Michael Clarke - all hype, no performance

[Richard]

Nothing wrong? Nothing being that, like every Harmison slower-ball ever bowled, it was incredibly obvious and stupifyingly easy to pick?
And when did I suggest anyone go kill themselves?

 

[marc71178]

Nothing wrong? Nothing being that, like every Harmison slower-ball ever bowled, it was incredibly obvious and stupifyingly easy to pick?

Yes, of course it is, but the game isn't played by mind-reading robots

 

[Tom Halsey]

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.

It might well imrpove with experience, we can't really know - but he definately didn't look like making runs to me in the Ashes because you knew he was going to play a stupid shot sooner rather than later. He definately didn't look the part in the Ashes, he offered chances left right and centre and his technique is definitely not flawless (plays away from his body), and his shot selection at times was absolutely abysmal.

 

[Tom Halsey]

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.

I'm going to say that the 25 at The Oval was a bad innings, not as bad as it looked due to the light, but it was bad and to say he was looking comfortable up to that point is stretching it a bit.

I've put in bold the shots which you yourself have pointed out a fault in his play for. That's nearly 50% of his dismissals... which is too much. If you add the dismissal for the 5th Test at The Oval (which I would) then its over 50%. IMO that's way too much.

 

[Tom Halsey]

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

And in this case, too.

His average of 37 flatters him.

 

[Richard]

Yes, of course it is, but the game isn't played by mind-reading robots

Don't need to read minds to pick the Harmison slower-ball, you just need to watch the arm come over much slower.
Most bowlers have some change of action which some batsmen can pick, but hardly anyone has it so blatantly obvious.

 

[greg]

Don't need to read minds to pick the Harmison slower-ball, you just need to watch the arm come over much slower.
Most bowlers have some change of action which some batsmen can pick, but hardly anyone has it so blatantly obvious.

I'm not aware of your background, Richard. Have you played cricket at a high level?

 

[Mister Wright]

I'm not aware of your background, Richard. Have you played cricket at a high level?

You don't have to have played at the highest level to know that there is differences between the way a bowler bowls a normal ball and a slower ball. While it isn't as easy to pick as Richard makes out, these players train and plan for these things so they can apply it to match situations.

 

[Richard]

I'm not aware of your background, Richard. Have you played cricket at a high level?

No, I've watched it.
A lot of it.
And most people haven't played it - there are still countless people who are capable of analysing it competently.

 

[greg]

If you can pick Warne's legspinner perfectly it can still get you out.

 

[Richard]

You don't have to have played at the highest level to know that there is differences between the way a bowler bowls a normal ball and a slower ball. While it isn't as easy to pick as Richard makes out, these players train and plan for these things so they can apply it to match situations.

It really, really isn't difficult in the slightest to pick an arm coming over slower. It's harder to pick off-break\back-of-hand actions and darn impossible to pick the Dilhara\McGrath version.
But different balls have different eases of picking, and that must be the first time Harmison has had any effect whatsoever with one of his slower-balls. I'm not even convinced Clarke failed to pick it - he might very well just have played down the wrong line, which ain't something at all unusual - wickets fall to batsmen playing the wrong line almost every game.

 

[greg]

It really, really isn't difficult in the slightest to pick an arm coming over slower. It's harder to pick off-break\back-of-hand actions and darn impossible to pick the Dilhara\McGrath version.
But different balls have different eases of picking, and that must be the first time Harmison has had any effect whatsoever with one of his slower-balls. I'm not even convinced Clarke failed to pick it - he might very well just have played down the wrong line, which ain't something at all unusual - wickets fall to batsmen playing the wrong line almost every game.

The whole point about the ball was its place in the context of the whole over. Harmison had worked him into a place where he was in no position to play the ball. If you're not expecting a ball and you're in the wrong position to play it (feet in the wrong place, whatever) then it doesn't matter how many times you've practiced for it in the nets.

 

[Richard]

If you can pick Warne's legspinner perfectly it can still get you out.

Not if you can pick exactly how much it's going to turn.
Difference is Warne has several different Leg-Breaks and it's not remotely possible to work-out which is which.
Slower-balls are a totally different matter.

 

[Richard]

The whole point about the ball was its place in the context of the whole over. Harmison had worked him into a place where he was in no position to play the ball. If you're not expecting a ball and you're in the wrong position to play it (feet in the wrong place, whatever) then it doesn't matter how many times you've practiced for it in the nets.

If it's a hilariously obvious ball it doesn't matter how much setting-up has been done, you should still be able to pick it - and I think Clarke might well have done so.
Witness the difference between that and, for instance, Strauss at Old Trafford - about as classical a slower-ball dismissal as you'll see. And that from a bowler who by-and-large bowled rubbish in the series too.

 

[greg]

If it's a hilariously obvious ball it doesn't matter how much setting-up has been done, you should still be able to pick it - and I think Clarke might well have done so.
Witness the difference between that and, for instance, Strauss at Old Trafford - about as classical a slower-ball dismissal as you'll see. And that from a bowler who by-and-large bowled rubbish in the series too.

The whole debate started with you questioning the idea that it was a "wonderful slower ball". It was you who chose to define "wonderful" as "impossible to pick", not anyone else.

I'm happy to define "wonderful" as perfectly pitched in such a way that it could take the batsman's wicket, the batsman having been set up beautifully by the balls earlier in the over.

 

[Richard]

The whole point of a slower-ball is that a batsman doesn't pick it.
Otherwise nothing else matters.

 

[greg]

The whole point of a slower-ball is that a batsman doesn't pick it.
Otherwise nothing else matters.

If it gets the batsman out then I doubt the bowler could care less whether it's been picked or not.

 

[Richard]

And similarly if a bowler gets a wicket with a wide Long-Hop I doubt whether he could care less that it was an unutterably crap ball.
What the bowler minds is not the issue - what matters is whether or not it was a good ball, and the Harmison slower-ball is never a good ball because it's so obvious.

 

[greg]

Whatever.

 

[Richard]

In other words "I can't think of an answer to that one".