Michael Clarke

[Spark]

Yeah, Clarke at 3 never made sense. He has always been more of a Mark Waugh than a Ricky Ponting. Where Clarke really comes into his own, for some reason, is with an attacking partner at the other end. His best came in the company of Ponting and Hussey.

Also, the post needs less of redundant phrases like "out of form Sharma".

Mm, not sure I agree with this. Clarke (at his best, anyway), is more than attacking enough to completely dominate partnerships - there was a series of huge partnerships he had in 2012 where he'd score 75% of the runs in certain blocks. What he really thrived on was someone who he could stay at the other end, rotate the strike, keep the bowler unsettled rather than outright "attacking".

 

[the big bambino]

Yeah, Clarke at 3 never made sense. He has always been more of a Mark Waugh than a Ricky Ponting. Where Clarke really comes into his own, for some reason, is with an attacking partner at the other end. His best came in the company of Ponting and Hussey.

Also, the post needs less of redundant phrases like "out of form Sharma".

Noted. But!!!!! I have a suspicion India will bring Varun, Umesh and Sharma. All are pacy and Sharma has been decent lately. Despite the gloom India fans have about their side I think that pace attack will be good here. You certainly wont see Australia make the mountain of runs the last time both sides played in Oz. Actually with our batting problems returning India have a good chance.

 

[harsh.ag]

Mm, not sure I agree with this. Clarke (at his best, anyway), is more than attacking enough to completely dominate partnerships - there was a series of huge partnerships he had in 2012 where he'd score 75% of the runs in certain blocks. What he really thrived on was someone who he could stay at the other end, rotate the strike, keep the bowler unsettled rather than outright "attacking".

I think that's more correct than what I said.

Noted. But!!!!! I have a suspicion India will bring Varun, Umesh and Sharma. All are pacy and Sharma has been decent lately. Despite the gloom India fans have about their side I think that pace attack will be good here. You certainly wont see Australia make the mountain of runs the last time both sides played in Oz. Actually with our batting problems returning India have a good chance.

I know wisdom suggests that Bhuvi should not be part of the XI on Aussie pitches. But I think he is our best chance to win a match. Also prefer 6 batsmen with Rohit at 6 also taking up some bowling duties (Anyone but Kohli!)

 

[OverratedSanity]

Having both Aaron and Yadav would be suicide imo. They aren't the sort of bowlers who'll be able to keep the runs down if they don't get wickets. I think it's absolutely pathetic that it's been 3 years since our last tour of Australia and Yadav still hasn't been given enough chances in tests to cement his place in the side. He has pace and a good outswinger ffs... they're ingredients of a good strike bowler, and we haven't used that at all.

I'd have Bhuvi in the side for sure, obviously, but I have serious doubts about his ability to take wickets when it doesn't swing. England was ideal for him and it was pretty obvious he'd succeed. But if he doesn't get swing, I'm afraid Warner will treat him like he did Vinay Kumar last time round. Good thing about him, though is that if he does get guys out, it's early in the innings, which is great to have. Our attack should be Ishant-Bhuvi-Yadav-Ashwin. I mean, that's our best possible attack and it's so pathetic We're screwed.

And I thought our batsmen struggled just as much with the bounce and carry as with the movement. Pujara, especially was caught late on the ball and often couldn't handle good carry off a length. that's extremely worrying.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I think that's more correct than what I said.



I know wisdom suggests that Bhuvi should not be part of the XI on Aussie pitches. But I think he is our best chance to win a match. Also prefer 6 batsmen with Rohit at 6 also taking up some bowling duties (Anyone but Kohli!)

Agree with everything, especially the last bit. kohli should be kept far far away from bowling duties. Has really hurt us several times.

 

[Riggins]

You do wonder what might have been had he had a functioning back.

Might have even been a decent all-rounder, given his early spin-bowling prowess

It's not something that's ever brought up, but I actually think having some minor back problems contributed to him batting well.

His two issues early in his career were the way he would get squared up by balls moving a bit off the deck away from him (exacerbated by his 2003 back foot technique where he would completely square off his back foot), along with the whole getting bored and playing at wide balls phase.

When his back issues started to be a published thing was around the time he started really dominating. I think there's definitely a case that his back problems didn't allow him to get in the sort of positions where he was as vulnerable to those balls decking a bit away.

