Michael Clarke - all hype, no performance

[Eclipse]

Hmm, so how come you can't take the same criticism of Australian batsmen then?

who said I can't?

Clarke is the same Hayden is and Katich.

 

[Eclipse]

Don't you start that rubbish either.

He was the second-highest aggregate scorer in the 2005 Ashes behind KP - and I hardly think that Australia 2005, even with a half-fit McGrath, can be considered to be not 'good bowlers'.

well I would argue they are.. Lee bowled half vollys to him consistantly same with Tait

PLUS several chances where not taken off him.

 

[tooextracool]

Doesn't matter what you do before the ball is bowled. Ponting is USUALLY still when the ball is bowled, and so the end result is the same as anyone who doesn't have a shuffle. Shuffling across means stuff all.

its not about how still he is, its about the fact that when the ball is coming in, he locks himself in such a position that if he misses the ball hes going to be plumb lbw.

 

[tooextracool]

Gayle's is horrible yes,but Trescothick's has a great technique.

he doesn't move his feet,but his balance is terrific and he allways plays of a solid base with his head in line with the ball.

Watching him this year,he looks to have sorted out his problem with balls outside the off-stump so he's looks pretty sound.

are you serious? trescothick has a great technique?
he doesnt move his feet one bit and his head is almost never in position. infact the only difference between gayle and trescothicks technique is that trescothick plays with a straighter bat than chris gayle.

 

[tooextracool]

Don't you start that rubbish either.

He was the second-highest aggregate scorer in the 2005 Ashes behind KP - and I hardly think that Australia 2005, even with a half-fit McGrath, can be considered to be not 'good bowlers'.

so what would you classify tait, gillespie at his worst, mcgrath half fit and lee as being then? the only reason this australian attack in the ashes was even remotely close to good was because shane warne was part of it.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes and yes.

However, if the best bowlers in the world (and two of the greatest of all time) cannot expose it as a problem, then guess what?

It isn't one.

End of story.

especially when you consider that everytime he got past 50 in the series, he had at least one let off. not to mention the fact that not a single aussie bowler got swing or seam consistently at any point in time during the last 4 tests of the series.

 

[Jono]

are you serious? trescothick has a great technique?
he doesnt move his feet one bit and his head is almost never in position. infact the only difference between gayle and trescothicks technique is that trescothick plays with a straighter bat than chris gayle.

Its so funny seeing TEC smile

 

[marc71178]

who said I can't?

Whenever Ponting is criticised...

 

[luckyeddie]

especially when you consider that everytime he got past 50 in the series, he had at least one let off. not to mention the fact that not a single aussie bowler got swing or seam consistently at any point in time during the last 4 tests of the series.

Richard?

Is that you? We'll be on to 'first chance averages' next.

Having a go at Trescothick for surviving chances is like criticising Churchy or Flintoff for always having a let-off. Both are 'loose' players, and both have more than their fair share of chances because they absolutely wallop the ball.

Trescothick has an obvious weakness - lack of foot movement causing him to be suspect when playing at the ball leaving him outside off stump. It is also the area that is his strength as far as scoring is concerned. The way he has countered the weakness is to continue going after the ball in that area extremely hard.

 

[Eclipse]

Whenever Ponting is criticised...

Well do you think in this case the critercisim is fair?

If it was reasonable like saying his techneque is valnerable to LBW's then yes i would agree..

In this case I disagree with what's being said.. And him being an aussie I will defend him.

 

[gs_86]

Vulnerable to lb's? When he first gets in, and he hasn't got his balance or the pace of the pitch right. I doubt he gets out lb much for more than 20

Edit - it's a bit sticky in here, isn't it?

 

[Eclipse]

Vulnerable to lb's? When he first gets in, and he hasn't got his balance or the pace of the pitch right. I doubt he gets out lb much for more than 20

Edit - it's a bit sticky in here, isn't it?

yeah i agree but before that he is vulnerable if the ball is moving in to him.

 

[marc71178]

Well do you think in this case the critercisim is fair?

If it was reasonable like saying his techneque is valnerable to LBW's then yes i would agree..

In this case I disagree with what's being said.. And him being an aussie I will defend him.

What about the record in India?

 

[Eclipse]

What about the record in India?

what about it?

does it have anything to do with what we where talking about?

 

[marc71178]

It's an example of the exact thing I'm talking about.

 

[Eclipse]

It's an example of the exact thing I'm talking about.

Well maybe you should get on topic then..

I hate to call you a bumb *** but c'mon, who exactly is going to deffend Pontings record in Inida??? And how does it relate to the origanal topic being discussed.

I have defended his play against spin in general yes but in India I can't and won't.

 

[marc71178]

Except you did try to.

 

[Eclipse]

Except you did try to.

show me where I did then.

All i've said Is I think he would do better of he played there again some time soon.. which is pretty reasonable considering he averages 12 there..

you are always getting into arguments with me that you can never win... usualy because you are trying to argue something not relevent to the topic at hand..

I've got not idea how you have managed to make this one about Pontings record in India but no doubt it's because you couldn't win the origanal argument.

 

[tooextracool]

Richard?

Is that you? We'll be on to 'first chance averages' next.

Having a go at Trescothick for surviving chances is like criticising Churchy or Flintoff for always having a let-off. Both are 'loose' players, and both have more than their fair share of chances because they absolutely wallop the ball.

Trescothick has an obvious weakness - lack of foot movement causing him to be suspect when playing at the ball leaving him outside off stump. It is also the area that is his strength as far as scoring is concerned. The way he has countered the weakness is to continue going after the ball in that area extremely hard.

flintoff played plenty of chanceless innings in the ashes too unlike tresco. point though is that despite playing against an ordinary pace attack on flat tracks trescothick needed a let off to get past 50 each time, and that says a fair bit about how fortunate hes been over his career. and if you honestly believe that tresco has countered the weakness by going extremely hard at the ball in that area, then you've clearly not been watching. hes obviously made an effort to try and solve that weakness recently, and what hes tried to do(At least in SA and in the 2nd innings at Lords) is leave everything thats at the perfect length outside the off stump. however with b.lee, gillespie and co bowling half volleys outside the off stump he got plenty of scoring opportunities and very few opportunities to leave those deliveries. if what you say were true, then we wouldnt constantly witness trescothick fall victim to the same ball in ODIs as he did throughout the natwest series.

 

[Mister Wright]

Yet another failure. How long will the selectors let this go on?

All hype, no performance.