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

[Gob]

I just don't see how you can have it both ways, saying he was a tactical genius without pointing out in many situations, he lost games he should've won and his record once you remove WI, India in Aus and Sri Lanka all makes pretty grim reading - 14 wins versus 16 losses.

When you remove good results you end up with bad ones?wow

 

[Jord]

Considering the state of Sri Lanka since the retirement of Muralitharan and Vaas, the state of the WI since 2004ish and the state of India when they're not playing in India; they're hardly games you'd say great captaincy was required in to win. It's not about removing his good results, it's about normalising the dataset to a point where you're looking at games that weren't 80% in favor of the Australians according to the bookies.

 

[Jord]

At least I know that I should disregard you, so thanks.

And I, you.

 

[Moss]

Considering the state of Sri Lanka since the retirement of Muralitharan and Vaas, the state of the WI since 2004ish and the state of India when they're not playing in India; they're hardly games you'd say great captaincy was required in to win. It's not about removing his good results, it's about normalising the dataset to a point where you're looking at games that weren't 80% in favor of the Australians according to the bookies.

I wouldn't make the mistake of writing off the 4-0 win over India in 2011-12 as just a formality. Aus were missing Watson, Johnson and Harris among others, and had a bunch of rookies in Warner, Cowan, Pattinson, Lyon etc. Even less the 2014 one (though he didn't last the series) nevermind that India's bowling was crap.

 

[Furball]

India in Australia in 21st century:

MJ Clarke is captain: P5 L5
MJ Clarke is not captain: P11 W2 D5 L4

Now I'm not saying that Australia's improved results under Clarke are solely down to him when a series has hundreds of variables that can affect results but I don't think it's very fair to disregard Clarke's home results against India when they're much better than any other Australian captain this century.

 

[Jord]

I'm not trying to write the wins off. I'm simply trying to add perspective to the fact that those wins were where Australia were heavily favored by the bookies and for good reason. You still have to turn up and win the test match but the gulf and gap in those sides were such that captaincy wasn't really an issue. If you look at series with more equal footing his record takes a nose dive; but the point is his results on the field considering the talent he had available to him are middling, they're not the results that say Jayawardene was achieving during his captaincy with limited resource.

 

[Jord]

India in Australia in 21st century:

MJ Clarke is captain: P5 L5
MJ Clarke is not captain: P11 W2 D5 L4

Now I'm not saying that Australia's improved results under Clarke are solely down to him when a series has hundreds of variables that can affect results but I don't think it's very fair to disregard Clarke's home results against India when they're much better than any other Australian captain this century.

Nothing at all to do with say the 00s including Dravid, Laxman, Ganguly, Tendulkar, Sehwag, Kumble, Dhoni.

 

[Spark]

I wouldn't make the mistake of writing off the 4-0 win over India in 2011-12 as just a formality. Aus were missing Watson, Johnson and Harris among others, and had a bunch of rookies in Warner, Cowan, Pattinson, Lyon etc. Even less the 2014 one (though he didn't last the series) nevermind that India's bowling was crap.

India were favourites on here before that series.

So when Clarke lost (more matches than any Australian per win since Kim Hughes), you can't blame him, it wasn't his fault
When Clarke won, you can't give credit to the freakish performances by Johnson, it was all Clarke.

This is a terrible post.

You complain that we're treating your views unfairly, then you come out with this?

 

[Jord]

India were favourites on here before that series.

Then the bookies must have loved any bets coming from this community.

 

[Furball]

Nothing at all to do with say the 00s including Dravid, Laxman, Ganguly, Tendulkar, Sehwag, Kumble, Dhoni.

All of whom played in 2011/12.

 

[Spark]

Once again, we're talking about tactics. Not man management. There is a good argument that Clarke was below par in the latter, and that more than outweighed the positives of his tactics. But there's no way for us to have judged that coming from the outside, whereas we can judge his tactics simply by watching the games.

It's frustrating as hell to see consistent distractions (betting results? what?) brought up which miss this very basic point. How on earth "he's a bad mad manager!" and "he had bad results! (because he's a bad man manager)" are counterpoints to "his tactics were really, really good, as observed by the people who actually watched the games" is beyond me.

 

[Jord]

India were favourites on here before that series.



This is a terrible post.

You complain that we're treating your views unfairly, then you come out with this?

I'm not complaining at all about how you treat my views; I pointed out calling someone stupid because they have a different view to you isn't proper Cricket. I really don't mind that you disagree with me and think my opinion is wrong, but to call it stupid despite me showing it's obviously informed is just disrespectful. And how is it a terrible post? You want me to disregard where Clarke lost because his team didn't perform, you want me to only regard where Clarke won and in most of those situations it was either individual brilliance or a team he was supposed to beat by a handy margin anyway.

I just don't think you like having your opinions challenged.

 

[Jord]

All of whom played in 2011/12.

Sure, the ghosts of.

I guess we should judge Ponting on what he was in his last three seasons, versus his first ten.

 

[Spark]

I'm not complaining at all about how you treat my views; I pointed out calling someone stupid because they have a different view to you isn't proper Cricket. I really don't mind that you disagree with me and think my opinion is wrong, but to call it stupid despite me showing it's obviously informed is just disrespectful. And how is it a terrible post? You want me to disregard where Clarke lost because his team didn't perform, you want me to only regard where Clarke won and in most of those situations it was either individual brilliance or a team he was supposed to beat by a handy margin anyway.

