Michael Clarke - all hype, no performance

[marc71178]

Shaun has fully-functioning arms (well, he did at the time) and is a professional athlete so more co-ordinated and physicaly talented than others. There was definitely a chance, albeit a small one. It was an extremely tough catch and I would most definitely say that if he had caught it would have been an outstanding outfield catch, up there with the best. But, by definition, it wasn't impossible.

There were a few pretty special catches weren't there.

Thinking back to the Martyn one off Pietersen at Lords.

Now had he spilled that, would that have been a chance or not?

 

[greg]

As I've said before - there are too many to recall.

Am I only one who gets the feeling that Richard's views on Pietersen and Clarke's fielding are based largely on the 2020 match at Southampton? Oh and Clarke's ODI debut.

Isn't he?
I find Pietersen has an excellent arm in strength and accuracy - hardly anyone makes direct-hits with any regularity

Anyone who has watched England play cricket in recent years knows that one of their major fault is that they don't hit the stumps often enough. (whereas Australia, for example, pride themselves on this and fell below their usual standards in the Ashes series). To dismiss it as a factor when judging a person's fielding suggests a severe deficiency in your understanding of modern cricket.

Also your argument that Pietersen is "a better fielder" because he can catch the ball when fielding in the deep is particularly irrelevant (regardless of how silly it is) because it is rare to find more than two or three players fielding in the deep at any moment in test cricket, and two of them filled by fast bowlers.

 

[greg]

There were a few pretty special catches weren't there.

Thinking back to the Martyn one off Pietersen at Lords.

Now had he spilled that, would that have been a chance or not?

Perhaps Pietersen should have been credited with a 'notout' for that innings?

 

[Swervy]

No form of cricket is in the slightest scientific - it's an absurd little game based on tiny margins where if a ball is an inch either way you can nick it on 0 or go on and get 207 against Australia if it misses.
PLEASE STOP THIS SCIENCE STUFF - it is not the logical way forward. Nothing about cricket, I repeat, is scientific.

I don't mind - that is the point.
Call it an idea or a theory - equal as far as I'm concerned.

No, never let the words creep in where they don't fit anything remotely connected with the thing.

Then you shouldn't be watching cricket - it's innumerably unscientific.
If you expect proof and evidence of everything, you'll eventually dig yourself a hole so deep you'll never escape.

Nothing is impossible. Kevin Pietersen could leap 50 feet in the air and catch something heading out of the ground. And you can do all the scientific testing you want on the matter, you'll still not be able to "prove it impossible".
But realistically it was not remotely likely that Tait would take that catch.

I think this is finally you showing he really doesnt have a clue.

Cricket not scientific- have a look around you, everything boils down to science mate...

If you dont beleive that one biomechanical system launching a projectile towards an another biomechanical system, whilst at the same time, each system is constantly processing information regarding weather conditions, pitch conditions, other players state of mind, match situation isnt a scientific process , you are deluded. There is always a logical explanation for why something happens in this game.

They are reasons why players get the 'scorebook' averages they get, and over time, they get the average they deserve. You think that players like Gilchrist have been lucky over a long period of time....well that luck isnt luck, IF Gilchrist has been dropped more than other players over a long period of time, then there is a reason for it, whether it be how hard he hits it, whether it be more of a mental thing for opposition fielders vs Gilchrist, who really knows...but one thing is for certain, IF he is 'luckier' than other players, it can be boiled down to a certian number of things that Gilchrist knowingly or unknowlingly does or has done in the past.

I beleive in fact that if you get a roulette wheel and you put a bet on a certain number and it comes up, the only lucky element of that is that you guessed the correct number..and it is lucky because we havent got sufficient knowledge in a casino type environment to compute which number the ball would land on. It isnt luck that the ball was going to land on that number though. If we had sufficient data regarding how forceful the wheel was turned, exactly how heavy the ball was, what the coefficient of friction was everywhere on the ball and on the table, exact temperature, humidity and a whole host of other things,(including things we actually dont have an understanding of even now) we could predict exactly what number the ball would end up on every single time.

Now that isnt luck, that is a number of 'scientific' events conspiring to influence the the result. The same goes for a batsman batting and a bowler bowling in cricket. The human body and mind is an extremely sensitive piece of equipment, which is constantly using feedback to assess a situation. If Gilchrist is 'luckier' than most, there is a reason for that, we might not understand what it is, but the reason is out there..

 

[vic_orthdox]

Am I only one who gets the feeling that Richard's views on Pietersen and Clarke's fielding are based largely on the 2020 match at Southampton? Oh and Clarke's ODI debut.



Anyone who has watched England play cricket in recent years knows that one of their major fault is that they don't hit the stumps often enough. (whereas Australia, for example, pride themselves on this and fell below their usual standards in the Ashes series). To dismiss it as a factor when judging a person's fielding suggests a severe deficiency in your understanding of modern cricket.

Also your argument that Pietersen is "a better fielder" because he can catch the ball when fielding in the deep is particularly irrelevant (regardless of how silly it is) because it is rare to find more than two or three players fielding in the deep at any moment in test cricket, and two of them filled by fast bowlers.

One of greater mis-conceptions about the Australian cricket side is that they hit the stumps more regularly than other Test sides. They don't - they hit them more often, because they throw the ball at the stumps a lot more often (see the number of overthrows that they've had in recent times as proof, often when there was no real need to throw the ball in the first place), but in terms of percentage of throws that hit the stumps, they're not better or worse than any other nation - it just seems that way because they hit the stumps more "often".

