Michael Clarke - all hype, no performance

[Richard]

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

So? It's easy to know how many catches someone has dropped even if you've not seen a single ball of a game involving them.
There are things called good match-reports you know.

 

[age_master]

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.

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

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.

it was just a comment, you complained that Clarke is a poor fielder cause he has dropped a couple of catches and than you tell us that Pieterson is so much better than him... Clarke is as good as, if not better than pieterson everywhere, and much better on the close catches. im not saying that Pieterson is a bad fielder but 6 catches is just alot to drop when your complaining about Clarke when he probably hasn't dropped that many catches in all of his tests, let alone in 5...

well you can call Lee better than Clarke if you want, doesn't bother me much, but he is more the specialist outfielder whereas Clarke/ Symonds/ Hussey are usually anywhere on the field.

 

[Richard]

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

And it's where it's done everywhere - it's still the wrong thing to do.

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

I'm calling anyone who said the selectors made the right decision a fool.
I am also calling the selctors fools (regardless of whether they number Test-cricket's leading run-scorer amongst them - run-scoring has precisely nothing to do with being a good selector) because they picked Clarke for all the wrong reasons.

 

[Richard]

it was just a comment, you complained that Clarke is a poor fielder cause he has dropped a couple of catches and than you tell us that Pieterson is so much better than him... Clarke is as good as, if not better than pieterson everywhere, and much better on the close catches. im not saying that Pieterson is a bad fielder but 6 catches is just alot to drop when your complaining about Clarke when he probably hasn't dropped that many catches in all of his tests, let alone in 5...

Clarke will quite possibly have dropped twice that number of catches.
Pietersen is clearly a much better fielder when away from the bat, and clearly not quite so good close to.
And the chances are Pietersen will get better - will Clarke? Quite possibly not.

 

[age_master]

And it's where it's done everywhere - it's still the wrong thing to do.

I'm calling anyone who said the selectors made the right decision a fool.
I am also calling the selctors fools (regardless of whether they number Test-cricket's leading run-scorer amongst them - run-scoring has precisely nothing to do with being a good selector) because they picked Clarke for all the wrong reasons.

1) if it works....

disrespecting AB is just not smart, he was probably the best selector on the panel at the time and is a pretty good judge as well as knowing what it takes to score alot of runs at test level.

 

[age_master]

Clarke will quite possibly have dropped twice that number of catches.
Pietersen is clearly a much better fielder when away from the bat, and clearly not quite so good close to.
And the chances are Pietersen will get better - will Clarke? Quite possibly not.

what on earth do you base that last statement on?

and no Clarke i doubt clarke has dropped more that 5 at test level.

 

[age_master]

So? It's easy to know how many catches someone has dropped even if you've not seen a single ball of a game involving them.
There are things called good match-reports you know.

well why dont you dig them up and show me how many chances Clarke has dropped than?

 

[Richard]

1) if it works....

It works sufficiently infrequently to make it a very stupid thing to do.

disrespecting AB is just not smart, he was probably the best selector on the panel at the time and is a pretty good judge as well as knowing what it takes to score alot of runs at test level.

Does he? Or was he just good at it?
Allan Border was part of a selection panel that made any number of utterly stupid decisions and frankly he has to take some responsibility for that.

 

[Richard]

what on earth do you base that last statement on?

Watching the two of them?

and no Clarke i doubt clarke has dropped more that 5 at test level.

And I doubt he hasn't.

 

[Richard]

well why dont you dig them up and show me how many chances Clarke has dropped than?

Do you know how long that will take?
My bet's a couple of hours.
If I have that time free soon I might - otherwise don't count on it.

 

[greg]

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.

I couldn't work out if this post was a convoluted joke or not...

 

[Top_Cat]

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.

Are you delibertely misunderstanding my post or what? The point of 'looking good' at FC level is so that you get selected to play for a higher team and then get the runs and wickets you speak of. It's exceedingly rare for a player to continue to 'look good' at international level and keep getting selected without also performing. Guys like Flintoff, Trescothick and the like looked good but then also got the figures to justify the faith shown in them, despite relatively modest FC stats.

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.

Of course. The facts remain, though, that he was picked because of the fact he's performed at all junior levels and that his modest 2003 FC stats are just an aberration which I actually agree with. I think he looks like a decent prospect.

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.

