***Official*** Australia in New Zealand 2016

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Another incoherent rant brought to you by Skyliner.

To be fair to him, on this occasion the target of his ire is more than somewhat deserving of a good old fashioned rant.

 

[NZTailender]

Oh of course, and I imagine he will. But calling him better than Clarke at this stage in his captaincy career is an utterly ridiculous assertion, if we're speaking tactically.

Did anyone actually say that?

 

[Jord]

Did anyone actually say that?

I did; in referencing that Smith looks a far better captain already than I remember Ponting or Pup being.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Did anyone actually say that?

see:

AWTA; early days but I peg him as better than Clarke or Ponting as a skipper..

but he's said a few equally bizarre things so I wouldn't pay too much heed

 

[NZTailender]

I did; in referencing that Smith looks a far better captain already than I remember Ponting or Pup being.

terrible post

 

[Jord]

terrible post

I'm seeing that now I don't agree with the consensus, but the consensus is overwhelming so I'll just shut up about it.

 

[Zinzan]

Clarke is probably the best captain I've seen, I can't believe his quality is being debated here.

People are stupid rubbishing Clarke's captaincy, but calling him the best you've seen is equally stupid in the other extreme.

 

[Zinzan]

Braces out for the second test (yay! - sorry flem)

Cricket: Bracewell out of second test - Sport - NZ Herald News

There's an upside and a downside to this. On the upside, this'll mean that Henry comes into the team. On the downside, losing Doug's batting makes 4 seamers + Craig less likely.

Haha wth... he needed an injury to justify him not playing?

Probably a fake-shoulder-tap-from-the-coach injury

 

[Jord]

OK; it's one thing to disagree with someone but its another to call them stupid for an opinion.

Statistically, Clarke had the worst results of any Australian captain since arguably Kim Hughes. He won 24 matches and lost 16 which for most nations I guess would be fine, but for Australia with the talent they've had over the years and through Clarke's captaincy isn't great reading, especially considering that out of those 24 wins,, 15 are ones that you'd just expect to get, 5 against India in Australia, 6 against Sri Lanka and 4 against the Windies.

I'm fine if people disagree with my posts, but calling me stupid isn't on, especially when there is good reason as the above for my opinion about Clarke.

 

[Zinzan]

Clarke was a stuck-up pretty boy which doesn't get you a whole lot of respect in Australia generally. If he was Indian or English he would have been much more popular IMO.

Couldn't disagree more about the English tbh. Tall-poppies don't tend to sit as well with English folk culturally as they do with Australians as a general rule. Same with NZ, we seem to prefer our sportsmen to be modest & understated 'public bar' types as well. (Generalising of course).

 

[Zinzan]

Another incoherent rant brought to you by Skyliner.

Really? Perfect grammar and articulation aside, is it really that far off the mark? We're not defending David White now are we?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Couldn't disagree more about the English tbh. Tall-poppies don't tend to sit as well with English folk culturally as they do with Australians as a general rule. Same with NZ, we seem to prefer our sportsmen to be modest & understated 'public bar' types as well. (Generalising of course).

you're probably right

OK; it's one thing to disagree with someone but its another to call them stupid for an opinion.

Statistically, Clarke had the worst results of any Australian captain since arguably Kim Hughes. He won 24 matches and lost 16 which for most nations I guess would be fine, but for Australia with the talent they've had over the years and through Clarke's captaincy isn't great reading, especially considering that out of those 24 wins,, 15 are ones that you'd just expect to get, 5 against India in Australia, 6 against Sri Lanka and 4 against the Windies.

I'm fine if people disagree with my posts, but calling me stupid isn't on, especially when there is good reason as the above for my opinion about Clarke.

No one said you're stupid, if anything you seem pretty sensible compared to most. But someone said that your assertion of Clarke being an ordinary captain was "stupid" which it is imo, or possibly just ignorance.

People are stupid rubbishing Clarke's captaincy, but calling him the best you've seen is equally stupid in the other extreme.

I can't think of any better that I've seen tbh

Except maybe Waugh but he was a bit before my time

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Southee, Boult, Wagner, Anderson, Craig.

Two left armers likely to leak runs. One off spinner likely to leak runs. Batting strong on paper but Anderson in scratchy form. Good levels of Wagner. Not a well balanced attack, will likely go for 5s.

Southee, Boult, Henry, Anderson, Craig

Strong attack if the pitch has a bit of juice in it early. Low levels of Wagner. Should be able to take early wickets but will struggle as the ball gets older.

Southee, Boult, Wagner, Henry, Craig.

Strong first change option if the pitch has a bit of green in it. Good levels of Wagner. Batting has sloggability but will likely fold quickly. Requires Craig to bat 7.

 

[Spark]

OK; it's one thing to disagree with someone but its another to call them stupid for an opinion.

Statistically, Clarke had the worst results of any Australian captain since arguably Kim Hughes. He won 24 matches and lost 16 which for most nations I guess would be fine, but for Australia with the talent they've had over the years and through Clarke's captaincy isn't great reading, especially considering that out of those 24 wins,, 15 are ones that you'd just expect to get, 5 against India in Australia, 6 against Sri Lanka and 4 against the Windies.

