He still only averaged 37. Forget the fact that he batted better than the other batsman, they were all terrible and shouldn't be a measure for judgement of Michael Clarke's performances. You are a good observer of the game of cricket, and it has dumbfounded me why you continue to rate Clarke's technique when it is obviously flawed against the pace bowlers.FaaipDeOiad said:
Not sure this came out entirely right...Mister Wright said:
Lol, yeah, poor choice of phrasing on my part. Clarke's problem's are technical as well as mental.Slow Love™ said:Not sure this came out entirely right...
But yeah, there would have to be some concerns amongst the selectors about the brittle-looking middle order since Martyn got the heave-ho. And Clarke is looking a little vulnerable. I think his problems can be resolved with more mental application though.
Because I don't think his technique is particularly flawed against pace bowlers, I think his temprament is, and they are different problems. Hayden and indeed Ponting have fairly poor techniques against pace bowling. Both make up for it by being unbelievably strong in their strengths (Hayden's drives, Ponting's leg side shots, especially pulls) and having good mental application. Clarke has superb footwork, and is generally quite organised against pace bowling. He's not as good as say Watson or Blewett technically, but he's not anywhere near as flawed as people make out. He does however lose concentration terribly and do things which appear to be technically flawed, like failing to get behind the ball, and playing with his wrists well away from his body and his head in the wrong position. He doesn't do this all the time however, and if you watch him when he gets a start, like many of the 30 odd scores me made in the Ashes, he really looks very good most of the time and then has a lapse.Mister Wright said:
All good points, however you are confusing 'mental lapses' with technical flaws. He plays away from his body all the time. It doesn't matter as much against the spinners because his footwork is unbelieveable against them and can cover up his problems with his hands. However when he plays the paceman he only comes half-forward which is the reason why he has been out bowled and LBW a lot lately. It also means his going to nick more balls than he should. He's not a classical nicker like a Martin Love or Matthew Elliot who tend to do it driving, Clarke does it just hanging his bat out because he doesn't get into the right position to play the ball.FaaipDeOiad said:
Were the conditions that helpful to the bowlers during the Ashes? Lord's apart, it was usually hard work for the quicks unless they could reverse it. Clarke's main claim to fame at present seems to be his newfound status as Harmison's bunny, which puts him in a highly select group in 2005.FaaipDeOiad said:
They weren't that helpful, but there was conventional swing at times, and the more abrasive wickets suited the reverse of Jones and Flintoff. And on most of the wickets when there was cloud cover there was a bit of life in the pitch. Plus, he faced largely very good fast bowling in that series, and certainly wasn't a failure.wpdavid said:
Sure - I'm not saying for a minute he should be axed. And as you mentioned earlier, he did rather better than more experienced campaigners like Hayden, Martyn & Gilchrist. But I have seen far more helpful conditions in previous years, and I still don't think he made the most of them. From an English viewpoint, I thought he had the handy knack of getting out when set, so maybe there's a concentration issue.FaaipDeOiad said:
That's pretty much my opinion as well. In the Ashes, Clarke batted 9 times, and passed 25 on 7 occasions, for one score of 50 and one 91. That's a terrible conversion rate, but it shows that he got a start almost every time. One of the two sub-25 scores was when he had been bedridden until a couple of hours before batting as well. Clarke's problem is his temprament and concentration, not his ability or his technique.wpdavid said:
Yeah, I couldn't believe it when I read that! Now THAT was a ridiculous statement!howardj said:
i can't believe your saying Ponting has a bad technique against pace bowling.FaaipDeOiad said:
have you seen ponting bat? his technique looks susceptible to almost all forms of bowling, and its a credit to him that hes managed to succeed with such a technique.open365 said:
the ball swung conventionally a hell of a lot at Trent Bridgewpdavid said:
I don't think his technique is woeful, and once he gets set he usually tightens it up a bit, but he certainly does have a few problems. It's his amazing eye, his timing, his mental application and his ability to absolutely murder anything in his comfort zone that make him such an accomplished player of pace bowling. Technique isn't everything by a long shot, and the fact that Darren Ganga has a better technique against pace bowling doesn't mean that he's particularly great, while Ponting is slightly flawed and is probably the best player in the world of pace, alongside Kallis.open365 said:
Exactly. The difference between Ponting and Clarke is that Clarke's hands are well away from his body, which causes him all sorts of problems especially to balls pitched up which means he plays across the line and the shortish ball outside offstump which means he pokes at the ball.Top_Cat said:
other than the blatantly obvious flaw of falling over early on in his innings, ponting also plays with extremely hard hands, doesnt play with a straight bat, and tends to play away from his body. however when you consider that marcus trescothick and chris gayle have scored plenty of runs with far worse techniques its not particularly surprising that ponting has done the same. it is however almost a miracle that hes managed to score in seamer friendly conditions all over the world.Top_Cat said:
