's because having done the sensible batting, he's got himself out instead of shifting up a gear and finishing the job himself.