Michael Clarke - all hype, no performance

[cbuts]

clark is crap. peoplehave figurd him out. in 6 tests against us he has failed in all bar one and he had a miserable time in the 8 odi's recently. he caught the world of gaurd for w hile. imhoping that this wont be h marshalls future to

 

[aussie]

He has to get through the Ashes first.

It cannot be considered a slump if it has defined his entire first class career. What people don't realise, is that during the 'hot' summer he had before he was brought into the international side, he only scored about 2 centuries for the whole season, it would surprise me if he averaged any higher than 45. He then went to England and struggled until the end. It is not like he has been pounding centuries everywhere he plays for the last 3 seasons, if so, then you would call it a slump, but at the moment you would have to say this current patch of form is characteristic of his entire career.

well mr.wright, slowly but surely i have to agree with you mate

 

[aussie]

clark is crap. peoplehave figurd him out. in 6 tests against us he has failed in all bar one and he had a miserable time in the 8 odi's recently. he caught the world of gaurd for w hile. imhoping that this wont be h marshalls future to

thats a though call, calling him crap he by no means crap, but refering to marshall you never know what the future holds for him, a good start in both forms of the game.

well do we see a pattern developing between two young batsmen from the Tasman

 

[Mister Wright]

well mr.wright, slowly but surely i have to agree with you mate

It was only a matter of time.

 

[aussie]

It was only a matter of time.

ha, whatever man

 

[psxpro]

The difference is that Marshall has scored runs against Australia and it cant get any harder than that.

 

[Richard]

You didn't even watch the bloody series. The only pitch in that series which was not a big turner is Nagpur, and even that had more spin than your average Australian wicket. The other three were big turners.

Funny how unsuccessful most spinners were at Bangalore, then.

 

[Richard]

Err yeah, being the second highest scorer on a tough tour of India was "just well enough to be retained".

And what has happened since means he's done only just well enough to be retained.

 

[Richard]

Clarke may be an over-rated batsman, but he is an excellent fielder...catcher? Well that's a different story...

Last I looked catching was part of fielding... the most important part by a very large distance, in fact...

 

[Richard]

made 39* in the 2nd innings of one of those which isn't too bad.

And by saying he didn't score many runs I covered that.

 

[Richard]

how many times must it be said?
bangalore was a slow turner for the 1st and 2nd innings, eventually like most subcontinental wickets, there was turn and bounce, in the 3rd and 4th inning.
and scoring 151 against the likes of kumble and harbhajan is quite an achievement on any slow turner. raging turners hardly ever happen in test cricket, having 2 in the same series was extremely surprising indeed.

Which simply goes to show that scoring runs in India isn't particularly tough most of the time.

 

[Richard]

it was 93-96, and it formed nearly half his career.

This period, in fact, and it formed, as you can calculate, 38.461538461538461538461538461538% of his Test-career.
Not a mile off half, no, but not especially close.

 

[sledger]

Which simply goes to show that scoring runs in India isn't particularly tough most of the time.

also suggests that the english county cricket is under-rated as clarke struggled to score any runs a great deal of the time whilst playing for hampshire.

 

[Richard]

Well... it does say a bit about pitches at The Rose Bowl, too.

 

[sledger]

granted that, they are not batsman friendly to any extent and would have brought about some of his poor scores, but he also got poor scores away from the rose bowl on hampshires travels.

 

[Mister Wright]

Last I looked catching was part of fielding... the most important part by a very large distance, in fact...

Depends which way you look at it, I guess.

 

[sledger]

Depends which way you look at it, I guess.

well if no fielders could catch that would be rather a problem no?
i think catching is a very substantial part of fielding

 

[Richard]

Depends which way you look at it, I guess.

You can give away 20 runs in misfields if you catch all your catches.
I can't believe anyone would doubt that?

 

[Mister Wright]

well if no fielders could catch that would be rather a problem no?
i think catching is a very substantial part of fielding

It is a part of fielding, however both can be separated. You can be an excellent fielder, but still be a poor catcher, much like you can be an excellent catcher and not such a good fielder. Take a slips catcher for example, who is an excellent catcher, but put them in the outfield and they are not very quick, nor can they dive around the field. Or someone who is athletic enough to run around the field and dive to save boundaries, but chuck them in the slips and their reflexes aren't good enough to be considered an excellent catcher.

 

[Richard]

No, catching is part of fielding.
You can be an excellent ground-fielder and a poor catcher, yes.
Even then, while Clarke has been outstanding recently I've still seen him fumble plenty.