Michael Clarke - all hype, no performance

[Tom Halsey]

Well if he's right it certainly explains why Clarke was picked ahead of someone like Love.

 

[Richard]

Well TBH I've not heard anyone qualified in media who's undertaken similar studies to those Kyle has, so I'm inclined to believe he's right.

 

[Top_Cat]

Clarke wasn't picked because he was picked from NSW; he was picked over a guy like Love for several other reasons;

1. He has age on Love and will only get better whereas Love was at his peak and would only decline as he got older, hit form troughs. And this from an unabashed Love fan who thought he should have been picked for Mark Waugh years ago when Waugh was struggling. By the time he did get picked, it was a bit too late. Believe me, I saw his 150-odd in the Sheffield Shield final of 1994-95 and thought that, at age 21, he should have been picked then.

2. Love is a great slipper but is really a liability anywhere else. Clarke is not quite as good with the catching but is a phenomenal fielder and you can put him anywhere.

3. Clarke can occasionally contribute some overs whereas Love can't bowl at all.

4. Clarke has a better leadership pedigree with captaincy at under-age level (U/19 World Cup) and is being groomed as a future captain whereas Love is a batsman first and foremost.

5. Despite a vastly inferior FC record, Clarke just 'looks' right for international cricket. Love looked classy in his Tests but was still proving himself even when he got a Test ton. Clarke, as soon as he put on the baggy green, it fit pretty well. Obviously this is more of a subjective thing.

Also despite his phenomenal record in Shield/Pura Cup finals, the general consensus from years ago is that Love is a bit suspect in a real pressure situation and tends to just go missing a bit. Clarke seems to relish pressure and if he faisl, you just know he's going to spend hours in the nets correcting his mistakes.

Again, another subjective thing but from what I've heard, this was the general consensus around the traps about why Love was never picked earlier. Don't shoot the messenger.

As for the whole NSW bias thing, well it's an interesting question. Certainly whenever a selection came down to two equally-talented players, the guy from NSW used to get the nod a fair bit not to mention examples of players who are not even looked at when playing for other states but as soon as they move to NSW, they're in the mix for Tests. A few examples;

1989 Ashes tour, Australia are trying to choose between picking Tom Moody and Mark Taylor for the first Test of the series. They pick Taylor and he scores 839 runs for the series.

1993 Ashes tour, Australia are trying to choose between Matt Hayden and Michael Slater. Although Hayden was given the nod in the ODI's, he didn't do especially well and Slats gets a ton in the warm-up match before the Test whereas Hayden fails. Slater gets the nod and scores a ton in his second Test.

The continued non-selection of Darren Lehmann and Marty Love in the 90's when they were both at their peaks whilst Mark Waugh went through peaks and troughs which probably would have resulted in most others being dropped, at least in the short-term.

Stuart MacGill barely gets a game for WA and was sent home from the Academy with his report-card reading "The thought should not be entertained that Stuart has a future as a First-Class cricketer". He moves to NSW and is in the Test side within a season. Ditto for Katich.

Now, NSW had a very strong side during the 90's so I'm reluctant to ascribe the above to a systematic bias against players from other states but still, it gives one something to think/rant about.

 

[howardj]

Love is also a 'nicker', and not that flash against spin. Plus, I don't think there are any real gears in Love's game - he can't really up the ante, which is something you need to be able to do if you're going to bat in the middle order for Australia. Katich has this same problem incidentally.

 

[Top_Cat]

Plus, I don't think there are any real gears in Love's game - he can't really up the ante, which is something you need to be able to do if you're going to bat in the middle order for Australia.

Actually that's a good point - Clarke is definitely a player who looks as if he can smack a flashy run-a-ball ton one day and then grind out a 200-ball 50 the next. Love is like Kallis in that sense; he bats a similar pace throughout.

 

[Richard]

Clarke wasn't picked because he was picked from NSW; he was picked over a guy like Love for several other reasons

How do you know? I don't find it remotely inconceivable that Clarke wouldn't be anywhere near so highly regarded were he from Tasmania or SA.

He has age on Love and will only get better

Where on Earth does this perception that because a player is young he will get better come from? You hear it with almost any young player - "he will get better". And I'd say it doesn't happen more often than it does.

Love is a great slipper but is really a liability anywhere else. Clarke is not quite as good with the catching but is a phenomenal fielder and you can put him anywhere.

Clarke is a phenominal fielder? Are we on different planets? Clarke can throw, and he's relatively athletic, but he lacks the most important thing in cricket (Tests especially), good hands. He misfields and drops catches plenty.
And for Test-cricket a good slipper who can't go elsewhere is much preferable to a poor catcher who can field anywhere.

5. Despite a vastly inferior FC record, Clarke just 'looks' right for international cricket. Love looked classy in his Tests but was still proving himself even when he got a Test ton. Clarke, as soon as he put on the baggy green, it fit pretty well. Obviously this is more of a subjective thing.

"Looking right" is invariably one of the worst ways to judge a cricketer according to me. It's so often so misleading. Because someone plays lots of strokes and usually gets big power in the ones he hits right, that's what usually deems someone to be "looking right". And what matters is how many, not how.

