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

[wellAlbidarned]

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

I think planning for days 4 and 5 is getting a bit ahead of ourselves given the result of the basin test

 

[Bahnz]

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

I don't remember spni being a significant factor - though then again we only needed about 100 in the last innings iirc, and Sri Lanka left Herath out of that game, so it's hard to be sure.

 

[Nate]

...did we know that Bracewell was injured? I thought the selection discussion was all hypothetical.

HENRY IN

 

[jcas0167]

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

Except maybe Waugh but he was a bit before my time

I thought Mark Taylor was the best, tactically seemed to have a golden touch (admittedly with peak Warne & McGrath) and seemed a good man manager. I when he had that horror slump someone writing that the only reason he hadn't been axed was that he was the best captain since Bradman.

Also, if Bracewell is out I hope they play Wagner.

 

[Spark]

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.

Having been on this forum for several years and talked to quite a number of the aforementioned, can confirm that they would give exactly the same answer, and often did. They often took great glee in observing just how desperately mediocre the team, which was very clearly the weakest we had fielded since the mid-80s, actually was.

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.

That doesn't have anything to do with whether he could set a field, though.

I mean, this honestly doesn't sound like you followed Australian cricket that closely during that time (particularly your analysis of 47ao). Which is fair, but it means that you should probably be more deferential with your analysis here.

 

[jcas0167]

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.

It's a slightly different situation when the team is playing warm up games at the start of the tour, while the local players are involved in their own domestic competition, as opposed to the teams engaging in an ODI series while the touring test specialists get a dedicated first class game to prepare for the tests. I remember there was considerable annoyance when Auckland let Jimmy Anderson play for them in a Plunket Shield game ahead of the test series in 2008 where Anderson emerged as one of the best players. That said, I'm not overly bothered by it.

 

[Burgey]

Having been on this forum for several years and talked to quite a number of the aforementioned, can confirm that they would give exactly the same answer, and often did. They often took great glee in observing just how desperately mediocre the team, which was very clearly the weakest we had fielded since the mid-80s, actually was.



That doesn't have anything to do with whether he could set a field, though.

I mean, this honestly doesn't sound like you followed Australian cricket that closely during that time (particularly your analysis of 47ao). Which is fair, but it means that you should probably be more deferential with your analysis here.

Yeah, Clarke's side was pretty average when he inherited it, and was pretty much on the decline. There were holes in the side all over the place, and a combo of blokes making their way and others hanging on too long, like Ponting did. His side wasn't terrible, but it was pretty average. You had Johnson in and out, Harris barely there, and an almost Indian-style wheel of mediocrity in the upper and middle order for a while there. People were commenting on here for ages that there wasn't the batting depth in Australia, and so it proved. Notwithstanding the 5-0 thumping of a rancid England outfit here, it shouldn't be forgotten that team easily lost an away series to the same pile of **** only a few months before.

He obviously had issues with a few blokes in the side, like Katich and Watson. But I don't think you can doubt his tactical acumen on the field. He didn't have the luxury which either of his predecessors had to just throw the ball to McGrath and/ or Warne and wait for something to happen. I'd say Ponting found it far harder to adjust to the retirements of the great bowlers (and you can't blame him for that - who wouldn't throw the ball to those blokes?) than Clarke. Clarke was a funky, thoughtful captain on the field.

 

[Jord]

Having been on this forum for several years and talked to quite a number of the aforementioned, can confirm that they would give exactly the same answer, and often did. They often took great glee in observing just how desperately mediocre the team, which was very clearly the weakest we had fielded since the mid-80s, actually was.

That doesn't have anything to do with whether he could set a field, though.

I mean, this honestly doesn't sound like you followed Australian cricket that closely during that time (particularly your analysis of 47ao). Which is fair, but it means that you should probably be more deferential with your analysis here.

I follow all cricket reasonably religiously. I don't see how you can say that the same core of the basic team that appeared under Ponting with much better success and is now mostly appearing under Smith with decent success too was mediocre. I remember everyone believing Nathan Lyon was mediocre but he's proven himself to be arguably the best spin bowler post Graeme Swann in world cricket. The batting and bowling averages of that Australian unit were comparable if not favorable to almost any other nation too. Warner might have been seen as a hit and hoper at the time Clarke took the captaincy on but became easily the worlds best opener in that time frame. It was weaker than usual for an Australian team that was used to Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Waugh(s), Martyn, Gilchrist, Warne, McGrath, Gillespie but it was no near as weak as sides that Fleming was able to masterfully manage to results, or that Jayawardene was able to get the best out of.

I get that I'm in the minority and likely my views are wrong here, but I really don't think he's the tactical genius you make him out to be. He relied as much on inspirational brilliance as England do when Broad sparks up and rips teams out occasionally. The World Cup wasn't great captaincy from Clarke, it was great bowling from Starc. The Ashes wasn't great field setting and tactics, it was great bowling from Johnson, when he didn't have that individual brilliance showing through in his side, his results were the worst of any Australian captain since Kim Hughes. He lost series in which he was favorite to win.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah, Clarke's side was pretty average when he inherited it, and was pretty much on the decline. There were holes in the side all over the place, and a combo of blokes making their way and others hanging on too long, like Ponting did. His side wasn't terrible, but it was pretty average. You had Johnson in and out, Harris barely there, and an almost Indian-style wheel of mediocrity in the upper and middle order for a while there. People were commenting on here for ages that there wasn't the batting depth in Australia, and so it proved. Notwithstanding the 5-0 thumping of a rancid England outfit here, it shouldn't be forgotten that team easily lost an away series to the same pile of **** only a few months before.

