Michael Clarke - all hype, no performance

[Jarryd_S]

In his last 17 Test innings, he's got past 50 twice.

 

[marc71178]

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

Blimey, it took an Aussie to get what I was suggesting...

 

[tooextracool]

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

and its not possible for a bowler to bowl no-balls despite bowling within himself?

 

[tooextracool]

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.

nope he was most certainly struggling in the 2nd innings at Old trafford too. whether or not he did well on first chance is irrelevant, the fact is that more often than not he looked good enough technically to score runs in the series unlike some of the other players who had their flaws exposed.

 

[tooextracool]

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

exactly, and i dont see how clarke averaging nearly 40 in this series proves that he doesnt have temperamental problems.

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.

are you serious?
graeme hick at many many points in his test career looked far more capable than any other player in england at the time and even looked like a better player than clarke. and as much as it pains me to say this, even mark ramprakash had a brief period where he looked like he might amount to something. point is though when your mode of dismissals continually follow the same pattern there is a problem, and clarke continually throws his wicket away.

 

[Richard]

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.

And if you think about it there's really no difference, again.
"To persuade or be persuaded" (which, as I say, doesn't actually happen a great deal) is merely a more commonly-accepted way of saying "impose until submit through exhaustion".

 

[Richard]

and its not possible for a bowler to bowl no-balls despite bowling within himself?

I hardly see how - the more no-balls you bowl, the more you're likely to be straining.
Not that Flintoff was shy of bowling no-balls in the series - as weren't far, far too many others.

 

[Richard]

nope he was most certainly struggling in the 2nd innings at Old trafford too.

Yet his eventual dismissal had little or nothing to do with those possible struggles, it was just a lethal delivery.

whether or not he did well on first chance is irrelevant, the fact is that more often than not he looked good enough technically to score runs in the series unlike some of the other players who had their flaws exposed.

No, it's not irrelevant. It shows, as first-chance records always do, how well he played without the benefit of luck (and in this case it was not very well at all), which shows that he was doing something wrong even while the bowling was generally pretty good. Maybe that didn't have anything to do with his technique as such, it had to do with his shot-selection, which has caused him problems so often, and is the reason he has such moderate records at the First-Class and Test levels.

 

[Richard]

and as much as it pains me to say this, even mark ramprakash had a brief period where he looked like he might amount to something.

Why on Earth does it pain you to say it? You were hoping Ramprakash would never amount to anything?

 

[LongHopCassidy]

No, it just hurts him to admit that Ramprakash was good, even for a brief period.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Wow, you're really going to win over a lot of people with tthat argument. For the record, I agree with him. A lot of batsmen in Australia have been doing consistently well for ages, Clarke comes along, does moderately, yet everyone acts like he's the next great hope. Beyond me.

 

[greg]

And if you think about it there's really no difference, again.
"To persuade or be persuaded" (which, as I say, doesn't actually happen a great deal) is merely a more commonly-accepted way of saying "impose until submit through exhaustion".

Lol. Depends whether you can understand written English or not, I suppose.

 

[Richard]

No, it just hurts him to admit that Ramprakash was good, even for a brief period.

But why? He's never denied it existed, all he's ever denied is that said period is as lengthy as I feel it is.

 

[Richard]

Wow, you're really going to win over a lot of people with tthat argument. For the record, I agree with him. A lot of batsmen in Australia have been doing consistently well for ages, Clarke comes along, does moderately, yet everyone acts like he's the next great hope. Beyond me.

Not by any stretch just Clarke. There's very obviously a bias towards NSW players in Australia, alluded to by many, and Kyle has attempted to explain it on this board (don't know if you saw it) by way of NSW media dominating most parts of Australia and being the biggest influence on selectors (and everyone knows that the media are the biggest single influence on national selectors anywhere in The World).

 

[Richard]

Lol. Depends whether you can understand written English or not, I suppose.

No, it depends on whether or not you like to soften language or not.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Not by any stretch just Clarke. There's very obviously a bias towards NSW players in Australia, alluded to by many, and Kyle has attempted to explain it on this board (don't know if you saw it) by way of NSW media dominating most parts of Australia and being the biggest influence on selectors (and everyone knows that the media are the biggest single influence on national selectors anywhere in The World).

I didn't see it, I wouldn't mind seeing it actually.

 

[Richard]

It was somewhere in this thread, might be contained in several posts.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Cheers.

 

[Richard]

In fact now I look around I see plenty of examples as to where he's said stuff like this.

 

[Richard]

In fact, this was the first time I was made aware of it.
And now I read the rest of that thread you simply MUST remember it?