 

[Richard]

Love is also a 'nicker', and not that flash against spin. Plus, I don't think there are any real gears in Love's game - he can't really up the ante, which is something you need to be able to do if you're going to bat in the middle order for Australia. Katich has this same problem incidentally.

Which is why I'd possibly even prefer Katich at three and Ponting back to six (or five, better).

 

[Top_Cat]

Where on Earth does this perception that because a player is young he will get better come from? You hear it with almost any young player - "he will get better". And I'd say it doesn't happen more often than it does.

He will because he is better and is showing signs of improvement. He's already learning from his failures in NZ against the swinging ball, his last knock at the Oval aside. He seems to be pacing his innings better too and not just going break-neck right from the start. He still does it but not as often.

Clarke is a phenominal fielder? Are we on different planets? Clarke can throw, and he's relatively athletic, but he lacks the most important thing in cricket (Tests especially), good hands. He misfields and drops catches plenty.

Geezus, not only do you under-rate his ability to throw (he is the most dead-eye throw at the stumps in the world right now), you under-rate his ability to catch and field. He's dropped a few catches, yes, but he's also taken a few screamers and is generally rated as a pretty safe mark no matter where he is. And as for mis-fielding, it's nowhere near as bad as you make it out to be. Certainly no more than most fielders. That's my opinion anyway. You have yours. We differ, c'est l vie.

And for Test-cricket a good slipper who can't go elsewhere is much preferable to a poor catcher who can field anywhere.

Only 'slightly' preferable in my opinion.

"Looking right" is invariably one of the worst ways to judge a cricketer according to me. It's so often so misleading. Because someone plays lots of strokes and usually gets big power in the ones he hits right, that's what usually deems someone to be "looking right". And what matters is how many, not how.

It's not just his batting I'm talking about here; he just looks right. He looks like a player who will be a successful Test cricketer. No player gets picked on stats alone and quite a few more than you'd be willing to admit are picked because they 'look' classy and better than their stats show to that point. Do I even need to point out to you what Michael Vaughan's and Marcus Trescothick's FC stats were like at the time they were picked for England? How about Flintoff? Harmison? At FC level they were ordinary yet on the larger stage, they've excelled because people in the know looked past their records and saw the quality player who just needed the right sort of encouragement/environment and would be a success. And how about players who've been picked with excellent FC stats and pretty glowing recommendations and haven't succeeded much? Ian Bell? How a player 'looks' and how much 'potential' they display beyond their stats as well as their demeanor, body language, attitude, etc. are almost as important an indicator as as their numbers to that point. Sometimes more so.

 

[age_master]

Geezus, not only do you under-rate his ability to throw (he is the most dead-eye throw at the stumps in the world right now), you under-rate his ability to catch and field. He's dropped a few catches, yes, but he's also taken a few screamers and is generally rated as a pretty safe mark no matter where he is. And as for mis-fielding, it's nowhere near as bad as you make it out to be. Certainly no more than most fielders. That's my opinion anyway. You have yours. We differ, c'est l vie.

i would place him in the top 2 or 3 fielders in the world at the moment, he might not be the best slipper but anywhere else and hes right up there - this is one of the key things with the Aussie ODI side - Clarke, Symonds, Ponting and Hussey in the field - all exceptional fielders in their own right but combining them all in the same team and they will cause havoc - not to mention Lee, White and Watson who are also excellent fielders

 

[age_master]

Well if he's right it certainly explains why Clarke was picked ahead of someone like Love.

Clarke getting picked in India was more to do with the way he plays spin than anything else, age would have helped too - though the results show that the selectors got that right so you cant really criticise it to much

 

[age_master]

Katich has this same problem incidentally.

nah ive seen katich really go after in it in a number of OD games, most of the time he doesn't need to though so doesn't.

 

[Richard]

i would place him in the top 2 or 3 fielders in the world at the moment

Which is not surprising given that Symonds is clearly the best in The World ATM and you would rate another Australian next in any scenario.

 

[Richard]

Clarke getting picked in India was more to do with the way he plays spin than anything else, age would have helped too - though the results show that the selectors got that right so you cant really criticise it to much

No, nothing shows they got it right - it was a poor decision, because it was made for the wrong reasons, whether or not it paid-off.

 

[sledger]

No, nothing shows they got it right - it was a poor decision, because it was made for the wrong reasons, whether or not it paid-off.

but surely lehmann would no longer be around and clarke would have had to be rushed in closer to the ashes so essentially he would have had to play soon anyway ?


on a side note any chance of an msn appearance tonight richard ?

 

[age_master]

Which is not surprising given that Symonds is clearly the best in The World ATM and you would rate another Australian next in any scenario.

you know of someone who is better?

 

[sledger]

ponting ?

 

[Richard]

He will because he is better and is showing signs of improvement. He's already learning from his failures in NZ against the swinging ball, his last knock at the Oval aside. He seems to be pacing his innings better too and not just going break-neck right from the start. He still does it but not as often.

