Michael Clarke - all hype, no performance

[Richard]

most people who saw him play even at the start of his career knew he would be class, picked as future test captain by Richie Benaud at age 19 if i remember correctly

And that's never happened to anyone else?
People get picked as supposed superstars all the time, and fade away.
Ponting didn't.

 

[Richard]

hes also done nowhere near as badly as certain people like to think

6 Tests averaging 15.14 is exceptionally poor.
And 11 Tests averaging 43 is distinctly average compared to the rest of the Australian batsmen since 2001\02.

 

[Richard]

I think that's probably partly an image thing. None of the others (although I've a feeling Linda will probably disagree about Martyn!) are as photogenic as young Michael.

No, indeed - that wasn't what I meant.
Just that the cases of Langer, Hayden, Stephen Waugh, Martyn, Ponting and Lehmann have an alarming amount in common - a few disjointed games in the first 6 years or more after their debut; then a breakthrough and becoming a regular.
a_m attempted to compare Clarke, and I said it wasn't viable.

The same is true about the clamour to get B Lee back into the test team; it makes debatable cricketing sense to ditch Kasper (FWIW I wouldn't), but perfect marketing sense.

No, it doesn't make debatable cricketing sense, it totally lacks cricketing sense. The only logic is that it's unlikely to damage the chances against New Zealand (I don't know, I hope it might against England but like I say - worst case scenario is Kasp coming back at Trent Bridge with a point to prove) and helps PR.

 

[Richard]

My GOD, Mark Waugh also averaged 138 after his first Test!!

Your number fails to take the following into account; he made his debut in the 1990/91 series against England and was dropped for the fifth Test against India the following summer for poor form for Tom Moody (along with Geoff Marsh who was dropped for Wayne Phillips, the ultimate one-Test wonder) after a series where his scores when this way:

11, 34, 5, 18, 15, 0.

Then he was recalled for the series in SL away where his scores were just a little worse:

5, 56, 0, 0, 0, 0.

It was only after that series in SL that he started to build his career back up again. But I would say that the Aussie selectors were quite generous to him in the early days when a slump like that is taken into account.

He's always had shockers in Sri Lanka, averages 9 there in 10 innings, half of which have been ducks.
Yes, I know his debut did make a difference, but nonetheless, he started well even if you knock his debut off.
Just saying that he certainly took a little while longer to start struggling than Clarke has.

 

[Richard]

Dunno!

But I bet I know a woman who does!

Or a girl.

 

[Richard]

ofcourse

Yes, of course, d'you really think I haven't watched him score runs?

 

[Richard]

i meant steve waugh

Stephen Waugh was different again, it took him a long LONG time to get settled.

 

[aussie]

aussie

Stephen Waugh was different again, it took him a long LONG time to get settled.

well to settle in to test cricket, i think it tookhim 4 years to score a test hunderd, but he settled well into the aussie one-day team with his good all-round ability

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Well it's not like that's a particularly rare occurrance.

I love how you form an immediate opinion about some attribute of a player and stick to it like glue regardless how how blatantly wrong it is later shown to be. Clarke is unquestionably among the best fielders in the world... in the top 10. I can't imagine that anybody who has watched him play recently would disagree with that. He is a shade behind Andrew Symonds in terms of catching ability and his arm from the outfield isn't anything particularly special, but there's probably nobody in the world who can match him for ability in throwing down the stumps from mid to close range - he's been almost flawless of late.

Nevertheless, because he dropped a couple of catches in his first TWO tests, you stick to the clearly inaccurate belief that he is a bad fielder. Tell me, when was the last time this "not particularly rare occurance" actually occured?

 

[Jnr.]

Tell me, when was the last time this "not particularly rare occurance" actually occured?

Two Tests ago, at slip to Warne.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Two Tests ago, at slip to Warne.

'

Yeah, but Richard didn't watch that match.

Aside from that I can't recall him dropping anything since the tour of India.

 

[age_master]

Yes, of course, d'you really think I haven't watched him score runs?

based on what you say i would doubt you have ever seen the Aussie team play...

 

[mavric41]

I love how you form an immediate opinion about some attribute of a player and stick to it like glue regardless how how blatantly wrong it is later shown to be. Clarke is unquestionably among the best fielders in the world... in the top 10. I can't imagine that anybody who has watched him play recently would disagree with that. He is a shade behind Andrew Symonds in terms of catching ability and his arm from the outfield isn't anything particularly special, but there's probably nobody in the world who can match him for ability in throwing down the stumps from mid to close range - he's been almost flawless of late.

Nevertheless, because he dropped a couple of catches in his first TWO tests, you stick to the clearly inaccurate belief that he is a bad fielder. Tell me, when was the last time this "not particularly rare occurance" actually occured?

I wouldn't say that his catching is anything particularly special (not that its bad) but his ground fielding and runouts have been excellant.

