Michael Clarke - all hype, no performance

[Richard]

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.

Was it? We all know how much pace being down can be misinterpreted.
I'd be very interested to see some average-paces at the 4 Tests.

 

[Richard]

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

Anything else pales into insignificance.

No, it doesn't.
Otherwise no-one would bother watching other than the scorers.

 

[marc71178]

No, it doesn't.
Otherwise no-one would bother watching other than the scorers.

People watch for entertainment (well most do, you of course are an exception)

 

[Richard]

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).

I certainly don't define Trescothick as "classy" - mainly because I don't just judge "looking classy" on how good your attacking shots look when they come off.

 

[Richard]

People watch for entertainment (well most do, you of course are an exception)

Exactly - and while I'm not an exception people watch for things other than the result, which means that there are many, many equally important outcomes to a series.

 

[Top_Cat]

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.

Because you talk about 'luck' and 'first chance averages' like they're proven, accepted methods for assessing a batsmen when they are clearly not. Again, if you know of any research into the data, I'd be more than willing to have a look at it. As it stands, I've looked and I don't see a thing. I've been the nerdiest of cricket fans since 1991 and never even heard the term 'first chance averages' until you lobbed here. This is what makes me think the concept doesn't exit and/or hasn't been proven or accepted in any way.

The fact you'd even ask my why I require proper data analysis to believe anything you talk about with regards luck/first-chances tells me all I need to know anyway. Imagine I'm a lawyer and you tell me I'm wrong about OJ Simpson's guilt because of the Chewbacca Defence and you'll get a clearer understanding of our relative positions. I require VERY high standards of proof because imagine, in my field (crime pattern analysis), if I didn't; how much sense would that make and how much confidence would you have, as a victim of crime or a Police commissioner, in my conclusions?

So without further proof/analysis being forthcoming, with regards to me, if you want to argue a point I make, either don't bring up luck/first chances in the context you generally do or don't bother arguing against me at all because both of those theories are, in my mind, rubbish until proven otherwise. You saying "But they're not!" means about as much to me as a festering bowl of dog snot.

 

[Richard]

Of course there's no research into the things - why does there need to be?
It's up to the individual to decide whether he wants to place value on them or not.
What they're not, though, is an especially complicated concept - any fool can work-out the scores someone made when they offered a chance, and equally they can work-out when someone was sawn-off unfairly.
What sort of data do you want to be researched? Whether or not catches actually are dropped? Whether or not Umpires make mistakes? No, no need. Everyone knows for certain that they do happen.
From what I can see what you're saying is akin to "you need to research whether or not this forum is actually in existence or whether it's a figment of each of our imaginations".
Quite simply, all you need to do to work-out whether it's worth anything is think about what it involves - and for me it's pretty much common-sense that looking at scores where a chance was given, not where it was taken, is the sensible way to judge a batsman.

 

[Top_Cat]

Of course there's no research into the things - why does there need to be?

What they're not, though, is an especially complicated concept - any fool can work-out the scores someone made when they offered a chance, and equally they can work-out when someone was sawn-off unfairly.

There's a HUGE difference between 'simple' and 'simplistic'. You grossly over-simplify what is actually quite complicated. The definition of something like a 'chance' is more complicated than you're acknowledging and that's a fundamental aspect of any analysis of whether 'first chances' even mean anything.

What sort of data do you want to be researched? Whether or not catches actually are dropped? Whether or not Umpires make mistakes? No, no need. Everyone knows for certain that they do happen.

From what I can see what you're saying is akin to "you need to research whether or not this forum is actually in existence or whether it's a figment of each of our imaginations".

Don't. Just....don't. When I get more time, I'll explain some fundamental research methods and you'll see what I'm talking about. Just knwo this; even that which seems fundamentally obvious needs to be proven because sometimes what appears to be prima facie obvious superficially, when examined more closely, is far from the case.

Example; the sky is blue. It's clear and obvious to all of those with eyesight, right? Well, that's until something like Rayleigh Scattering comes into it and it's, oh wait, it's pink now. Oh and sometimes is red. WTF? Etc., etc. The point? The sky is blue needs further examination.

Does water appear blue to you from the beach? "Of course. What kind of obvious question is that?" Well, it's not actually blue is it?

Quite simply, all you need to do to work-out whether it's worth anything is think about what it involves - and for me it's pretty much common-sense that looking at scores where a chance was given, not where it was taken, is the sensible way to judge a batsman.

