Michael Clarke - all hype, no performance

[Richard]

Hayden's play of spin has declined just like his play of seam. The powerhouse that tore apart India in 2001 has been reduced to playing the sweep or the slog down the ground and nothing else, his footwork has declined hugely and he is prone to hitting the ball straight to fielders in the deep off spinners. He is still a good player of spin, but certainly not as good as he once was, and Clarke and Martyn are obviously more reliable these days.

Hayden's play of seam hasn't declined at all, he's just been worked-out of late. I'll give you that his play of spin isn't what it was 2 years ago but it's still darn good and IMO better than Clarke's. As for Martyn, he can hardly be reliable against spin when he's not in the side.

And, as far as The Oval goes, conditions were difficult for batting, the bowling was good and Clarke was under directions to score runs quickly. It hardly invalidates what he achieved earlier in the series.

None of which changes the fact he made a total fool of himself.

 

[Mister Wright]

I don't think it's debatable that:
a) Clarke looked the most comfortable of any Australian batsman aside from Langer and Ponting against swing and seam during the Ashes
or b) Clarke is clearly the best player of spin in the Australian team... especially now that Martyn has been dropped.

That amounts to a superb technique. The vast majority of his dismissals during the Ashes were caused by poor shot selection, he was never technically exposed by any bowler, despite the fact that his supposed weakness was genuine pace.

If you look hard at his dismissals throughout the series, they match a trend throughout his test career. Whenever he plays outside off stump, especially when the ball is fairly wide his hands play outside the line of his eyes which means that his playing well away from his body. It happened on his test debut, against Sami & Ahktar and on the New Zealand tour where he averaged 12. Also when the ball is aimed in at his leg stump his eyes are outside off stump and causes the bat to come through late which is why he got out LBW a few times towards the end of the series. If Pietersen had of taken the catch when he gave the chance early on in his 91 he would have a shocking calander year average. It is only 31 already.

Nobody's doubting his ability against spin, but his play against pace is still a bit dicey.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

flintoff rarely ever got the ball to swing conventionally, except on the odd occasion on the 4th day at the oval. its also not particularly surprising that flintoffs worst test after Lords with the ball came at the oval, the ground with the least reverse swing and the most conventional swing offered in the entire series. and its almost as though he realised this and bowled within himself all game.

 

[Tom Halsey]

flintoff rarely ever got the ball to swing conventionally, except on the odd occasion on the 4th day at the oval. its also not particularly surprising that flintoffs worst test after Lords with the ball came at the oval, the ground with the least reverse swing and the most conventional swing offered in the entire series. and its almost as though he realised this and bowled within himself all game.

Bowling 18 overs on the trot and taking 4/67 (?) isn't what I'd call a bad bowling performance - maybe it was his worst in fugures, I don't know, but purely on performance, it was amazing.

 

[Tom Halsey]

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.

Sorry, can't agree with that.

All his dismissals were the same pattern, exposing the same defficiency - he plays away from his body too much. And he was in no way unlucky, for the most part he didn't look like he had a clue.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Sorry, can't agree with that.

All his dismissals were the same pattern, exposing the same defficiency - he plays away from his body too much. And he was in no way unlucky, for the most part he didn't look like he had a clue.

Eh? His dismissals did indeed follow the same pattern, which is that he suffers from poor shot selection, but it had nothing to do with any kind of technical deficiency. The fact that he showed such ability against swing bowling overall shows that he doesn't play away from his body all the time, he simply chooses the wrong ball to hit sometimes, as evidenced by his two dismissals in his half-centuries, where he played on at Lords and edged at Trent Bridge to two completely nothing deliveries. For the most part, he kept the good balls out, aside from the second innings dismissals in the 2nd and 3rd tests, and his technique stood up superbly against the England bowlers. Trying to hit the wrong ball isn't a technical flaw, it's poor shot selection, and there is every reason to believe that will improve with experience.

As far as him not having a clue is concerned... well I really don't know what you were watching. Nobody looked as composed as Clarke for Australia. Langer struggled against Giles, and while Ponting had a fair series he never looked totally comforable the way Clarke did most of the time. Looks can of course be decieving, but how anyone could suggest Clarke didn't look the part during the Ashes, especially compared to the other Australian batsmen, is beyond me.

 

[tooextracool]

Bowling 18 overs on the trot and taking 4/67 (?) isn't what I'd call a bad bowling performance - maybe it was his worst in fugures, I don't know, but purely on performance, it was amazing.

sorry i meant trent bridge.
thats exactly what happens when i post in haste. he bowled superbly at the oval, particularly on the 4th day.

