Michael Clarke - all hype, no performance

[Goughy]

A combination of Narcissism and Aspergers in quite rare so the forum should be honoured.

Would love to see Richard debating with another cricket obsessed Aspergers sufferer.

Would cause the internet to explode

 

[Perm]

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

You seem to suggest that Harmison will never be able to bowl a good slower ball, which completely contradicts your argument in other threads that poor bowlers will bowl well if given enough chances.

 

[Richard]

I've never said Harmison can't ever bowl a good slower-ball. Merely that the slower-ball he has bowled all his career is a useless one.

It's not a case of giving him enough chances, though - this case refers to the ability to produce a single delivery; when I say "anyone will bowl well if given enough chances" I don't mean bowl one particular type of delivery, I mean bowl a good spell\game\etc.

 

[Richard]

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.

Most people who once thought this way have realised the error of their ways. Maybe one day you might join their ranks.

Of course, plenty of people never thought it ITFP.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Most people who once thought this way have realised the error of their ways. Maybe one day you might join their ranks.

Of course, plenty of people never thought it ITFP.

****Reads message, giggles, and moves on.******

 

[Perm]

I've never said Harmison can't ever bowl a good slower-ball. Merely that the slower-ball he has bowled all his career is a useless one.

It's not a case of giving him enough chances, though - this case refers to the ability to produce a single delivery; when I say "anyone will bowl well if given enough chances" I don't mean bowl one particular type of delivery, I mean bowl a good spell\game\etc.

You said that "the Harmison slower-ball is never a good ball because it's so obvious", indicating he can't ever deliver a good slower-ball (obviously this refers to the one he bowls, because it's probably the one he feels most comfortable with).

The principle is the same. If given enough chances, the bowler will get it right. By this line of thinking, you can out-bowl Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne but Steve Harmison will never bowl a good slower-ball.

 

[Richard]

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.

It wasn't a few games, though. If it'd been 3 or 4 games that I'd based the conclusion on, yeah, sure, I'd have accepted that I probably jumped to said conclusion too soon.

Thing is, though, this is something I don't do, and we've seen many times people saying far too soon that someone's good\bad, whereas I generally wait far longer than most to form an opinion.

There's no two ways about the fact Clarke's fielding - over a course of a good 10 times in the field or so, maybe even more - was often poor. Now, so many looked at his athleticism and dead-eye arm and said "brilliant fielder"; I looked at his poor handwork and said "not that good, and certainly nowhere near as good as everyone's saying".

Now, if there were people who told us that he was brilliant (in all departments) in 2002, then that he was poor in 2004, and has since become better again, and that 2004 was merely an aberration, I'd happily accept that.

However, I've yet to meet a single person who's acknowledged that his fielding in 2004, for the most part, was poor. They're too blinded by the fact that he was an athlete with a great arm.

Added, obviously, to the fact that few if any would have been regular studiers of his fielding before he played his first ODI.

It shouldn't really matter, of course, because that was only a brief time and I can't remember the last time I saw Clarke field poorly. But of course, any chance for a "hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Richard you were wrong" must be taken, for so many. And any straw which can be clutched at will be.

 

[Richard]

You said that "the Harmison slower-ball is never a good ball because it's so obvious", indicating he can't ever deliver a good slower-ball (obviously this refers to the one he bowls, because it's probably the one he feels most comfortable with).

The principle is the same. If given enough chances, the bowler will get it right. By this line of thinking, you can out-bowl Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne but Steve Harmison will never bowl a good slower-ball.

Stephen Harmison could bowl a good slower-ball, but only if he develops a new way of bowling it.

Nonetheless, a more accurately phrased thing to say would be "the Harmison slower-ball has never been a good one to date because it's so obvious". Though I would be rather surprised if he ever managed to develop a decent one TBH.

 

[Perm]

Stephen Harmison could bowl a good slower-ball, but only if he develops a new way of bowling it.