I just don't think you like having your opinions challenged.

It's a terrible post because it answers an argument nobody actually made, but it conveniently answers the argument you want us to have made. The second part in particular is infuriating; saying Clarke deserves some credit for recognising that unorthodox way to use Johnson is not even remotely tantamount to saying Clarke was the only one who gets credit. That's the sort of thing that will get called stupid here, and rightly so.

People are saying he's a good tactician. That's all. If you want to argue against that, give examples of where his tactics failed on-field, of where he missed clear tactical opportunities in a game.

 

[Jord]

It's like a brick wall. You don't think tactics played a part in South Africa beating Australia in the match where Australia got rolled for 47 all out, despite Australia having set a credible 236 to win on a pitch that had seen the South Africans bundled out for 96 previously. That they did it with 3 down would indicate that they weren't particularly challenged in the field. You want me to assume that having Johnson charge in and be a demon unlike any bowler since probably Spofforth in cleaning up the Englishmen in a series was down to Clarke being a tactical genius because he only bowled Johnson 4 overs at a time.

A lot of people seem to rate his tactics, I've argued his tactics weren't great in comparison to some of his contempories and definitely not on a wider scale of great captains in Cricket. For every "He threw the ball to Lyon and got a wicket", there seems to be a "South Africa doddled to victory against him on a challenging wicket"

 

[Spark]

It's like a brick wall. You don't think tactics played a part in South Africa beating Australia in the match where Australia got rolled for 47 all out, despite Australia having set a credible 236 to win on a pitch that had seen the South Africans bundled out for 96 previously. That they did it with 3 down would indicate that they weren't particularly challenged in the field. You want me to assume that having Johnson charge in and be a demon unlike any bowler since probably Spofforth in cleaning up the Englishmen in a series was down to Clarke being a tactical genius because he only bowled Johnson 4 overs at a time.

This is why I don't think you watched that game. Australia were completely demoralised by 47ao, and it showed in the field (I think there were at least two, maybe three straightforward catches dropped). Tactics can only help if they're actually applied. Also, that Day 3 wicket was significantly less challenging than on Day 2, as the sun had baked out all the moisture in the surface and the weather had dramatically improved. Again, well known if you actually watched that game.

You want me to assume that having Johnson charge in and be a demon unlike any bowler since probably Spofforth in cleaning up the Englishmen in a series was down to Clarke being a tactical genius because he only bowled Johnson 4 overs at a time.

No one is saying this, holy ****. Quit with this patently dishonest assertion, when you were the one who claimed in the first place that Clarke deserved no credit at all.

A lot of people seem to rate his tactics, I've argued his tactics weren't great in comparison to some of his contempories and definitely not on a wider scale of great captains in Cricket. For every "He threw the ball to Lyon and got a wicket", there seems to be a "South Africa doddled to victory against him on a challenging wicket"

You have a vastly warped understanding of tactics if you think they guarantee you a win every single time. Tactics can help you squeeze out an extra wicket here and there, and can restrict the run rate somewhat, give the bowling some direction. It does ****all if your bowlers suck, or can't follow your plans, or the opposition batsmen are good enough to counteract, or—most of all—your batting is too **** to give you a defendable score.

Again, I don't know if he counts as a great captain, because captaincy is much more than tactics. But he was tactically superior to every other captain in modern cricket when it came to his specialty: shutting down batting sides on fast-scoring pitches.

 

[Jord]

So you're going to say that Clarke being such a useless man manager was the reason they lost matches, rather than him not actually being that good tactically. OK

I'm not that attached to my viewpoint, nor as emotional about the subject as you so I'm just going to bow out. I don't see the point in the circular conversation.

 

[Spark]

So you're going to say that Clarke being such a useless man manager was the reason they lost matches, rather than him not actually being that good tactically. OK

I'm not that attached to my viewpoint, nor as emotional about the subject as you so I'm just going to bow out. I don't see the point in the circular conversation.

I get annoyed when my views are consistently misrepresented, as you just did again.

 

[Jord]

Your views aren't being misrepresented. You say that South Africa only got home easily because the Australians were demoralised in the field. I'd point out part of the job of a captain is to bring them up to scratch and find ways to break through that, but then you'll argue that's not a tactics thing.

I think he was a middle of the road captain and your assertion that he didn't have good bowling or batting is just baseless. You're just a spoilt Australian who got used to having 11 superstars in the team at once. I wish we got spoilt liked that in NZ.

 

[Spark]

Your views aren't being misrepresented. You say that South Africa only got home easily because the Australians were demoralised in the field. I'd point out part of the job of a captain is to bring them up to scratch and find ways to break through that, but then you'll argue that's not a tactics thing.

They just got bowled out for 47. I'd say demoralisation is a pretty natural reaction.

And in any case, that was one match. Not "the reason they lost matches".

I think he was a middle of the road captain and your assertion that he didn't have good bowling or batting is just baseless. You're just a spoilt Australian who got used to having 11 superstars in the team at once. I wish we got spoilt liked that in NZ.

Our bowling was good. Our batting was, at various times, not so. Good batting sides do not get shot out for <150 as many times as we did throughout the post-2008 period. And, finally, captain=/=captaincy.