As I said, don't therefore bring it up like it's a known fact and unbelievably obvious when it's nothing more than your opinion and far from obvious.

 

[marc71178]

Exactly - and while I'm not an exception people watch for things other than the result, which means that there are many, many equally important outcomes to a series.

No, that still only means there's 1 important outcome in a series.

 

[age_master]

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.

whatever you say

 

[age_master]

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

 

[Richard]

There's a HUGE difference between 'simple' and 'simplistic'. You grossly over-simplify what is actually quite complicated. The definition of something like a 'chance' is more complicated than you're acknowledging and that's a fundamental aspect of any analysis of whether 'first chances' even mean anything.

No, it's more complicated than lots of people make it out to be. It is NOT more complicated than I make it out to be. I am realistic about chances, unlike a lot of people.
Example: some will say "that's a chance" because it hits the slipper on the end of the finger or someone edges it onto the wicketkeeper's leg when he's standing-up. Yet blatantly neither had the slightest chance of taking the catch.
A chance ISN'T that complicated - most people can work-out what should and should not have been caught almost all the time. Of course there will be the odd thing where it's not easy to say whether or not it should have been caught. In those instances, the usual rule applies - benefit-of-doubt to batsman.

Don't. Just....don't. When I get more time, I'll explain some fundamental research methods and you'll see what I'm talking about. Just knwo this; even that which seems fundamentally obvious needs to be proven because sometimes what appears to be prima facie obvious superficially, when examined more closely, is far from the case.

Example; the sky is blue. It's clear and obvious to all of those with eyesight, right? Well, that's until something like Rayleigh Scattering comes into it and it's, oh wait, it's pink now. Oh and sometimes is red. WTF? Etc., etc. The point? The sky is blue needs further examination.

Does water appear blue to you from the beach? "Of course. What kind of obvious question is that?" Well, it's not actually blue is it?

I am aware of that. We've done the whole subjective-vs-objective thing before, remember? That was precisely what I was trying to point-out when I mentioned the "fact" that we're all sitting here using a discussion forum - or is it just us all imagining it? Is that really the wall, or is it just everyone imagines it's there.
If everything needs to be proven then nothing can be proven - see?
And as far as I'm concerned pretty much everything about cricket can't be and hasn't been "proven" in such a way as you talk about, so I see no reason why first-chance scores should be any different.

As I said, don't therefore bring it up like it's a known fact and unbelievably obvious when it's nothing more than your opinion and far from obvious.

Remember? Everything is stating your opinion.

 

[Richard]

No, that still only means there's 1 important outcome in a series.

No, it doesn't - there are many outcomes equally important as the result.
One being whether or not the watching viewers were enthralled - as they were in The Ashes and weren't in the subsequent rubbish of SL-Ban and Zim-Ind.

 

[Richard]

whatever you say

In other words "I can't think of an answer to that one".

 

[Richard]

You can all you want - fact is Clarke's hands are poor and no amount of you denying that to yourself and others will change it.

 

[Mister Wright]

Clarke's coming up on 12 months without a test hundred and in the 13 tests since then he has only made 2 50s. His calendar year average is 31. It is time for him to perform consistently.

 

[aussie]

You can all you want - fact is Clarke's hands are poor and no amount of you denying that to yourself and others will change it.

nah you've got to be kidding...

 

[Tom Halsey]

Really? Do you define Marcus Trescothick as 'classy'?

No. He's effective though.

 

[greg]

whatever you say

Hey I've got the copyright on that one!

 

[greg]

Of course there's no research into the things - why does there need to be?
It's up to the individual to decide whether he wants to place value on them or not.
What they're not, though, is an especially complicated concept - any fool can work-out the scores someone made when they offered a chance, and equally they can work-out when someone was sawn-off unfairly.
What sort of data do you want to be researched? Whether or not catches actually are dropped? Whether or not Umpires make mistakes? No, no need. Everyone knows for certain that they do happen.
From what I can see what you're saying is akin to "you need to research whether or not this forum is actually in existence or whether it's a figment of each of our imaginations".
Quite simply, all you need to do to work-out whether it's worth anything is think about what it involves - and for me it's pretty much common-sense that looking at scores where a chance was given, not where it was taken, is the sensible way to judge a batsman.

I assume you think Gilchrist is rubbish because he gives A LOT of chances. Then again he knows that a large number of them will be dropped. It's called taking calculated risks.