Obviously it's a slippery slope and it gets bad enough that he can barely play a ball off the front shoe and he looks completely ****ed, so it's not really desirable, but still it's interesting.

 

[Prince EWS]

It's not something that's ever brought up, but I actually think having some minor back problems contributed to him batting well.

His two issues early in his career were the way he would get squared up by balls moving a bit off the deck away from him (exacerbated by his 2003 back foot technique where he would completely square off his back foot), along with the whole getting bored and playing at wide balls phase.

When his back issues started to be a published thing was around the time he started really dominating. I think there's definitely a case that his back problems didn't allow him to get in the sort of positions where he was as vulnerable to those balls decking a bit away.

Obviously it's a slippery slope and it gets bad enough that he can barely play a ball off the front shoe and he looks completely ****ed, so it's not really desirable, but still it's interesting.

I'd never considered this at all. I'm still not completely sure I buy it, but it's pretty interesting all the same.

This is why Riggins is gun.

 

[vic_orthdox]

It's not something that's ever brought up, but I actually think having some minor back problems contributed to him batting well.

His two issues early in his career were the way he would get squared up by balls moving a bit off the deck away from him (exacerbated by his 2003 back foot technique where he would completely square off his back foot), along with the whole getting bored and playing at wide balls phase.

When his back issues started to be a published thing was around the time he started really dominating. I think there's definitely a case that his back problems didn't allow him to get in the sort of positions where he was as vulnerable to those balls decking a bit away.

Vics (especially Saker as bowling coach) used to be very big on getting him caught at gully/backward point because his back leg got front on and he'd drop it when he cut.

Think the realignment that has since happened also makes it a lot harder for him to negotiate the short ball - it's not so much his back getting sore and him getting underneath it, but he almost lines himself up with the return crease from right arm over which creates an awkward blind spot; had some success against the Poms reverting to a back and across trigger which let him square up his back leg to pull like he used to when he was younger.

 

[Riggins]

Spoken like a man whose never tried to put on a seatbelt with disc problems.

 

[Red]

Who thinks Clarke is a retire sooner than later kind of guy? Next Ashes campaign could be it for him I reckon.

 

[Tangles]

Ashes is a nice big one to go out on if his back is rooted. If he can still average what any potential replacement can and the rest of the batting is still problematic I could see him hanging around to help. The true state of his back the obvious wildcard.

 

[GIMH]

Be a shame to see him go out with yet another loss in England

 

[Furball]

Be a shame to see him go out with yet another loss in England

Were that to happen he'd be 0 from 4 in England - who would be the most recent Australian with such a bad away Ashes record?

 

[Adders]

Were that to happen he'd be 0 from 4 in England - who would be the most recent Australian with such a bad away Ashes record?

Clarke is the only Aussie remaining from 2005.......so no one.

And horribly enough prior to this current run England haven't won 3 consecutive home Ashes series this century, never mind 4.

 

[morgieb]

Were that to happen he'd be 0 from 4 in England - who would be the most recent Australian with such a bad away Ashes record?

You'd probably have to go back to pre-War times.

 

[Red]

You'd have to be good enough to have played 4 away series in England. Not many would've would they? There's been heaps of Ashes lately it seems.

 

[Adders]

You'd have to be good enough to have played 4 away series in England. Not many would've would they? There's been heaps of Ashes lately it seems.

Yeah, assuming Clarke plays next year that will be 7 Ashes series for him in 10 years, same as Bell.........not sure but I'd have a guess that would make them the most capped Ashes players ever? 35 Ashes tests each.

Edit:

Bah, just remembered Bell missed 2 tests in '09 while we were ****ing about with Bopara.......has Clarke missed any?? Don't think so?

Edit 2:

Don't mind me, way off base as usual...........just checked and there are a few players that have played more Ashes tests. 52 is the record by Sydney Gregory followed by AB with 47.

 

[GIMH]

Clarke is the only Aussie remaining from 2005.......so no one.

And horribly enough prior to this current run England haven't won 3 consecutive home Ashes series this century, never mind 4.

We've only had four home series this century so we would have a job

 

[Adders]

**** me I'm on fire today.

This century, last century........since the vast majority of us here were around during both they count as the same IMO, clearly I was talking about the century before that (the one that only Burgey saw first hand)

 

[Tangles]

Be nice for the Test team if he just gave away the other stuff but the WC will happen before I could imagine him doing it.