Nonetheless, a more accurately phrased thing to say would be "the Harmison slower-ball has never been a good one to date because it's so obvious". Though I would be rather surprised if he ever managed to develop a decent one TBH.

You seem intent on taking credit away from Steve Hamrison whenever you get the chance, and it's becoming rather tiresome. Sitting on your arse and watching the cricket on TV is a lot different to being in the middle to play in a Test or ODI, yet you think that because you can pick Harmison's slower ball that the batsman should be able to do it also. This argument has been raised against you in the past, but I find it particularly fitting. You don't understand cricket, it's pretty simple. You base your arguments on numbers, often without having seen a particular player play the game, in the case of Umar Gul. And obviously a track isn't a turner if spin bowlers don't take wickets, or so you seem to think. Batting in the middle of a Test match requires supreme concentration, the ability to block out every noise and focus solely on the bowlers arm. Sometimes the bowler can get the better of the batsman with a slower ball because he fails to pick it due to it the delivery being disguised in some way. Yes this does happen with Steve Harmison.

But obviously your powers of concentration are far better than Test batsman.

 

[Johnners]

It wasn't a few games, though. If it'd been 3 or 4 games that I'd based the conclusion on, yeah, sure, I'd have accepted that I probably jumped to said conclusion too soon.

Thing is, though, this is something I don't do, and we've seen many times people saying far too soon that someone's good\bad, whereas I generally wait far longer than most to form an opinion.

There's no two ways about the fact Clarke's fielding - over a course of a good 10 times in the field or so, maybe even more - was often poor. Now, so many looked at his athleticism and dead-eye arm and said "brilliant fielder"; I looked at his poor handwork and said "not that good, and certainly nowhere near as good as everyone's saying".

Now, if there were people who told us that he was brilliant (in all departments) in 2002, then that he was poor in 2004, and has since become better again, and that 2004 was merely an aberration, I'd happily accept that.

However, I've yet to meet a single person who's acknowledged that his fielding in 2004, for the most part, was poor. They're too blinded by the fact that he was an athlete with a great arm.

Added, obviously, to the fact that few if any would have been regular studiers of his fielding before he played his first ODI.

It shouldn't really matter, of course, because that was only a brief time and I can't remember the last time I saw Clarke field poorly. But of course, any chance for a "hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Richard you were wrong" must be taken, for so many. And any straw which can be clutched at will be.

You don't know that, to me the fact that you are yet to meet a single person who agrees with you on the issue speaks volumes.

 

[Perm]

But of course, any chance for a "hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Richard you were wrong" must be taken, for so many. And any straw which can be clutched at will be.

Only because it's so satisfying, as you seem unable to admit you were wrong.

 

[sideshowtim]

Poor form by Richard. Man up and admit you were wrong mate.

 

[Richard]

You seem intent on taking credit away from Steve Hamrison whenever you get the chance

I'm intent only on taking away credit that people give erroneously - and they tend to do this more often with Harmison than most.

Sitting on your arse and watching the cricket on TV is a lot different to being in the middle to play in a Test or ODI, yet you think that because you can pick Harmison's slower ball that the batsman should be able to do it also.

It's not a case of they should - they can and do, and have done countless times. As they almost always will do with any bowler who simply bowls a slower-ball by slowing down his arm speed.

This argument has been raised against you in the past, but I find it particularly fitting. You don't understand cricket, it's pretty simple. You base your arguments on numbers, often without having seen a particular player play the game, in the case of Umar Gul.

As does everyone else. No-one has seen every cricketer ever to play the game, but you can tell who's done well and who hasn't. It's not rocket-science.

And obviously a track isn't a turner if spin bowlers don't take wickets, or so you seem to think.

No, I don't. There are quite a few tracks that I've called as turners which certain spinners haven't taken wickets on.

Batting in the middle of a Test match requires supreme concentration, the ability to block out every noise and focus solely on the bowlers arm. Sometimes the bowler can get the better of the batsman with a slower ball because he fails to pick it due to it the delivery being disguised in some way. Yes this does happen with Steve Harmison.