 

[age_master]

One of greater mis-conceptions about the Australian cricket side is that they hit the stumps more regularly than other Test sides. They don't - they hit them more often, because they throw the ball at the stumps a lot more often (see the number of overthrows that they've had in recent times as proof, often when there was no real need to throw the ball in the first place), but in terms of percentage of throws that hit the stumps, they're not better or worse than any other nation - it just seems that way because they hit the stumps more "often".

interesting thought, i would agree but i would also say that a number of the Australians - Clarke, Ponting, Symonds and Lee - tend to hit the stumps more than others as well.

 

[age_master]

No, very occasionally catches like that get caught, and when they do they're near-miracles.

ahh but they do get caught - thus that would make it a chance.

 

[age_master]

Exactly - and those 2 comments immediately show how flawed it is to introduce subjectivity into something that is suddoedly an objective statistic.

beat me to it

 

[Mister Wright]

interesting thought, i would agree but i would also say that a number of the Australians - Clarke, Ponting, Symonds and Lee - tend to hit the stumps more than others as well.

It's hardly that often. And certainly not that more often than other teams.

 

[greg]

It really, really isn't difficult in the slightest to pick an arm coming over slower. It's harder to pick off-break\back-of-hand actions and darn impossible to pick the Dilhara\McGrath version.
But different balls have different eases of picking, and that must be the first time Harmison has had any effect whatsoever with one of his slower-balls. I'm not even convinced Clarke failed to pick it - he might very well just have played down the wrong line, which ain't something at all unusual - wickets fall to batsmen playing the wrong line almost every game.

For someone with one of the worst slower balls around Harmison is certainly causing a few problems

 

[open365]

when harmison bowled clare and hayden with his slower balls,they both realised they were slower balls but they just couldn't make the mental adjustments to a drastic loss in pace.

i dont think they picked it from the hand,but they realised some where along the line that the ball was going a helluva a lot slower than normal,but with little time to react,they panicked and tried to play it to leg like you do against slow balls but they just couldn't cope with the change of pace and got done all ends up.

if you've ever batted against a good slower ball from a quick bowler you'll know what i mean,you recognise its slower but you just can;t restrain yourself from playing too early.

 

[Mister Wright]

Yet again Clarke fails...nobody except me is surprised. Australia's middle order looks very dodgy now with Clarke at 4 and Katich at 5. Both now average under 40 and questions need to be asked about both their positions. I don't know what is wrong with Katich, until the Ashes tour I thought he had the best technique of all the Australian batsman, must be a mental thing. Now that he is injured he will struggle to hold his place for the 'Gabba test.

As for Clarke his terrible technique against pace was exposed by his dismissal in the 2nd innings. Putting his hand well outside off-stump causing his head to get away from the line of the ball and for his bat to come from well outside off-stump and look to hit through leg when he should have been hitting straight, and of course his half forward, half back approach to playing the quicks has again been exposed as poor.

 

[open365]

^its so annoying for a player of his talent aswell.

i love watching Clarke play because he moves around so much at the crease and allways plays through the line.

the way he manages to get both feet inside the crease when cutting is something i've never seen any batsman do before.

 

[Mister Wright]

^its so annoying for a player of his talent aswell.

i love watching Clarke play because he moves around so much at the crease and allways plays through the line.

the way he manages to get both feet inside the crease when cutting is something i've never seen any batsman do before.

He's one of the best players of spin I have ever seen, he just can't handle pace bowlers.

 

[aussie]

I don't know what is wrong with Katich, until the Ashes tour I thought he had the best technique of all the Australian batsman, must be a mental thing. Now that he is injured he will struggle to hold his place for the 'Gabba test.

dont think aything is really worng with Katich, he looked superb in the ODI's & was unfortunately run out in the 1st innings, plus only Murali gave him a headche, if his injury isn't a worry i wont be surprised if he scores well vs SA & WI(especially).No doubt Australia's middle order looks extremley dodgy i hope if his injury is serious he Martyn is recalled & again Mr.Hodge will have to miss out

 

[Mister Wright]

dont think aything is really worng with Katich, he looked superb in the ODI's & was unfortunately run out in the 1st innings, plus only Murali gave him a headche, if his injury isn't a worry i wont be surprised if he scores well vs SA & WI(especially).No doubt Australia's middle order looks extremley dodgy i hope if his injury is serious he Martyn is recalled & again Mr.Hodge will have to miss out

So I don't repeat myself

 

[aussie]

So I don't repeat myself

ha, i responded in the other thread

 

[SquidAU]

Clarke is not getting many runs of late, although he had a better time of it in England than most of the other batsmen.

I would say if he fails this summer, maybe he should be dropped for a little while to sort out his technique? That being said, now he'll make mountains of runs.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

He's one of the best players of spin I have ever seen, he just can't handle pace bowlers.

Yet in fairly pace-friendly conditions in England he played 90+ mph seamers better than Hayden, Katich, Gilchrist and Martyn.

 

[greg]

Yet in fairly pace-friendly conditions in England he played 90+ mph seamers better than Hayden, Katich, Gilchrist and Martyn.

Which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement...

Also perhaps mention should be made of the time "one of the best players of spin some people have ever seen" got out to "the worst regular spinner in test cricket today"