 

[tooextracool]

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?

and at least 2 of those innings bear no relevance given that he was obviously batting with a bad back(one of which he got straight of the bus and onto the field). if anything that this series has shown about clarke is that hes temperamentally poor and i'd rather that than have someone who has a glaringly obvious technical deficiency.

 

[marc71178]

sorry i meant trent bridge.
thats exactly what happens when i post in haste. he bowled superbly at the oval, particularly on the 4th day.

Phew, I thought you'd gone over to watching some alternative Test series for a moment!

 

[Top_Cat]

Geez, if I had all of the technical/mental problems that Clarke supposedly has and still average 37 in a losing series, I don't think I'd be too unhappy about that. The way you guys are talking, Clarke should consider himself lucky to hit a ball at all. There's a word for it; exaggeration.

Technically poor? He has a couple of glitches outside off-stump, as most young players do, which were exploited and he'll no doubt rectify them eventually. Not many of the Aussie batsmen covered themselves in glory during this series, y'know, because they were faced with as good team bowling as they'll likely ever face and he still averaged almost 40.

I mean, have a look at his series inning-by-innings;

1st Test

11 - LBW Jones: Decent enough out-swinging ball but made to look very good by Clarke's tendency to get squared-up. More his fault than excellent bowling.

91 - Bowled Hoggard: Shocking shot but he'd played well to that point, despite a dropped catch, and was frustrated out by some smart thinking by Hoggard. Still more his fault, though.

2nd Test

40 - Caught Jones, Bowled Giles: Excellent quicker-ball from Giles to tempt him to feather it to Jones after some brilliant flight bowling immediately before it in Giles' best spell of the summer. Clarke had stemmed the flow of wickets afer a couple of early ones threatened a collapse.

30 - Wonderful slower-ball sucker-punch after a few balls in a row from Harmi right on the knuckles at 145km/h. Again, Clarke had stemmed the flow of early wickets but gee, what clear-headedness from Harmi to have the presence of mind to dish up a great slower-ball after some aggressive bowling beforehand.

3rd Test

7 - Caught Flintoff, Bowled Jones: Batted no 8 with a bad back having been in hospital to that point. Can't blame him for hitting out because he wasn't going to be out there for too long with a spasming back.

39 - Bowled Jones: Bowled with a ball which swung back a mile against the shine. Easy to say he should have played a shot but it was a genuinely good knacker. Again, his back hadn't recovered by that point which might explain why he played a rather ginger looking knock.

4th Test

36 - LBW Harmison: Again, not great technique on display here but once again, he'd been out there trying to stem the flow of early wickets as he came in at 3/22 with Hoggard hooping them sideways.

56 - Caught Jones, Bowled Hoggard: Got a decent ball but had played well to this point. Probably more to do with his outside off-stump play than anything.

5th Test

25 - LBW Hoggard: In the middle of a spell where the light was shocking and got a decent ball too. Again, held up and end for a decent length of time and looked relatively comfortable until that point.

So as you can see, only two geniune failures and plenty of starts. Certainly were he a more experienced player, he might have been expected to go on with it for the team but considering he's only been in the Test side for about a year, I don't think he'd be too unhappy about his average in a very tough series, particularly considering the calibre of bowling he was facing.

 

[greg]

Geez, if I had all of the technical/mental problems that Clarke supposedly has and still average 37 in a losing series, I don't think I'd be too unhappy about that. The way you guys are talking, Clarke should consider himself lucky to hit a ball at all. There's a word for it; exaggeration.

Technically poor? He has a couple of glitches outside off-stump, as most young players do, which were exploited and he'll no doubt rectify them eventually. Not many of the Aussie batsmen covered themselves in glory during this series, y'know, because they were faced with as good team bowling as they'll likely ever face and he still averaged almost 40.

I mean, have a look at his series inning-by-innings;

1st Test

11 - LBW Jones: Decent enough out-swinging ball but made to look very good by Clarke's tendency to get squared-up. More his fault than excellent bowling.

91 - Bowled Hoggard: Shocking shot but he'd played well to that point, despite a dropped catch, and was frustrated out by some smart thinking by Hoggard. Still more his fault, though.

2nd Test

40 - Caught Jones, Bowled Giles: Excellent quicker-ball from Giles to tempt him to feather it to Jones after some brilliant flight bowling immediately before it in Giles' best spell of the summer. Clarke had stemmed the flow of wickets afer a couple of early ones threatened a collapse.