It's never happened once yet that I've seen. Harmison's slower-delivery isn't even disguised, in any way - as I said above, he just slows down his arm-speed. Any fool can pick this.

 

[Richard]

You don't know that, to me the fact that you are yet to meet a single person who agrees with you on the issue speaks volumes.

Yes, it speaks volumes about the fact that so many will see an athlete with a good arm and say "good fielder" even if his hands are poor.

 

[Johnners]

Yes, it speaks volumes about the fact that so many will see an athlete with a good arm and say "good fielder" even if his hands are poor.

As i said, you don't know that, unless of course you can read peoples minds...

 

[Richard]

Only because it's so satisfying, as you seem unable to admit you were wrong.

I won't admit I'm wrong, no, unless I am so, and people banging-on in said manner will if anything only make it less, not more, likely.

If I'd said "Clarke will never be a good fielder" I'd happily admit I was wrong, but I obviously wasn't stupid enough to say that. Of course, some (like Fuller) will have you believe that calling someone poor means you're automatically saying they'll always be poor, possibly because it's difficult to argue against someone who doesn't stick their neck out very often and try to predict what someone will be in the future and many like to be able to prove wrong as often as possible.

 

[Perm]

I'm intent only on taking away credit that people give erroneously - and they tend to do this more often with Harmison than most.

And why does this happen with Harmison? Is it impossible to accept the fact that he can bowl well at times. Your judgement is severly clouded on this particular issue.

It's not a case of they should - they can and do, and have done countless times. As they almost always will do with any bowler who simply bowls a slower-ball by slowing down his arm speed.

The slower delivery does infact out-fox some batsman though, as it did with Michael Clarke in the 2005 Ashes, which I beleive is where this argument stemmed from.

As does everyone else. No-one has seen every cricketer ever to play the game, but you can tell who's done well and who hasn't. It's not rocket-science.

You are taking a very extreme stance. Of course people can work out that Sir Donald Bradman was the best Test batsman of all-time, and that Rawl Lewis was a terrible Test bowler. I am talking about players like Umar Gul, whose career you dismissed as rubbish after only seeing him bowl once.

No, I don't. There are quite a few tracks that I've called as turners which certain spinners haven't taken wickets on.

I've seen you do it countless number of times, and you did so earlier in this particular thread. I can't remember the exact quote and I can't be arsed going to find it, but it was something along the lines of "Only one pitch in this series was a turner, as the spin bowlers didn't take wickets on the others"

It's never happened once yet that I've seen. Harmison's slower-delivery isn't even disguised, in any way - as I said above, he just slows down his arm-speed. Any fool can pick this.

It's disguised in the fact that he bowls it, yet it doesn't come out like a normal Harmison delivery. Oh, and you're calling people fools because they aren't up to your so called intellect. How very mature.

 

[Richard]

As i said, you don't know that, unless of course you can read peoples minds...

I can read (and listen to) what people say and write, and all the praise he received for his fielding centred around this, and neglected the fact that he misfielded often.

 

[Perm]

I won't admit I'm wrong, no, unless I am so, and people banging-on in said manner will if anything only make it less, not more, likely.

If I'd said "Clarke will never be a good fielder" I'd happily admit I was wrong, but I obviously wasn't stupid enough to say that. Of course, some (like Fuller) will have you believe that calling someone poor means you're automatically saying they'll always be poor, possibly because it's difficult to argue against someone who doesn't stick their neck out very often and try to predict what someone will be in the future and many like to be able to prove wrong as often as possible.

No, it seems to me you won't admit you were wrong because you're afraid of the ridicule that you will receive. Ridicule that would be rightly administered, might I add.

 

[Johnners]

I can read (and listen to) what people say and write, and all the praise he received for his fielding centred around this, and neglected the fact that he misfielded often.

And you don't find it the least bit strange, that of the thousands of people you've encountered and no doubt discussed this situation with, that not one single other person believes that at one stage Michael Clarke was a poor fielder?

Seriously, wake up out of Richardland and get with it.