We are so NOT going to go into all of the poor strokes which has Harmi has supposedly been gifted and that you so pertinaciously cling to, much in the same way as your explanation for McGrath's success. Say it until you're blue in the face; it's a warped theory based upon dodgy logic and rather conveniently, just about non-quantifiable so you can cling to it and no-one can prove you wrong whilst you keep the decision about what constitutes 'luck' or a 'poor stroke' up in the air. In the professional world where there are people like me who are paid to be accountable for our theories/assertions/arguments, which at 18 years of age you are yet to hit, that makes your assertion right along with first-chances and all the other garbage essentially useless. I do statistical analysis for my job which makes me 1. more accountable and 2. far more experienced than you in the field and I've seen it time and time again; those who don't actually know what they're talking about almost without variation argue over the definitions to obfuscate the debate long enough for those with any vested interest to lose interest in the debate and associated theories.

Unless you can quantify and define the terms of your argument about 'luck' and first chances, my professional opinion of these bizarre theories of yours will remain; their value rests comfortably somewhere between crap and garbage and I, along with a bunch of other people, will continue to ignore them. And of course, much in the same way you cling to this, if you ever attempt to try to prove your theories on luck and first-chances, you will give me, a professional data analyst, right of reply? Not that you, without any formal training in the science, would actually have the background knowledge to understand my reply. Hence why it would be a total waste of my time. This is not a commentary on your intelligence but your knowledge. You can correct this but it will take a few years, as it took me.

I mean this will all sincerity; if you can show some proof for your theories at the standard I require, I am actually extremely interested in what you've got to say because prima facie, what you're saying sounds non-sensical. If you are able to reverse that, I'd be pleasantly surprised and very willing to listen.

I also mean this with all sincerity; if you can't even frame the terms of reference for your theory, let alone prove it, to a standard which is high enough, don't try.

 

[age_master]

Watching the two of them?

so you can tell, based on watching them bat that Pieterson will get better in the field and Clarke will not?

well that may be the case, as there is not as much room for Clarke to improve as there is for Pieterson

i think that Pietersons ego will have a role in how much he improves as a player too

 

[age_master]

Guys like Flintoff, Trescothick and the like looked good but then also got the figures to justify the faith shown in them, despite relatively modest FC stats.

Michael Vaughan only averages 38 in FC cricket too

 

[Top_Cat]

i think that Pietersons ego will have a role in how much he improves as a player too

I agree with this but in the opposite way; I think he's one of those players that as long as his ego is off the planet, so his play will be. He's like Viv in that sense; as soon as any self-doubt or checking of ego starts to occur, I think he won't anywhere near as effective.

As for his fielding, his catches dropped is, in my view, an easily correctable problem. He hits his fielding position with a bit too much momentum at the point of delivery. Once he hangs back a bit, I think he'll barely drop a catch. For the record, I reckon he's a very, very special fielder and in time, "Who dropped 6 out of 6 catches in their first Test series?" will become a Trivial Pursuit question as he becomes one of the best in the world.

 

[Top_Cat]

Michael Vaughan only averages 38 in FC cricket too

Yep exactly. And that definitely doesn't represent just how good a batsman he actually is. But those in the know saw past the FC average (which would have been around 28 at the time of his Test selection) which was definitely a good thing.

 

[age_master]

I agree with this but in the opposite way; I think he's one of those players that as long as his ego is off the planet, so his play will be. He's like Viv in that sense; as soon as any self-doubt or checking of ego starts to occur, I think he won't anywhere near as effective.

As for his fielding, his catches dropped is, in my view, an easily correctable problem. He hits his fielding position with a bit too much momentum at the point of delivery. Once he hangs back a bit, I think he'll barely drop a catch. For the record, I reckon he's a very, very special fielder and in time, "Who dropped 6 out of 6 catches in their first Test series?" will become a Trivial Pursuit question as he becomes one of the best in the world.

yeah im not saying that hes not a good fielder, and he will be one of the top fielders and batsmen in the world for a long time but Richard was saying that Clarke was a poor fielder as he had dropped a couple of catches and Pieterson was better even though he had dropped 6 from 6.

ofcourse abit too much momentum at the point f delviery can be compensated by better hands too

i do rate Clarke a better fielder than him though

 

[social]

Clarke is a much better fieldman than KP.

KP runs around like a chicken with his head cut off and rarely gets himself in the appropriate position when it comes to making saves or catches. He is definitely an example of style over substance.

 

[PY]

He's also one of the best deep catchers in the world but has hard hands so can't deal with fast at him.

 

[marc71178]

I repeat - the results are not what matter.

So what is important then, because in terms of the outcome of a series, I'd say results are all that matter.