 

[vic_orthdox]

personally, i think he's fielding has been outstanding, when he hasn't been in the slip cordon. was suprised to see him slide into the cordon so quickly...probably the only cricket team in australia where the rookie would go straight into slips!

 

[vic_orthdox]

and i think that ricky ponting was quite the wonderchild. gray nicholls were sponsoring him from the age of 12, IIRC. pity for them he have them the shaft

 

[aussie]

aussie

i think that ricky ponting was quite the wonderchild. gray nicholls were sponsoring him from the age of 12

really thats impressive

 

[chekmeout]

and i think that ricky ponting was quite the wonderchild. gray nicholls were sponsoring him from the age of 12, IIRC. pity for them he have them the shaft

A *little* off-topic here ... Is Gray Nicholls Aussie or English??

 

[chekmeout]

CricInfo Article
http://usa.cricinfo.com/link_to_dat...S/2005/MAR/214486_NZAUS2004-05_25MAR2005.html


Australia in New Zealand 2004-05

Ponting advises Clarke on slump

Cricinfo staff

March 25, 2005

Ricky Ponting has counselled Michael Clarke about the pressures of maintaining youthful batting form as Australia's golden child suffers his first Test slump. Clarke, who had a mix of tonsilitis and food poisioning before the Wellington draw, burst into the game with hundreds on home-and-away debut, but since his 141 at the Gabba he has added 106 runs in seven attempts.

The New Zealand tour has included a pair of 8s and Ponting said he took Clarke, 23, aside at the Basin Reserve to talk about the dangers of being young and talented. Ponting is a perfect example after making 96 as a 20-year-old on debut and then running into troubles on and off the field.

"I had a really good chat to him during the last Test about coming in and getting off to a flying start in Test cricket and things not going as you would like them to," Ponting said in the Sydney Morning Herald. "As a young bloke you want to make things happen quickly and you want to go out there and play the best you can on every occasion. It just doesn't work that way."

Ponting took his time working out his best method of preparation and dealing with patches of below-par form, and he said it would be difficult for Clarke to maintain his high standards. "His demeanour hasn't changed at all," he said. "He's got very high expectations of himself and he wants to do very well at this level. He's been a little disappointed with the way he has played in the first two Test matches."

Clarke has completed extra net sessions this week to prepare for tomorrow's Test – his 12th – and also found the comeback tales of Lance Armstrong and Sugar Ray Leonard for motivation. "He's worked hard and he feels as though he's hitting the ball better now," Ponting said. "I would expect runs aren't very far away for him at all."

New Zealand have picked the Marshall twins and Ponting said James would be under pressure following his brother Hamish's stunning century in the first Test at Christchurch. "He'll have those things in the back of his mind and then to come out and face our attack, which is a very, very good one, will make it even harder for him," he said. Ponting couldn't tell the brothers apart when they wore the same shoes during the one-day series, but James will be opening and Hamish will bat No. 3.

© Cricinfo

 

[aussie]

aussie

thanks for posting that article mate, i was just about to mention it, especially the part about Ponting's little problems when he came into the australian side

 

[Richard]

I love how you form an immediate opinion about some attribute of a player and stick to it like glue regardless how how blatantly wrong it is later shown to be.

I love the way you post this in exactly the same way marc does...
I form an opinion (not neccessarily immidiately) and don't change it just because something has contradicted it over a short period... for instance, I was not willing to acknowledge that Flintoff had improved as a batsman just because of summer 2003, I waited for summer 2004. I refused to say that Harmison had improved because of 7 Tests in early 2004... and lo-and-behold, I might just have been right.
If something has changed, it takes more than 2 or 3 demonstrations for me to believe it's perminant. And let's just see how Clarke fields in The Ashes... I'll not be surprised if he drops a vital catch or two... just hope it's off Strauss, Vaughan or Thorpe not Trescothick or Flintoff.

Clarke is unquestionably among the best fielders in the world... in the top 10. I can't imagine that anybody who has watched him play recently would disagree with that. He is a shade behind Andrew Symonds in terms of catching ability and his arm from the outfield isn't anything particularly special, but there's probably nobody in the world who can match him for ability in throwing down the stumps from mid to close range - he's been almost flawless of late.

Nevertheless, because he dropped a couple of catches in his first TWO tests, you stick to the clearly inaccurate belief that he is a bad fielder.

I'd realised he was a poor fielder long before he made his Test-debut, I saw and heard of him dropped a whole shedload of catches in ODIs.
And I don't, frankly, give a flying fu<k how many times he chucks down the stumps, he gets a whole shedload of undeserved credit for that - taking catches and picking-up cleanly is what fielding is about, not hitting the stumps. You want to hit the stumps, take-up bowling.

Tell me, when was the last time this "not particularly rare occurance" actually occured?

Yeah, but Richard didn't watch that match.

Aside from that I can't recall him dropping anything since the tour of India.

So? Just because I didn't watch doesn't mean I didn't know about it.