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

[pup11]

The fact of the matter is Clarke bats like the Kallis of the past, has got all the ability in the world but just doesn't want to back his ability and take the attack to the bowlers.
I also don't understand this theory that just because we are winning we should just ignore Clarke and Johnson's performance over the last year, and btw what exactly are we winning, because haven't we lost all three of our last ODI series that we played in.
Clarke's 99* in England or 50* against Sri lanka were good knocks because he came out and played his shots, when he doesn't do that which is most often the case these days then he struggles.
As for Johnson, not only him any quick who is incapable of bowling at the stumps in LO cricket is gonna struggle and its just sad that the selectors can't see such an obvious thing.

 

[Ikki]

year 2010
19 19 5 777 111* 55.50 979 79.36 1 5 1 45 4


I know he was dreadful in 08/09 though. Those numbers however are comparable to his numbers in 06/07.

England's lineup is almost equally as strong yet they flopped horribly in the last 20 overs of their innings... because they played silly shots trying to go for boundaries that simply weren't there. After 30 overs they were, what, 3/175? With Bell and Pietersen both looking comfortable? They should've gotten at least 320-330, but didn't get close.

Disagree, they are not as strong. More to the point they weren't in our position. They had lost 2 at 100, we had lost 1. They had lost 5 before 200, we had lost 1.

It's one thing to play a slow innings in a chase a la Bevan. It is another thing altogether to come in as #3 where we are well on course and slow the game down. Watson's shots came off this time; it may not in another match.

Fair enough but Hodge ain't gonna get picked, is he?

So what are you saying, Clarke should've tried to hit more boundaries? DWTA totally in that case. His job was to get off strike, simple as that. He did that... adequately in the last half of his innings. It was still a very mediocre innings but it's not like he lost us the match, not even close. That's the kind of tone people are striking here though.

Hodge was just an example. It'd be better for Australia to have someone score a run a ball 25 than 35 in 60 balls. His job isn't to rotate strike...it is to make runs, and fast - like all batsmen. He doesn't even have to make boundaries, he can hit twos. In this era where batsmen are scoring so much so fast he is a burden the team should not have to carry.

And the reason he didn't cost us the match is because of WATSON playing a fantastic innings. If Watson played an innings even somewhat lesser than that - let's say 120 in 130 balls - it may have cost us the match. You can't exonerate Clarke because of someone else's brilliance. As an extreme example; it's akin to a batsman scoring 0 runs and taking 20 balls but his team winning regardless.

 

[Spark]

But the two are not irrelevant. The way Clarke played - whereby he didn't even attempt to hit a four until the PP - is directly related to the fact that Watson was playing an ATG knock at the other end. You can't change one and expect the other to remain the same.

 

[benchmark00]

But the two are not irrelevant. The way Clarke played - whereby he didn't even attempt to hit a four until the PP - is directly related to the fact that Watson was playing an ATG knock at the other end. You can't change one and expect the other to remain the same.

Yes exactly. That's what annoys me most about alot of CW posters, they only look at the theoretical consequences of something without acknowledging how cricket is actually played practically. It's all about partnerships.

 

[Ausage]

Yes exactly. That's what annoys me most about alot of CW posters, they only look at the theoretical consequences of something without acknowledging how cricket is actually played practically. It's all about partnerships.

But the point is he made Watsons job more difficult by scratching around for 25 balls before actually starting to do his job. In fact Watson nearly threw it all away trying to up the run rate. If Watson gets out slogging Yardy as he very nearly did, Clarkes innings becomes a potentially match losing one.

 

[thierry henry]

pathan's a hack, nothin he does is enjoyable.

awta

 

[pup11]

But the point is he made Watsons job more difficult by scratching around for 25 balls before actually starting to do his job. In fact Watson nearly threw it all away trying to up the run rate. If Watson gets out slogging Yardy as he very nearly did, Clarkes innings becomes a potentially match losing one.

So true, don't know why Spark or benchmark fail to see such an obvious thing. Yesterday's game was won purely by the brilliance of Watto and frankly speaking had Watson got out instead of Clarke in the batting PP, then would Clarke as the set batsman been able to help the team catch up with RRR, I think we can pretty safely say that not only would he have struggled to up the CRR, he would have also added more pressure on the incoming batsmen resulting in total meltdown of the rest of the innings.

 

[Spark]

So true, don't know why Spark or benchmark fail to see such an obvious thing. Yesterday's game was won purely by the brilliance of Watto and frankly speaking had Watson got out instead of Clarke in the batting PP, then would Clarke as the set batsman been able to help the team catch up with RRR, I think we can pretty safely say that not only would he have struggled to up the CRR, he would have also added more pressure on the incoming batsmen resulting in total meltdown of the rest of the innings.

Ridiculous. 7RPO ffs, you'd take that in a chase any day of the week in the 40th over.