I'm fine if people disagree with my posts, but calling me stupid isn't on, especially when there is good reason as the above for my opinion about Clarke.

That's because, as has been explained multiple times now, Australia's side during Clarke's captaincy was actually mostly quite mediocre. All the tactical brilliance in the world—which Clarke had, in spades—can't teach you how to bat in overseas conditions. Intricate bowling plans and clever field placings can't defend scores of 60 or 80 or 47.

 

[Athlai]

Southee, Boult, Wagner, Anderson, Craig.

Two left armers likely to leak runs. One off spinner likely to leak runs. Batting strong on paper but Anderson in scratchy form. Good levels of Wagner. Not a well balanced attack, will likely go for 5s.

Southee, Boult, Henry, Anderson, Craig

Strong attack if the pitch has a bit of juice in it early. Low levels of Wagner. Should be able to take early wickets but will struggle as the ball gets older.

Southee, Boult, Wagner, Henry, Craig.

Strong first change option if the pitch has a bit of green in it. Good levels of Wagner. Batting has sloggability but will likely fold quickly. Requires Craig to bat 7.

Man Craig is such a spud.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Yeah I rate Craig in a lot of respects but its really ****ing hard to balance an attack around a spinner who can't be relied upon to hold an end. So jelly of Lyon.

 

[Jord]

That's because, as has been explained multiple times now, Australia's side during Clarke's captaincy was actually mostly quite mediocre. All the tactical brilliance in the world—which Clarke had, in spades—can't teach you how to bat in overseas conditions. Intricate bowling plans and clever field placings can't defend scores of 60 or 80 or 47.

Maybe an Australian who got used to having guys like McGrath and Warne for a decade with other stars like Gillespie, Lee, MacGill would think the side Clarke had was mediocre but ask a New Zealander, an Englishman or a South African if that side was crap or not and you'll get a much different answer.

47 All Out included Clarke himself, Ponting, Hussey, Haddin, Watson, Hughes They also had RSA out for 96 in their first innings with a final innings target of 236; which South Africa doddled towards only three down despite Harris, Johnson, Siddle, Watson and Lyon as the bowling attack.

60 All Out: Again, Clarke, Rogers, Warner, Smith, Voges in the batting, and Starc, Johnson, Lyon and Hazelwood in the bowling would constitute as a stronger side in my view than what Steve Smith is currently using against NZ

The side wasn't weak; it was fractured due to a number of issues most of which seemed to relate to the captain not getting along with his senior players and the coaching structure being ridiculous at the time.

I just disagree; I'm not going to continue the debate further because being told your opinion is stupid and that Australia had a mediocre unit at a time they still fielded more superstars in one side than most teams get in a generation doesn't hold water with me.

 

[hendrix]

Hagley definitely turned towards the end of the SL test, right?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Maybe an Australian who got used to having guys like McGrath and Warne for a decade with other stars like Gillespie, Lee, MacGill would think the side Clarke had was mediocre but ask a New Zealander, an Englishman or a South African if that side was crap or not and you'll get a much different answer.

47 All Out included Clarke himself, Ponting, Hussey, Haddin, Watson, Hughes They also had RSA out for 96 in their first innings with a final innings target of 236; which South Africa doddled towards only three down despite Harris, Johnson, Siddle, Watson and Lyon as the bowling attack.

60 All Out: Again, Clarke, Rogers, Warner, Smith, Voges in the batting, and Starc, Johnson, Lyon and Hazelwood in the bowling would constitute as a stronger side in my view than what Steve Smith is currently using against NZ

The side wasn't weak; it was fractured due to a number of issues most of which seemed to relate to the captain not getting along with his senior players and the coaching structure being ridiculous at the time.

I just disagree; I'm not going to continue the debate further because being told your opinion is stupid and that Australia had a mediocre unit at a time they still fielded more superstars in one side than most teams get in a generation doesn't hold water with me.

This is a good point and definitely comes in to how you rate Clarke as a captain, but as said before, not really relevant to his tactical acumen, which was what was under discussion i think

 

[Bahnz]

Really? Perfect grammar and articulation aside, is it really that far off the mark? We're not defending David White now are we?

The first part of the post where he has a go at White for shelving one of the tests and playing the ODI's instead is understandable (though let's be honest - the decision to play the 3 ODI's was the better option from both a financial point of view, and meeting the demands of the broader New Zealand sports following public - as opposed to us lifeless dweebs; I'm also less stressed out about it now that I know NZ has the inside running to replace WI for the 2018 boxing day test). He's also clearly off-base calling it a failed project, given that attendances at the games were the largest I've seen for any non-WC match in memory.

It goes off the rails from there though. Ranting about giving a couple of Australia's first choice lineup a warm-up game is both mindlessly petty and incredibly hypocritical given Skyliner was whining louder than anyone at the start of the season about how NZ's 4 warm-up games for the Australia series wasn't enough. And his comment about NZ's cricketers getting a diet of ODI cricket is kinda weird given that Australia's cricketers are in the exact same situation - they haven't played any long-form cricket since the start of January.