30 - Wonderful slower-ball sucker-punch after a few balls in a row from Harmi right on the knuckles at 145km/h. Again, Clarke had stemmed the flow of early wickets but gee, what clear-headedness from Harmi to have the presence of mind to dish up a great slower-ball after some aggressive bowling beforehand.

3rd Test

7 - Caught Flintoff, Bowled Jones: Batted no 8 with a bad back having been in hospital to that point. Can't blame him for hitting out because he wasn't going to be out there for too long with a spasming back.

39 - Bowled Jones: Bowled with a ball which swung back a mile against the shine. Easy to say he should have played a shot but it was a genuinely good knacker. Again, his back hadn't recovered by that point which might explain why he played a rather ginger looking knock.

4th Test

36 - LBW Harmison: Again, not great technique on display here but once again, he'd been out there trying to stem the flow of early wickets as he came in at 3/22 with Hoggard hooping them sideways.

56 - Caught Jones, Bowled Hoggard: Got a decent ball but had played well to this point. Probably more to do with his outside off-stump play than anything.

5th Test

25 - LBW Hoggard: In the middle of a spell where the light was shocking and got a decent ball too. Again, held up and end for a decent length of time and looked relatively comfortable until that point.

So as you can see, only two geniune failures and plenty of starts. Certainly were he a more experienced player, he might have been expected to go on with it for the team but considering he's only been in the Test side for about a year, I don't think he'd be too unhappy about his average in a very tough series, particularly considering the calibre of bowling he was facing.

In general fair enough, but a VERY interesting interpretation of "relatively comfortable" in the 5th test

 

[Mister Wright]

Eh? His dismissals did indeed follow the same pattern, which is that he suffers from poor shot selection, but it had nothing to do with any kind of technical deficiency. The fact that he showed such ability against swing bowling overall shows that he doesn't play away from his body all the time, he simply chooses the wrong ball to hit sometimes, as evidenced by his two dismissals in his half-centuries, where he played on at Lords and edged at Trent Bridge to two completely nothing deliveries. For the most part, he kept the good balls out, aside from the second innings dismissals in the 2nd and 3rd tests, and his technique stood up superbly against the England bowlers. Trying to hit the wrong ball isn't a technical flaw, it's poor shot selection, and there is every reason to believe that will improve with experience.

As far as him not having a clue is concerned... well I really don't know what you were watching. Nobody looked as composed as Clarke for Australia. Langer struggled against Giles, and while Ponting had a fair series he never looked totally comforable the way Clarke did most of the time. Looks can of course be decieving, but how anyone could suggest Clarke didn't look the part during the Ashes, especially compared to the other Australian batsmen, is beyond me.

No it is a technical flaw, not poor shot selection. Poor shot selection is trying a cover drive when you should have been trying to play a straight drive. If you watch Clarke's dismisals throughout the series you will notice his flaw. As I said earlier his hands are away from his body outside offstump and well away from his eyes. Any junior coach worth his salt would train try and get that out of a youngster's game ASAP.

If you ever notice when Damien Martyn is out caught behind or at slip of an outside edge you'll notice that his back leg is coming through late. That is not a technical flaw it is just playing the shot late, whether it be through laziness or the ball being too quick. When Clarke plays those same shots you will notice the bat after he edges it will almost flick back and there is no movement of his back leg (ala Martyn). This is a technical flaw.

 

[marc71178]

The way you guys are talking, Clarke should consider himself lucky to hit a ball at all. There's a word for it; exaggeration.

To be fair "you guys" is actually really only one person.

 

[superkingdave]

5th Test

25 - LBW Hoggard: In the middle of a spell where the light was shocking and got a decent ball too. Again, held up and end for a decent length of time and looked relatively comfortable until that point.

come on

82.4 Flintoff to Clarke, no run, just short of a length and on the
stumps, Clarke is unsure whether to go forward or back and inside
edges the ball back onto pad

85.1 Hoggard to Clarke, one run, full and outside the off, away swing,
Clarke can't resist and has a go, the ball goes off the edge
straight to Flintoff in the slips cordon who grasses the chance

87.2 Hoggard to Clarke, no run, fullish and on the stumps, a hint of
swing, Clarke shapes to defend and gets an edge to off

91.3 Harmison to Clarke, one run, width outside the off stump and Clarke
flashes it away in the air, Giles at gully did not pick it up,
third man moves across in the deep and keeps it down to just one

93.1 Hoggard to Clarke, one run, full and outside the off, Clarke
flashes this over cover, Bell seems to see it late and barely
attempts to go for the catch

93.5 Hoggard to Clarke, FOUR, short of a good length and outside the
off, driven at, off the inside edge down to fine leg, that
narrowly missed the stumps

