Michael Clarke - all hype, no performance

[Mister Wright]

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.

Fielding is a different skill to batting and bowling. In batting and bowling all the aspects being coached lead to a shot or a delivery, ie. footwork, stance, balance, back-lift, etc all lead to the act of making a shot. Fielding and catching require different skills and bio-mechanical aspects. You use different footwork, hand positions and skills when fielding and catching. To the normal cricket watcher catching is a part of fielding, but to a coach they are two different 'coachable' aspects of the game.

 

[Richard]

I don't dispute that catching and ground-fielding require some different skills, but nonetheless both come under the heading of "fielding".

 

[aussie]

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

so form what TEC posted, u came to the conclusion that scoring runs in India isn't difficult most of the time, thats crap mate, if you watch cricket over their you will know thats not true

 

[Craig]

You even form them without watching the players

Funny that you say this Marc, I remember your comments on Stuart MacGill, and I asked you how much you had seen him recently and because you have admitted you don't have Sky Sports (in a different thread), I was interested in how you could have something to base your comments around? Yet you never answered my questions.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

well done in ignoring over 6 tests, AFAIC all the tests in the series against india and the final series against SA should be included, especially considering that he played some fairly decent innings in both those periods.
and btw 46/114 = 40.3

 

[tooextracool]

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

yet how many people were averaging over 40 in that series?

 

[Richard]

I seem to remember you saying that it was extremely unusual to get 2 raging turners in the same series; I mentioned most of the time.
For the record, 2 other players who batted reasonably averaged over 40 (Martyn and Sehwag), while Katich as good as did, averaging 39.42.

 

[Richard]

well done in ignoring over 6 tests, AFAIC all the tests in the series against india and the final series against SA should be included, especially considering that he played some fairly decent innings in both those periods.
and btw 46/114 = 40.3

In innings terms, yes, it does. I was, quite clearly, referring to matches.
In the first 2 India Tests he scored 1, 25, 64 and 0, a very similar pattern to the rest of his career, so it shouldn't be included.
In the rest of the SA series he averaged 30 with just a single half-century in 7 innings.
His best period started and ended when I mentioned.

 

[tooextracool]

I seem to remember you saying that it was extremely unusual to get 2 raging turners in the same series; I mentioned most of the time.
For the record, 2 other players who batted reasonably averaged over 40 (Martyn and Sehwag), while Katich as good as did, averaging 39.42.

exactly, and since there were 2 raging turners in the same series, its fairly obvious that clarke's performances cannot be ignored and were extremely good.

 

[tooextracool]

In innings terms, yes, it does. I was, quite clearly, referring to matches.

even though you almost always use innings when you look at performances?

In the first 2 India Tests he scored 1, 25, 64 and 0, a very similar pattern to the rest of his career, so it shouldn't be included.
In the rest of the SA series he averaged 30 with just a single half-century in 7 innings.
His best period started and ended when I mentioned.

his overall average in the series reflects how well he was playing during the series!
its rather ludicrous for you to dismiss his best performance, and then look at the rest of the series.

 

[Richard]

exactly, and since there were 2 raging turners in the same series, its fairly obvious that clarke's performances cannot be ignored and were extremely good.

Even though his performances on the 2 raging turners were actually no more than OK?
His good performances came on the relatively easy pitches.

 

[Richard]

even though you almost always use innings when you look at performances?

Yes, I do - I stand corrected, matches was, for some reason, the first thing that appeared in my eyeline - innings is a far better thing to use.

his overall average in the series reflects how well he was playing during the series!
its rather ludicrous for you to dismiss his best performance, and then look at the rest of the series.

I didn't dismiss his best performance; I grouped it as part of a different set to the rest of the series.
The start of the India and the end of the South Africa series were part of the substandard Hick, not the Hick who, for a time, lived-up to the talk.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Digging this a bit, but I'm interested in seeing if the two Queenslanders (howardj and Mister Wright) and anyone else who throught Clarke would be a failure in England still think so? He's been one of the three batsmen who's looked really good in the ODIs so far, and looks to be in top form to me. The key thing being, he's scored runs against Harmison and Flintoff when they've been bowling well, and the pitches haven't exactly been roads either. Then, yesterday against Bangladesh (not the greatest bowling attack obviously) he scored a matchwinning and very, very classy 80 on a difficult wicket.

As things go, I'd expect him to have a pretty good series. Thoughts?

 

[Steulen]

I agree. Would also not be surprised to see him take a wicket or 2 at the right moment.

 

[Crazy Sam]

i agree. clarke will contribute his fair share to the team in the ashes i think.

it is interesting though, our best batsmen have seemed to be symonds and hussey who have both played plenty of county cricket over the years and been quite successful at it. I think that by the time the tests start, the australian batsmen will be in good form and it'll be somewhat tough for england to take all 20 wickets. mind you, australia may also struggle to take 20 wickets if their bowling doesn't improve. I think Warne will be a huge boost.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I don't think Australia's problem is with "the bowling" so much as "Gillespie and Kasprowicz". McGrath is in excellent form and looks really good to me. Can't see how anyone could fault him currently, given that he's got Strauss looking very shaky already and the tests haven't even started. Lee has bowled three very good spells already on the tour, one in particular was as good as he has ever bowled, and Warne of course will be in the test side too. Gillespie still not at his best, but he's looking a bit better now than he was... I wouldn't be too worried aside from that third seamer.

With the batting, Ponting is clearly a worry. He plays a major role in the Australian test side and if he's out of form it could be troubling. Especially when you consider two of the four batsmen who've looked really good in the ODIs so far won't be in the test team. Gilchrist doesn't look great, but he only bats at seven and only needs one session to turn a match so that shouldn't be too much of a worry, and Hayden is the other point of concern. I think it's more of an issue with a few players than the team as a whole.

 

[howardj]

Digging this a bit, but I'm interested in seeing if the two Queenslanders (howardj and Mister Wright) and anyone else who throught Clarke would be a failure in England still think so?

Time will be the judge. But yeah, at this stage, I still stand by the first post in this thread. There's some substantiation in that first post too...it's not motivated by a pro-Qld bias, as you infer. If you knew me you'd know that, out of my five favourite Australian players, three are from NSW - Slater, MWaugh and Gilchrist.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Time will be the judge. But yeah, at this stage, I still stand by the first post in this thread. There's some substantiation in that first post too...it's not motivated by a pro-Qld bias, as you infer. If you knew me you'd know that, out of my five favourite Australian players, three are from NSW - Slater, MWaugh and Gilchrist.

Not actually suggesting it had much to do with pro-Queensland bias on your part specifically, but I don't think it's entirely coincidental that most of the Australians who most viciously criticise the likes of Clarke and Lee on this forum are from Queensland.

Anyway, I think everybody (myself included) has been pleasantly surprised by how well Clarke has handled both quality pace bowling and seam movement so far on the tour. I've always rated him pretty highly and didn't think his slump would last, but I didn't expect him to rebound so fast or so convincingly. With the form he's shown, I can't see some solid test contributions being too far away. And he definately won't fail to survive the Ashes series, as some have suggested.

 

[howardj]

I will concede though, that I loved the way he played in his last Test innings in NZ. He looked really compact and patient in that innings - think he ended up getting run out.

 

[tooextracool]

Even though his performances on the 2 raging turners were actually no more than OK?
His good performances came on the relatively easy pitches.

bangalore was definetly a fairly difficult track to score runs on against the likes of kumble and harbhajan.