He obviously had issues with a few blokes in the side, like Katich and Watson. But I don't think you can doubt his tactical acumen on the field. He didn't have the luxury which either of his predecessors had to just throw the ball to McGrath and/ or Warne and wait for something to happen. I'd say Ponting found it far harder to adjust to the retirements of the great bowlers (and you can't blame him for that - who wouldn't throw the ball to those blokes?) than Clarke. Clarke was a funky, thoughtful captain on the field.

eh good post but just gonna point out this could be perceived as disingenuous. Despite the 3-0 scoreline the signs were there that England could struggle and Aus had big moments. Aus were dominating in both the 2 draws before rain (whole day was lost in at least one of the games I think) and the 1st test was excruciatingly close.

Just saying they didn't exactly "easily" lose the away series, from a certain point of view

 

[Jord]

If you compare the Australian teams against probably the greatest team that was ever on the planet then sure, you'll look mediocre. If you compare them to other teams active in world cricket, not so much.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

well it hasn't taken long for it to start happening - people are seeing Johnson on a scorecard and assuming he was the beefy menacing fast bowler they saw on youtube clips

 

[Jord]

I saw Johnson spraying at his worst against South Africa and being absolutely dominated in series. I saw where he couldn't land the ball on the pitch. So don't be condescending. You don't like Johnson of that era? What about Harris, Siddle, Hazelwood, Cummins, Pattinson, Starc. They all played under Clarke too.

 

[cnerd123]

Man people are really giving Jord a hard time for believing differently.

 

[hendrix]

I actually agree that Smith is a better captain than Clarke. I just don't really think Clarke (or any captain) is ever really amazing. Both Clarke and McCullum have at times been guilty of meme field settings and ADD (particularly McCullum) that haven't helped the bowlers. I also think that the difference between modern Cook and negative Cook isn't all that much in terms of what they actually contribute. Obviously new Cook is better than old, I just prefer to look at the resources responsible for the winning rather than the captaincy.

I like the balance Smith takes. And I like his work with the bowlers, particularly Marsh. And I like that he's quick to spot any change in match situation - the ball starting to reverse, the batsmen getting a tad bogged down, the batsmen getting overconfident...etc.

 

[Jord]

I like robust discussion so its all good; but calling people stupid for having a subjective opinion that in no way can actually be factually proven just isn't Cricket.

 

[Adders]

Man people are really giving Jord a hard time for believing differently.

100%. I don't necessarily agree with him on the Clarke V's Smith captaincy but he is just voicing an opinion which is not that way off the mark to deserve some of the comments that have been made.

I think Clarke was a very good tactical captain, but I do often wonder if his tactical nuance is starting to get a little overrated as good as it clearly was.........let's face it, he's no Freddy Flintoff.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Clarke's captaincy looked brilliant when some of his meme tactics came off but looked brain dead when they didn't. Tough to rate him, really. I personally find it pretty much impossible to properly rate captaincy,since so many times, people just use the result to reinforce what they already believe about a captain. I tend to focus more on the leadership aspect of captaincy rather than tactics, since it's probably more important in the grand scheme of things for a team.

 

[Dan]

I follow all cricket reasonably religiously. I don't see how you can say that the same core of the basic team that appeared under Ponting with much better success and is now mostly appearing under Smith with decent success too was mediocre. I remember everyone believing Nathan Lyon was mediocre but he's proven himself to be arguably the best spin bowler post Graeme Swann in world cricket. The batting and bowling averages of that Australian unit were comparable if not favorable to almost any other nation too. Warner might have been seen as a hit and hoper at the time Clarke took the captaincy on but became easily the worlds best opener in that time frame. It was weaker than usual for an Australian team that was used to Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Waugh(s), Martyn, Gilchrist, Warne, McGrath, Gillespie but it was no near as weak as sides that Fleming was able to masterfully manage to results, or that Jayawardene was able to get the best out of.

I get that I'm in the minority and likely my views are wrong here, but I really don't think he's the tactical genius you make him out to be. He relied as much on inspirational brilliance as England do when Broad sparks up and rips teams out occasionally. The World Cup wasn't great captaincy from Clarke, it was great bowling from Starc. The Ashes wasn't great field setting and tactics, it was great bowling from Johnson, when he didn't have that individual brilliance showing through in his side, his results were the worst of any Australian captain since Kim Hughes. He lost series in which he was favorite to win.

...maybe Clarke (and his tactics/field settings) were just utterly brilliant at getting the best out of Johnson (i.e. exactly the same thing you're lauding Mahela for).

I'm sorry, but if Ricky Ponting is captaining the 2013/14 Ashes, MJ is bowling 8 over spells and has nowhere near the effect he did (Ponting ended the career of Lee doing that, don't forget). Australia doesn't dominate that series nearly as much as they did, and he gets nowhere near as much out of Johnson as Clarke did.

I dislike the overarching narrative that good captains always play for **** teams and "get the best" out of poor sides, while guys who captain teams full of guns get underrated because they had brilliant teams, ftr.

 

[Dan]

Clarke's captaincy looked brilliant when some of his meme tactics came off but looked brain dead when they didn't. Tough to rate him, really. I personally find it pretty much impossible to properly rate captaincy,since so many times, people just use the result to reinforce what they already believe about a captain. I tend to focus more on the leadership aspect of captaincy rather than tactics, since it's probably more important in the grand scheme of things for a team.

The thing that I really rate about Clarke is that he knew when to use a meme tactic and hope it paid off. Look at McCullum -- similar style captain in meme tactics/aggression stakes, but doesn't know when to turn that switch off and control the game by drying up runs and building pressure. He flips from meme to meme and constantly has Boult searching for wicket-taking balls, but doesn't have that lower gear to take control of the game and force the opposition to play like NZ want them to play.

 

[Burgey]

Tbf, Stephen Fleming get put into God captaincy status because he set two gullies and three point for Damien Martyn.

And, well done him.