96.2 Flintoff to Clarke, no run, full and on the stumps, Clarke defends,
the ball goes off the inside edge onto pad, that edge saved Clarke
from being plumb in front

98.5 Flintoff to Clarke, no run, full and coming in with the angle,
Clarke plays and misses, rapped on the pad, half a shout but that
is clearly down leg
98.6 Flintoff to Clarke, no run, just short of a length and outside the
off, straightening after pitching, played at and missed

99.6 Hoggard to Clarke, no run, short of a length and outside the off,
cut played and missed, through to the keeper

100.6 Flintoff to Clarke, no run, just short of a length and outside the
off, the ball pitches and moves away, played at and missed

101.6 Hoggard to Clarke, one run, Dropped! full and outside the off,
swinging away, Clarke drives, the ball swings and takes the
outside edge, it heads towards slip, Geraint Jones dives across
and spills the chance. Second let off for Clarke

103.3 Hoggard to Clarke, OUT: fullish, straight, swinging just enough to
beat the bat, Clarke plays down the wrong line and is trapped
plumb in front

yeah he was relatively comfortable up to that point

 

[Top_Cat]

yeah he was relatively comfortable up to that point

Considering the dark conditions and the fact the ball was hooping around at that point, he was 'relatively comfortable'. Relative to the other batsmen anyway. I don't mean he actually looked comfortable such as someone would on a belter in bright conditions, for example, but that considering the circumstances, he was okay.

 

[tooextracool]

Geez, if I had all of the technical/mental problems that Clarke supposedly has and still average 37 in a losing series, I don't think I'd be too unhappy about that. The way you guys are talking, Clarke should consider himself lucky to hit a ball at all. There's a word for it; exaggeration.

and mark ramprakash and graeme hick had plenty of series where they averaged over 40, does that mean they didnt have mental problems? Clarke threw his wicket away with poor strokes plenty of times this series, and came close to throwing his wicket away with poor strokes plenty of times this series.

 

[Richard]

flintoff rarely ever got the ball to swing conventionally, except on the odd occasion on the 4th day at the oval. its also not particularly surprising that flintoffs worst test after Lords with the ball came at trent bridge, the ground with the least reverse swing and the most conventional swing offered in the entire series. and its almost as though he realised this and bowled within himself all game.

Bowled sufficiently within himself that he bowled 17 no-balls in 40 overs?

 

[Richard]

and at least 2 of those innings bear no relevance given that he was obviously batting with a bad back(one of which he got straight of the bus and onto the field). if anything that this series has shown about clarke is that hes temperamentally poor and i'd rather that than have someone who has a glaringly obvious technical deficiency.

No, just once was he seriously inconvenienced by his back, and yes you can probably knock-out that innings.
Still didn't do particularly well on first-chance.

 

[Richard]

25 - LBW Hoggard: In the middle of a spell where the light was shocking and got a decent ball too. Again, held up and end for a decent length of time and looked relatively comfortable until that point.

Wouldn't disagree with the rest (except the "wonderful" slower-ball) but "looked relatively comfortable until that point"?
That was one of the worst innings EVER, poor light or not. Got out 4 times in about 6 overs. All of them were reasonably good balls, yes, but none were at all unplayable and he humiliated himself about as much as I've ever seen a batsman humiliate himself.

 

[Top_Cat]

and mark ramprakash and graeme hick had plenty of series where they averaged over 40, does that mean they didnt have mental problems?

No but once again, the average doesn't tell the full story.

Clarke threw his wicket away with poor strokes plenty of times this series, and came close to throwing his wicket away with poor strokes plenty of times this series.

So what? He's an aggressive player. Aggressive players give more chances. He was probably too aggressive against bowling which demanded more care and respect but that is an experience issue, not one of temperament or technique or anything else. He's an inexperience tyro who's only been in the side a year and he played that way. Graeme Hick and Mark Ramprakash for most of their careers played like they'd barely played any FC cricket once they were in English colours. Completely different. Clarke at least LOOKS like he's going to be in the Aussie Test side for quite some time. Rampers and Hick most certainly did not look like long-term prospects once they had their go.

Wouldn't disagree with the rest (except the "wonderful" slower-ball) but "looked relatively comfortable until that point"?
That was one of the worst innings EVER, poor light or not. Got out 4 times in about 6 overs. All of them were reasonably good balls, yes, but none were at all unplayable and he humiliated himself about as much as I've ever seen a batsman humiliate himself.

Oh well gee, maybe he should go just kill himself.

And there was nothing wrong with the slower-ball.