We'll see. One series doesn't really show that much, but even if he's not getting out for as many 2s and 7s, he's certainly still getting far too many 20s and 40s.
It may be temporarily solved against West Indies but I'd back South Africa with Nel, Pollock and to a lesser extent Ntini to keep him down unless he's made further improvements.

Geezus, not only do you under-rate his ability to throw (he is the most dead-eye throw at the stumps in the world right now), you under-rate his ability to catch and field. He's dropped a few catches, yes, but he's also taken a few screamers and is generally rated as a pretty safe mark no matter where he is. And as for mis-fielding, it's nowhere near as bad as you make it out to be. Certainly no more than most fielders. That's my opinion anyway. You have yours. We differ, c'est l vie.

He may be the most deadeye in The World, that's pretty obvious by the number of close-range direct-hits - I repeat, that doesn't actually matter much, certainly if you're dropping a decent amount of catches.
IMO Clarke drops sufficiently and misfields sufficiently (it's really not very likely you'll do one and not the other) to be regarded as a below-average fielder, given that taking cleanly (whether on the full or bounce) is by a distance the most important part of fielding, even in limited-overs cricket.

Only 'slightly' preferable in my opinion.

So what is so important in Test-cricket? Far as I'm concerned you can let through 20 runs per day if you never drop a catch. Catching is the most important thing in Test-matches by a considerable margin.

It's not just his batting I'm talking about here; he just looks right. He looks like a player who will be a successful Test cricketer. No player gets picked on stats alone and quite a few more than you'd be willing to admit are picked because they 'look' classy and better than their stats show to that point.

No, I quite freely admit that people are picked because many people think they "look classy". And I've never wavered from the stance that it's wrong. Success in international cricket (as in any other level of the game) doesn't come from looking good - it comes from getting the figures, because it's runs and wickets (whether you score them and don't lose them or don't concede them and take them) that counts.

Do I even need to point out to you what Michael Vaughan's and Marcus Trescothick's FC stats were like at the time they were picked for England? How about Flintoff? Harmison? At FC level they were ordinary yet on the larger stage, they've excelled because people in the know looked past their records and saw the quality player who just needed the right sort of encouragement/environment and would be a success. And how about players who've been picked with excellent FC stats and pretty glowing recommendations and haven't succeeded much? Ian Bell? How a player 'looks' and how much 'potential' they display beyond their stats as well as their demeanor, body language, attitude, etc. are almost as important an indicator as as their numbers to that point. Sometimes more so.

Ian Bell was talked of in 2002 and 2003, when his form was inexplicably modest, so that kinda blows that theory out of the window. Everyone has always talked of Bell as one who "looks" international class. There's a reason for that, though - he's scored runs at just about every level he plays and I'd be hugely surprised and disappointed if the Test level doesn't join that club soon.
Flintoff's First-Class batting average has always been pretty good, and obviously he's only bowled well in the last 5 months so neither domestic or international averages mean much so long as they're good (which his Test ones hardly were before 2003\04).
Harmison - I seriously can't believe you'd have the nerve to class him as a success. With the exception of a very brief period (March-June 2004) where he got shedloads of poor strokes he's been a dismal failure in Tests, and totally justified my stance that he should never have been picked because his First-Class record is poor.
Do I need to point-out - again - why Marcus Trescothick has not been a success in Test-cricket? He's been lucky (for his first 2 years in Tests), poor with 1 good game (between the start of 2002\03 and the end of 2003\04) and briefly good (2004 and 2004\05). In 2005 he was back to being lucky. We await to see what is next.
As for Vaughan - rare players are exceptios to rules. David Gower was another. One thing to point-out, of course, is that Vaughan's First-Class average has shot up since being picked for Tests.

 

[age_master]

No, nothing shows they got it right

How do results not show wether a selectors call was right or not?

151
17
5
39*
91
73
17
7

not to mention taking 6/13 for the series? and 7 catches?

 

[Richard]

but surely lehmann would no longer be around and clarke would have had to be rushed in closer to the ashes so essentially he would have had to play soon anyway ?

Lehmann's decline in Tests was sudden and inexplicable, but there were many more deserving candidates for available places than Clarke - he should have been maybe 3rd or 4th in line.

on a side note any chance of an msn appearance tonight richard ?

Two requests in 2 days!
I know I'm popular but...

 

[age_master]

He may be the most deadeye in The World, that's pretty obvious by the number of close-range direct-hits - I repeat, that doesn't actually matter much, certainly if you're dropping a decent amount of catches.
IMO Clarke drops sufficiently and misfields sufficiently (it's really not very likely you'll do one and not the other) to be regarded as a below-average fielder, given that taking cleanly (whether on the full or bounce) is by a distance the most important part of fielding, even in limited-overs cricket.

So what is so important in Test-cricket? Far as I'm concerned you can let through 20 runs per day if you never drop a catch. Catching is the most important thing in Test-matches by a considerable margin.

hes dropped a couple of catches but not that many, certainly not as many as you seem to be making out that he has