Michael Clarke - all hype, no performance

[FaaipDeOiad]

Damn you to hell, whoever revived this thread. I was hoping it would be forgotten about and die a slow death

Nein.

 

[Richard]

Damn you to hell, whoever revived this thread. I was hoping it would be forgotten about and die a slow death

Oh, well, never mind.
In the most recent tour there wasn't much to counter the contents of the title.

 

[andyc]

Oh, well, never mind.
In the most recent tour there wasn't much to counter the contents of the title.

Yes there was.

 

[Richard]

What, Clarke scoring a very lucky 90-odd at Lord's, doing little for the rest of the series and playing one of the worst Test innings ever at The Oval? And averaging 13 in 4 innings against England in the ODIs?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

What, Clarke scoring a very lucky 90-odd at Lord's, doing little for the rest of the series and playing one of the worst Test innings ever at The Oval? And averaging 13 in 4 innings against England in the ODIs?

Not a great shock that you refuse to acknowledge the fact that he was clearly one of Australia's best batsman in the series. Only Langer looked more consistently comfortable against the swing and seam of the England seamers, and Clarke was easily the best against Giles. Overall, Langer was better, Ponting played one great innings, but Clarke had a very solid and actually quite unlucky series. He still has some problems with shot selection, but his technique is utterly superb and stood the test of the Ashes series extremely well.

 

[Richard]

Clarke unlucky this series, now I've heard it all. Clarke was in fact extremely lucky during the series, even before that truly woeful innings at The Oval (dismissed 4 times for 25 runs by the same bowler). He got a bad decision in the first-innings at Lord's, yes, but that was immidiately evened-up by the drop in the second-innings.
In the next 3 Tests he must have had at least 3 other let-offs, none of which he even made count for too much, and then there was the Oval humiliation.
Being the best of such a truly poor bunch is the most extreme clutch at straws. Hayden was exposed as poor, Gilchrist and Martyn had laws-of-averages catch-up with them (Martyn averaged something like 70 in the last 19 Tests, Gilchrist averaged 107 his last 8) and Ponting, for some reason, underpeformed (except at Old Trafford where he played comfortably the best innings of the series).
To say that Clarke was the best of that lot is to say not much at all.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

To say that Clarke was the best of that lot is to say not much at all.

It's to say that he was among the best in comfortably the strongest and most feared batting lineup in the world in a difficult series against some wonderful bowling. He didn't set the world on fire, but to suggest that he didn't justify his hype as an excellent prospect for the future is ridiculous.

 

[Richard]

Strongest not neccesarily, and most feared for all the wrong reasons. Maybe the bowling was wonderful of times but equally it wasn't by any stretch flawless and scoring decent runs was perfectly possible, as demonstrated by the regularity with which Langer got in and the irregularity that he got RUDs.
England didn't demolish a formidable batting-line-up this summer, they cut down a slightly overrated one and hopefully from this series forth it might enjoy a little less success.

 

[greg]

The main reason the batsmen (openers especially) got in and off to decent starts was because most of the damage in the series was caused by the older ball and reverse swing.

 

[Richard]

Whether reverse or conventional, all the damage was done by swing, and Hayden was troubled excessively (by both reverse and conventional swingers - was out to Hoggard 6 times though was only credited with 3) while Langer, perhaps a little surprisingly, wasn't.
It was very surprising how little the ball swung conventionally, even more so how early it reversed, but perhaps most surprising of all was how many wickets fell to conventionally-swinging balls when it happened so little.

 

[greg]

Whether reverse or conventional, all the damage was done by swing, and Hayden was troubled excessively (by both reverse and conventional swingers - was out to Hoggard 6 times though was only credited with 3) while Langer, perhaps a little surprisingly, wasn't.
It was very surprising how little the ball swung conventionally, even more so how early it reversed, but perhaps most surprising of all was how many wickets fell to conventionally-swinging balls when it happened so little.

Eh? The ball swung consistently conventionally in the first innings at Trent Bridge and wickets fell. England's bowlers were virtually unplayable bowling conventional swing on the fourth morning at the Oval (especially considering the Australians were operating a misguided approach of seeking quick runs) and wickets fell.

There was almost no other conventional swing in the series, and almost no wickets fell to it. Where's the surprise?

 

[Richard]

The odd wicket (eg Hayden at Lord's) fell to conventional swing - both Jones and Flintoff took the odd wicket here and there, both at Edgbaston and Old Trafford, with deliveries that swung conventionally.

