Michael Clarke - all hype, no performance

[Shaggy Alfresco]

http://cricketweb.net/forum/showpost.php?p=437333&postcount=173

Coco: What about all those run-outs?

Richard: Run-outs don't matter because I have decided that there are more than 30 times more catches in a game.

 

[Mister Wright]

Yeah, that makes sense. Let's give Clarke all the chances in the world and give Symonds just one game. Good call!

I mean Clarke would have been just as likely to score a hundred in Adelaide then go another year without a test century and learnt absolutely nothing about his game. The dropping will be the making of him as a player. He will be one of three players - the next Ponting, the next Blewett or the next (whoever didn't make it back). Time will tell.

What a post!

 

[Perm]

You didn't even watch the bloody series. The only pitch in that series which was not a big turner is Nagpur, and even that had more spin than your average Australian wicket. The other three were big turners.

Funny how unsuccessful most spinners were at Bangalore, then.

 

[Perm]

What the bowler minds is not the issue - what matters is whether or not it was a good ball, and the Harmison slower-ball is never a good ball because it's so obvious.

 

[SJS]

all hype, no performance...

I don't get this. Is Clarke indulging in hype(rbole) instead of performing ?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Richard will come into this thread and argue that Clarke actually WAS a bad fielder, because of a couple of dropped catches, and that he has simply improved since then, and that everyone who realised Clarke was a fantastic fielder was in fact wrong. After all, stopping the ball and throwing down the stumps are irrelevant, dropped catches over the course of a couple of matches are everything.

 

[Craig]

Richard will come into this thread and argue that Clarke actually WAS a bad fielder, because of a couple of dropped catches, and that he has simply improved since then, and that everyone who realised Clarke was a fantastic fielder was in fact wrong. After all, stopping the ball and throwing down the stumps are irrelevant, dropped catches over the course of a couple of matches are everything.

If that's not a sarcastic back-handed compliment then what is?

 

[pup11]

I think both Clarke and Hussey had similar starts to their careers, both had a tremendous first season of international cricket and there was a lot of media hype and buzz surrounding them thereafter, but the difference is Hussey with all his experience and maturity was able to handle his success better than Clarke and Clarke somewhere down the line got bogged down with the pressure of expectations that people had of him.
But since Clarke's dropping he has comeback as a better player and as stronger individual so lets hope he can raise the bar of his game even further and make a mark in Australian and world cricket history in the years to come.
Btw i would like to believe that Richard's comment about being a bad fielder was a joke otherwise its a seriously dire comment!

 

[Son Of Coco]

Richard will come into this thread and argue that Clarke actually WAS a bad fielder, because of a couple of dropped catches, and that he has simply improved since then, and that everyone who realised Clarke was a fantastic fielder was in fact wrong. After all, stopping the ball and throwing down the stumps are irrelevant, dropped catches over the course of a couple of matches are everything.

I don't remember him dropping that many catches. I do remember him taking some good ones. Then again, I was actually watching some of the games, and it's become apparent to me now that this the worst possible way to make a judgement on someone's abilities.

 

[Richard]

Richard will come into this thread and argue that Clarke actually WAS a bad fielder, because of a couple of dropped catches, and that he has simply improved since then, and that everyone who realised Clarke was a fantastic fielder was in fact wrong. After all, stopping the ball and throwing down the stumps are irrelevant, dropped catches over the course of a couple of matches are everything.

Pretty much. Clarke was a bad fielder at the time, he's not been of late. And because of far more than "a couple" of dropped catches.

People who thought he might become better weren't wrong, obviously, but there weren't actually many of them - most were arguing - erroneously - that Clarke had already fielded well in his career, which he hadn't.

Throwing down the stumps is indeed nothing compared to taking catches. The chance for a direct-hit runout is miniscule compared to the chance for a catch. If someone can throw down the stumps but can't catch, that makes them a poor fielder.

 

[Richard]

So then - how is a slower-ball that's patently obvious and hence will be picked pretty much every time a good ball then?

 

[Richard]

Coco: What about all those run-outs?

Richard: Run-outs don't matter because I have decided that there are more than 30 times more catches in a game.

I haven't decided it, it's just the way things are.

 

[Laurrz]

It's amazing to think he is only 26.....

another decade of watching him playing international cricket... amazing..

pleasure to watch as well..always like watching him bat... our best player of spin and how crucial he will be at #5

handy bowler and probably our second if not best fielder in the team...

 

[Johnners]

Pretty much. Clarke was a bad fielder at the time, he's not been of late. And because of far more than "a couple" of dropped catches.

People who thought he might become better weren't wrong, obviously, but there weren't actually many of them - most were arguing - erroneously - that Clarke had already fielded well in his career, which he hadn't.

Throwing down the stumps is indeed nothing compared to taking catches. The chance for a direct-hit runout is miniscule compared to the chance for a catch. If someone can throw down the stumps but can't catch, that makes them a poor fielder.

Hahahaha, you just don't get it do you, you're wrong! Clarke is, and always has been an excellent fielder. Doesn't it strike you as a little odd that you seem to be only one who remembers this so called plethora of dropped catches and poor fielding?

 

[Richard]

Nope. I'm not wrong, I'd not have said what I said if it'd been wrong.

Clarke was a poor fielder, I called him for that when most people were too obsessed with his youth and athleticism to notice, and I was right.

Clarke has since become a better fielder. He misfielded loads back in 2004, he's barely misfielded at all of late. That is going from a poor fielder to a good one.

 

[Laurrz]

actually i have heard that he was ordinary for NSW in the past in the field..which really surprised me.. just watching him field now ...so much talent

 

[pasag]

Richard, why is it so hard to accept that he was a brilliant fielder before you saw him and he has been a brilliant one since and the games you saw him were merely an aberration? It's not so bad to draw conclusions like that from the few games you saw him, everyone does it and hey, you were wrong, that also happens to everyone. A normal person would accept that, but this bloodymindedness is astounding and quite frankly disappointing.

 

[CrazY GirL]

I think everybdoy gets some bad time in his career itz quiete acceptable

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

Nope. I'm not wrong, I'd not have said what I said if it'd been wrong.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Richard, why is it so hard to accept that he was a brilliant fielder before you saw him and he has been a brilliant one since and the games you saw him were merely an aberration? It's not so bad to draw conclusions like that from the few games you saw him, everyone does it and hey, you were wrong, that also happens to everyone. A normal person would accept that, but this bloodymindedness is astounding and quite frankly disappointing.

Many of Richard's post show an appalling lack of insight for someone who spends half his life on a cricket forum, there's no point arguing, just have a giggle to yourself and move on.
A combination of Narcissism and Aspergers in quite rare so the forum should be honoured.