Michael Clarke - all hype, no performance

[marc71178]

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.

No, what counts is how it pays off.

 

[marc71178]

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

So everyone else in the Cricketing world is wrong, and you're right...

 

[Jamee999]

So everyone else in the Cricketing world is wrong, and you're right...

You haven't learnt that by now?

 

[Tom Halsey]

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.

I don't know quite how you define 'he looks right'.

He doesn't look classy to me - classy players don't play away fromt heir body anywhere near as much as Clarke does, if at all.

 

[aussie]

I don't know quite how you define 'he looks right'.

He doesn't look classy to me - classy players don't play away fromt heir body anywhere near as much as Clarke does, if at all.

well then how about Lara, he plays away from his body a lot but we wont doubt that he is classy. Clarke is definately classy

 

[Tom Halsey]

well then how about Lara, he plays away from his body a lot but we wont doubt that he is classy. Clarke is definately classy

And I don't like Lara's technique much either, I've said it before. The reason he's so brilliant is his quite brilliant eye IMO.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

no its quite possible to lose your run up and bowl no-balls. flintoff had problems with no balls throughout the summer and even long before that, its not something that came out because he was trying too hard. his pace in the first innings at TB was down on his usual pace.

 

[tooextracool]

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

which doesnt change the fact that he was batting with an injury.

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.

no it shows that he was temperamentally not very good, and we've seen plenty of players impress despite not ending series with phenomenal averages.

 

[tooextracool]

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

no because i dont rate mark ramprakash very highly as a player, and yet there was a time when he actually looked like he would accomplish something.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

how many players prove themselves after 3 tests?
and clarke was most certainly far away from proven after his first test, and failed miserable after his first 2 series.

 

[Top_Cat]

He doesn't look classy to me - classy players don't play away fromt heir body anywhere near as much as Clarke does, if at all.

Really? Do you define Marcus Trescothick as 'classy'? come on, be honest. For the record, I think he most certainly is, despite his weakness outside off stump (brought to the fore with his dismissal for 90 in the Ashes series to a limp prod outside off-stump to Kasper which was an incredible disappointment considering the sheer quality of the knock to that point).

In all seriousness, I think Clarke's biggest problem is his sometimes irrational need to feel bat on ball, hence why he plays so often at deliveries he should probably leave. Most players go through this and I think once Clarke picks up that he doesn't have to play at every ball (and to be a top-line Test player you CAN'T, really) he'll be a new batsman. Time will tell but if there's one thing Clarke is it's an excellent learner from what I've heard.

 

[Richard]

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

No, it's not.
Clearly all are better fielders than Michael Clarke, his hands are sufficiently poor.

 

[Richard]

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.

And how many times - Trescothick has got the stats at Test level only because of luck. His first-chance stats are much less impressive.
And Flintoff's First-Class stats are hardly modest - especially from 2002 onwards.

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.

Tell me, please:
1) how does any form of statistical analysis come into it? The whole point of what I am saying is that stats are not especially important - what's important is watching the cricket and seeing how many wicket-taking deliveries Harmison has taken wickets with. And even in his 7 good Tests in early 2004 this numbered very few.
2) I sincerely hope you are not referring to me as 18 years of age - if so you're 2 years behind the times.

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.

I really don't understand why you need scientific understanding to understand or "prove" or justify in any way either the basic fact that giving a chance is the same whether or not it's taken; or that the only way to deserve good figures is to take the wickets through your own skill rather than the paucity of the batsmen.
Just doesn't make any sense to me why you're bringing all this up.

 

[Richard]

Michael Vaughan only averages 38 in FC cricket too

And of course that's so poor given that his home ground is the most seam-friendly in the country, possibly The World.

 

[Richard]

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.

It was just over 30 at the time of his Test selection.
And of course the sensible took it in context of:
a) his home ground being an incredibly seam-friendly venue and
b) that he'd just had a very poor season when he was picked, and as such didn't have too much Test-match success in his first 18 months.

 

[Richard]

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.

No, he doesn't. That's clearly the view of someone who's seen an extremely limited amount of him.
Pietersen usually gets into good positions and has much, much better hands than Clarke.

 

[Richard]

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

There are many, many outcomes to a series - one of them is a series result.
That, of course, is important - but it's not the end of The World if you play good cricket and don't get the result.

 

[Richard]

No, what counts is how it pays off.

No, that uses hindsight, which any fool can do.

 

[Richard]

So everyone else in the Cricketing world is wrong, and you're right...

Nope, not "everyone else" - there are actually some other people who realise that the two forms of the game are different.
But still the incorrect are in the majority, yes.

 

[marc71178]

There are many, many outcomes to a series - one of them is a series result.
That, of course, is important - but it's not the end of The World if you play good cricket and don't get the result.

No, the only result that matters is the series result.

Anything else pales into insignificance.