Michael Clarke - all hype, no performance

[Richard]

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?

I repeat - the results are not what matter. That just shows that it paid-off. It was still the wrong decision, because Clarke was selected ahead of better-qualified candidates.
That was wrong - and no amount of luck in his success will change that.
That's like saying that it was the right decision to pick me to open the batting for England because I somehow got 110* and carried my bat in my maiden Test innings.

 

[Richard]

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

I'd list them if I could recall them all.

 

[age_master]

ponting ?

yeah he wa smy other thought, Yuvraj from India is solid - or was last time he was out here but apart from that im struggling alot to think of any really high quality fielders atm

 

[PY]

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

I repeat - the results are not what matter.

Eh?

 

[age_master]

I repeat - the results are not what matter. That just shows that it paid-off. It was still the wrong decision, because Clarke was selected ahead of better-qualified candidates.
That was wrong - and no amount of luck in his success will change that.
That's like saying that it was the right decision to pick me to open the batting for England because I somehow got 110* and carried my bat in my maiden Test innings.

but you wouldn't. Clarke had made runs in India before too in ODI's which gives him a massive boost - players in Australia are often picked in the ODI side than the test side as a result of good performances in that.

Reasons are irrelevant when results speak for themselves.

 

[Richard]

you know of someone who is better?

That Symonds? No, he's the best, obvious to anyone.
Than Clarke? Hmm...
Smith, Nel, Ntini, Gibbs, Bravo, Dwayne Smith, Shahid Afridi, Yuvraj Singh, Mohd Kaif, Brett Lee, Chandana, Flintoff, Pietersen (though his close-catching is worse, his catching anywhere else is exemplary), Bell, I could go on...
But I don't really think I need to.

 

[sledger]

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

who was the other ?

 

[age_master]

I'd list them if I could recall them all.

please it cant be that hard, as i said, there aren't that many of them

 

[Richard]

Eh?

How on Earth did you connect those two?
They're on totally different subjects.

 

[Richard]

who was the other ?

amz

 

[Richard]

please it cant be that hard, as i said, there aren't that many of them

No, it is - there are so many dropped catches these days even I can't possibly recall them all or anything remotely close to it.

 

[age_master]

That Symonds? No, he's the best, obvious to anyone.
Than Clarke? Hmm...
Smith, Nel, Gibbs, Bravo, Dwayne Smith, Shahid Afridi, Yuvraj Singh, Mohd Kaif, Brett Lee, Chandana, Flintoff, Pietersen (though his close-catching is worse, his catching anywhere else is exemplary), Bell, I could go on...
But I don't really think I need to.

Smith, Nel, Smith, Afridi, Chandana, Flintoff, Pieterson, Bell - umm no - Pieterson has droped 6 out of 6 chances at test level

Gibbs is another good fielder and will have the chance to directly compare soon

The indian pair are both good but not as good as the Aussies (doesn't help that they are let down by teammates more often though)

and Lee, well hes and Aussie for starters - but more of an outfielder, i wouldn't put him in the gully or backward point.

 

[Richard]

but you wouldn't. Clarke had made runs in India before too in ODI's which gives him a massive boost - players in Australia are often picked in the ODI side than the test side as a result of good performances in that.

And if you took ODIs into the equation that's even more poor selection - good ODI players make good Test players probably 60% of the time and success in one form of the game is no guide to likelihood of success in the other.

Reasons are irrelevant when results speak for themselves.

Nope - other way round.
Any fool can speak with hindsight - it's what you do before the event that matters.

 

[PY]

How on Earth did you connect those two?
They're on totally different subjects.

You say that success isn't based on looking good, it's about getting the figures.....well there's the figures for all to see and yet now they don't count?

You're going round in circles or you aren't expressing yourself very well old chap.

 

[sledger]

amz

ah well nm, i gtg now anyway, bit tired, heopfully get the chance to speak to you soon.

 

[age_master]

No, it is - there are so many dropped catches these days even I can't possibly recall them all or anything remotely close to it.

by Clarke there are only a few - and i would have seen alot more of clarke playing test cricket than you would have too

 

[age_master]

And if you took ODIs into the equation that's even more poor selection - good ODI players make good Test players probably 60% of the time and success in one form of the game is no guide to likelihood of success in the other.

Nope - other way round.
Any fool can speak with hindsight - it's what you do before the event that matters.

1) yeah i know but that the way the selectors do it in Australia

2) are you calling me a fool? The Selectors (including the man who has scored more test runs than anyone else) made a call on a gut feeling and they have since been proved right

 

[Richard]

Smith, Nel, Smith, Afridi, Chandana, Flintoff, Pieterson, Bell - umm no - Pieterson has droped 6 out of 6 chances at test level

So? As I quite clearly stated, Pietersen has the complete package as a fielder except for close-catching. Given that Clarke isn't much better than him that makes Pietersen a much better all-round fielder.
And all of the others are clearly better than Clarke to all but biased New South Welshmen.

The indian pair are both good but not as good as the Aussies (doesn't help that they are let down by teammates more often though)

No, they're not as good as Symonds and Lee but they're both better than Clarke.

and Lee, well hes and Aussie for starters - but more of an outfielder, i wouldn't put him in the gully or backward point.

Really? I'd willingly put Lee in somewhere where sharp catches come ahead of Clarke.
And I think the boldened bit tells us all we need to know about your biases.

 

[age_master]

You say that success isn't based on looking good, it's about getting the figures.....well there's the figures for all to see and yet now they don't count?

You're going round in circles or you aren't expressing yourself very well old chap.

 

[Richard]

You say that success isn't based on looking good, it's about getting the figures.....well there's the figures for all to see and yet now they don't count?

You're going round in circles or you aren't expressing yourself very well old chap.

In one instance I was talking about selection - success doesn't count in terms of selection, what counts is whether it was done for the right reasons.
As far as the other instance I was talking about what constitutes success - and whether people like it or not it's not constituted by looking good when your shots come off, it's constituted by getting the figures.