 

[greg]

The odd wicket (eg Hayden at Lord's) fell to conventional swing - both Jones and Flintoff took the odd wicket here and there, both at Edgbaston and Old Trafford, with deliveries that swung conventionally.

You could argue that conventionally swinging deliveries when the batsmen are not expecting it are more likely to take wickets.

 

[Richard]

Well - depends, doesn't it? What's more likely to take a wicket is a ball that swings in the opposite direction to expectations - if that means you swing a ball reversely in, then next ball conventionally out that's likely to cause problems. Equally, though, if you use different types of swing to get the ball to go in the same direction (though there are precious few bowlers who can do that) it's not going to be any different.
Thing is, of course, that it's very difficult to do the two with the same ball. Not, though, as Flintoff demonstrated this series, impossible. And if you can swing a ball conventionally in then reversely away, you're going to be some huge threat.

 

[greg]

Well - depends, doesn't it? What's more likely to take a wicket is a ball that swings in the opposite direction to expectations - if that means you swing a ball reversely in, then next ball conventionally out that's likely to cause problems. Equally, though, if you use different types of swing to get the ball to go in the same direction (though there are precious few bowlers who can do that) it's not going to be any different.
Thing is, of course, that it's very difficult to do the two with the same ball. Not, though, as Flintoff demonstrated this series, impossible. And if you can swing a ball conventionally in then reversely away, you're going to be some huge threat.

When did Flintoff do that? Not that he needed to - the batsmen didn't know which way he was reversing it anyway.

 

[Richard]

IIRR it was at Trent Bridge (ironically his worst game of the last 4 - 17 no-balls in 40 overs), where Hoggard got plenty of conventional-swing and Flintoff got some reverse, then it was noted that he'd gone back to conventional... then back to reverse.
It seemed to defy all logic, but then so does a ball that reverse-swings by the 30th over, never mind the 12th (and it was reversing in the 12th at Old Trafford).
What made Flintoff and Jones so unplayable at times in the last 4 Tests of this series was their ability to bowl both types of swing (though the reverse was much more often used) in both directions.

 

[greg]

IIRR it was at Trent Bridge (ironically his worst game of the last 4 - 17 no-balls in 40 overs), where Hoggard got plenty of conventional-swing and Flintoff got some reverse, then it was noted that he'd gone back to conventional... then back to reverse.
It seemed to defy all logic, but then so does a ball that reverse-swings by the 30th over, never mind the 12th (and it was reversing in the 12th at Old Trafford).
What made Flintoff and Jones so unplayable at times in the last 4 Tests of this series was their ability to bowl both types of swing (though the reverse was much more often used) in both directions.

If it was the commentators you are talking about then I would take it with a pinch of salt - they have a habit of not knowing their left from their right a lot of the time.

 

[greg]

IIRR it was at Trent Bridge (ironically his worst game of the last 4 - 17 no-balls in 40 overs), where Hoggard got plenty of conventional-swing and Flintoff got some reverse, then it was noted that he'd gone back to conventional... then back to reverse.
It seemed to defy all logic, but then so does a ball that reverse-swings by the 30th over, never mind the 12th (and it was reversing in the 12th at Old Trafford).
What made Flintoff and Jones so unplayable at times in the last 4 Tests of this series was their ability to bowl both types of swing (though the reverse was much more often used) in both directions.

If it was the commentators you are talking about then I would take it with a pinch of salt - they have a habit of not knowing their left from their right a lot of the time.

You'll have to make your mind up whether the Australian batsmen were poor or the England bowlers unplayable though

 

[Richard]

Why can't it be both?
Of times the England bowlers, Flintoff and Jones especially, were unplayable. At times (especially at Lord's where the England bowlers wasted one of the best pitches to bowl seam on you'll ever see) Australia batted extremely poorly.
When first the commentators mentioned the reverse-swing in the 12th over I thought "nah, don't be silly, not possible". Then I saw the pictures, and there's absolutely no doubt about it. Ball was swinging towards the shiny side.

 

[greg]

Why can't it be both?
Of times the England bowlers, Flintoff and Jones especially, were unplayable. At times (especially at Lord's where the England bowlers wasted one of the best pitches to bowl seam on you'll ever see) Australia batted extremely poorly.
When first the commentators mentioned the reverse-swing in the 12th over I thought "nah, don't be silly, not possible". Then I saw the pictures, and there's absolutely no doubt about it. Ball was swinging towards the shiny side.

I wasn't disagreeing about that. On a number of occasions though i recall the commentators claiming that the ball was conventionally and reverse swinging at the same time when it wasn't.