 

[Ikki]

But the two are not irrelevant. The way Clarke played - whereby he didn't even attempt to hit a four until the PP - is directly related to the fact that Watson was playing an ATG knock at the other end. You can't change one and expect the other to remain the same.

But Clarke made his job even harder by playing that way. It meant Watson had to score more runs in less time. Why is this being missed all the time? Whether Clarke makes a dot ball or a 4 or 2 means little in terms of Watson getting on strike. Clarke had 27 dot balls, 3 2 runs and 1 4. So for 31/57 balls he did not do what you said he was helping doing. He not only does not give Watson the strike he makes it harder for Watson to win the game.

Ridiculous. 7RPO ffs, you'd take that in a chase any day of the week in the 40th over.

You'd take 6 RPO over 7, surely? And what did Clarke really risk in assuring we had an easier chase? Nothing...he was #3 FFS.

 

[Spark]

But Clarke made his job even harder by playing that way. It meant Watson had to score more runs in less time. Why is this being missed all the time? Whether Clarke makes a dot ball or a 4 or 2 means little in terms of Watson getting on strike. Clarke had 27 dot balls, 3 2 runs and 1 4. So for 31/57 balls he did not do what you said he was helping doing. He not only does not give Watson the strike he makes it harder for Watson to win the game.

OK, that's fair. I've acknowledged that he was extremely poor during the first half of the innings and did the job of rotating the strike OK only.

What I have a problem with is this contention that he should have hit more fours, or that if had Watson got out during the 39th over rather than Clarke that we would have lost the match. That's just silly.

You'd take 6 RPO over 7, surely? And what did Clarke really risk in assuring we had an easier chase? Nothing...he was #3 FFS.

Yes, I would. Where did I say this was a good innings by Clarke?

But "we would have lost had Watson got out in the 40th" is just nonsense. If we needed 8 or 9, then maybe. But less than 7...

 

[ajdude]

Mike Hussey in doubt for World Cup after tearing hamstring | Herald Sun

oh god oh god we're ****ed oh god

 

[Spark]

Mike Hussey in doubt for World Cup after tearing hamstring | Herald Sun

oh god oh god we're ****ed oh god

yeah ok that's

quite

um

****

 

[Mike5181]

Mike Hussey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Jono]

It's not just Yardy though, and tbf he's effective in the role he's given with the ball.

For me it''s just watching a lot of these blokes like him, Dave Hussey etc., who you look at an know they'd be really ineffective in longer form cricket. I mean, I know it's a different format and they're good at that job, it's the fact that the job exists which kind of irks me, and I don't know why.

The fact that Yardy is effective is what annoys me. It's why I said "finally someone goes after him".

Yardy is more annoying than Yuvraj and Dave Hussey etc. A huge part of him being picked is his bowling. And it's ****ing ugly to watch.

At least Yuvraj, Hussey etc. have added strings to their bows. That is a big part of Yardy's bow.

 

[Debris]

But Clarke made his job even harder by playing that way.

Or made it easier by making it perfectly clear that he could not stuff around and just had to go for it.

 

[pup11]

Mike Hussey in doubt for World Cup after tearing hamstring | Herald Sun

oh god oh god we're ****ed oh god

The article says he could be out for a month which still gives him enough time to recover in time for the worldcup, but he along with Rick are pretty much going to come into the worldcup pretty light on game time which is just not good for us.

 

[pup11]

Ridiculous. 7RPO ffs, you'd take that in a chase any day of the week in the 40th over.

Yeah.... certainly if you have two decent batsmen at both ends, becuase as I said if Watson had got out instead of Clarke with a RRR of 7 still required, then you seriously think Clarke would have seen us all the way through..!?
Clarke is the captain of the side and he's batting at 3, so he can't just shun all the responsibility and leave all the hardwork to do for others, I usually don't like crowds booing a player but you gotta say Clarke had it coming the way he played yesterday.

 

[Gilly Fan]

Took a few pictures at the T20 the other night if anyone's interested.

Flickr: OzBomber's Photostream

 

[Prince EWS]

The fact that Yardy is effective is what annoys me. It's why I said "finally someone goes after him".

Yardy is more annoying than Yuvraj and Dave Hussey etc. A huge part of him being picked is his bowling. And it's ****ing ugly to watch.

At least Yuvraj, Hussey etc. have added strings to their bows. That is a big part of Yardy's bow.

Yeah, I fully agree. Yuvraj and Dave Hussey are quality limited overs batsmen who can be effective part-time bowlers in the format, adding to their value as cricketers. Yardy's taken it to a ridiculous extreme - making the side on merit despite actually being a rubbish limited overs batsman by being the greatest pie-chucker of all time.

 

[vcs]

Hope Hussey makes it. Is there any cricket fan who doesn't like Mike Hussey?