Michael Clarke - all hype, no performance

[greg]

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

In other words "I've got better things to do than keep arguing with you".

As far as i'm concerned if a bowler has worked a batsman into a position where he can't properly play a slower ball, picked or not, executes that slower ball as intended and gets the batsman out then it's good bowling and it's a good ball. Why do you think Brett Lee didn't attempt to repeat his dismissal of Strauss at Old Trafford? Or McGrath his dismissal of Pietersen similarly? Because bowling one ball (however 'good' or 'bad') in isolation is rarely enough to take a wicket. Bowl it as part of a well executed plan over a period of balls or even overs and it will.

Was Flintoff's ball to dismiss Hayden at Old Trafford "a good ball"? A length ball on leg stump that bowled him behind his legs? Of course not in isolation. In the context of a spell of bowling that had moved Hayden all over the crease, forced him to lose his bearing of where his feet were and where his off stump was, it was fantastic.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Sorry, as far as I'm concerned, the purpose for any ball is to either get a wicket, or help set the batsman up for a wicket in one of the following balls. The batsman not being able to read the slower ball is merely helpful as it makes the objective more likely.

 

[Richard]

In other words "I've got better things to do than keep arguing with you".

In which case, why even bother visiting a forum ITFP? If you haven't time to keep-up arguments why bother entering into them?

As far as i'm concerned if a bowler has worked a batsman into a position where he can't properly play a slower ball, picked or not, executes that slower ball as intended and gets the batsman out then it's good bowling and it's a good ball.

Any batsman can play a slower-ball if he picks it, whatever's gone before.

Why do you think Brett Lee didn't attempt to repeat his dismissal of Strauss at Old Trafford? Or McGrath his dismissal of Pietersen similarly? Because bowling one ball (however 'good' or 'bad') in isolation is rarely enough to take a wicket. Bowl it as part of a well executed plan over a period of balls or even overs and it will.

I don't know why McGrath didn't try to repeat the Pietersen dismissal. I can tell you why Lee didn't repeat the Strauss one - because he ain't good enough.
Neither of them were "in isolation" - both were the example of what a slower-ball can do when it's not picked. Obviously you always have to do some "setting-up" - a ball by it's very name is "slower" - so it has to be slower than something. However, if the fact that it's slower is picked none of that setting-up really matters.

Was Flintoff's ball to dismiss Hayden at Old Trafford "a good ball"? A length ball on leg stump that bowled him behind his legs? Of course not in isolation. In the context of a spell of bowling that had moved Hayden all over the crease, forced him to lose his bearing of where his feet were and where his off stump was, it was fantastic.

No, it wasn't a good ball, it was a poor shot from a batsman who has always been poor when the ball is moving around.

 

[Richard]

Sorry, as far as I'm concerned, the purpose for any ball is to either get a wicket, or help set the batsman up for a wicket in one of the following balls. The batsman not being able to read the slower ball is merely helpful as it makes the objective more likely.

If he reads the slower-ball it's not going to cause his dismissal.
If he doesn't it might.

 

[Tom Halsey]

If he reads the slower-ball it's not going to cause his dismissal.
If he doesn't it might.

You just said that you thought Clarke probably did pick the slower ball - so clearly it does sometimes.

 

[greg]

If he reads the slower-ball it's not going to cause his dismissal.
If he doesn't it might.

Even if it's a perfectly flighted leg-spinner that drifts in, pitches on leg stump only to spin away on a line to clip off stump?

 

[greg]

No, it wasn't a good ball, it was a poor shot from a batsman who has always been poor when the ball is moving around.

When was the last time you saw a batsman get out where he wasn't culpable?

 

[greg]

In which case, why even bother visiting a forum ITFP? If you haven't time to keep-up arguments why bother entering into them?

Because when minds aren't going to be changed there's obviously little point.

 

[marc71178]

In which case, why even bother visiting a forum ITFP? If you haven't time to keep-up arguments why bother entering into them?

He's debated quite reasonably with many others, so what does that tell you (since he specifically said "I've got better things to do than keep arguing with you") ?

 

[Richard]

You just said that you thought Clarke probably did pick the slower ball - so clearly it does sometimes.

No, the slower-ball didn't cause his dismissal - it just so happened that he got out to a ball that was a slower-ball.
You see players get out to all sorts of deliveries, and Clarke got out to a variety of deliveries in this series. Two of them were slower-balls - he definately picked the first and possibly picked the second.

 

[Richard]

Even if it's a perfectly flighted leg-spinner that drifts in, pitches on leg stump only to spin away on a line to clip off stump?

In which case, fairly obviously, it'll be the drift and the turn that cause the dismissal, not the slower nature.

 

[age_master]

Sorry, as far as I'm concerned, the purpose for any ball is to either get a wicket, or help set the batsman up for a wicket in one of the following balls. The batsman not being able to read the slower ball is merely helpful as it makes the objective more likely.

agreed

 

[Richard]

When was the last time you saw a batsman get out where he wasn't culpable?

It happens a reasonable amount - though obviously far more wickets than not involve some fault of the batsman.
It's all about whether the bowler deserved total credit, some credit (happens quite a bit) or no credit whatsoever (most common).
I'd say the Clarke-Harmison-Edgbaston one falls into the no-credit-at-all category.

 

[Richard]

He's debated quite reasonably with many others, so what does that tell you (since he specifically said "I've got better things to do than keep arguing with you") ?

It tells us that he doesn't want to keep up this argument.
Obviously I am not going to change his mind, mainly because most people are determined to give bowlers credit for anything they can possibly find.

 

[age_master]

hes probably given up on changing your mind at all rather than given up on the argument though.

 

[Richard]

Same thing, when you think about it.
The whole point of an argument is to try to make someone else take the point of view you are advocating.
Reality is, though, rarely does anyone change their mind due to participating in an argument against their point-of-view.

 

[greg]

Same thing, when you think about it.
The whole point of an argument is to try to make someone else take the point of view you are advocating.
Reality is, though, rarely does anyone change their mind due to participating in an argument against their point-of-view.

Well you never do obviously. That is not the case with everyone. I subscribe to the view that the point of entering an argument is to persuade or be persuaded. Not to impose your opinions on the world until they submit through exhaustion.

 

[Jarryd_S]

Rightio, back on topic.

Michael Clarkes an overrated hack. He performed poorly at domestic level, but got a Test spot anyway. He got this test spot averaging 30 odd for NSW, over Brad Hodge who over the last 2-3 seasons has been averaging a ****load. Why? Because he comes from NSW and our selectors will play a NSW player whenever they can ie. Stuart Clark.

 

[Mister Wright]

Rightio, back on topic.

Michael Clarkes an overrated hack. He performed poorly at domestic level, but got a Test spot anyway. He got this test spot averaging 30 odd for NSW, over Brad Hodge who over the last 2-3 seasons has been averaging a ****load. Why? Because he comes from NSW and our selectors will play a NSW player whenever they can ie. Stuart Clark.

One of the greatest first posts ever...

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Rightio, back on topic.

Michael Clarkes an overrated hack. He performed poorly at domestic level, but got a Test spot anyway. He got this test spot averaging 30 odd for NSW, over Brad Hodge who over the last 2-3 seasons has been averaging a ****load. Why? Because he comes from NSW and our selectors will play a NSW player whenever they can ie. Stuart Clark.