Michael Clarke - all hype, no performance

[age_master]

Why? What'd be the point in that?
And yes, I've called people stupid at times - if they've said, for instance, that Hayden scored a century in England in 2001.
Or if they've stated that something that is factually correct is not the case.
Otherwise, I haven't.

your 'facts' while sometimes right, are often not representative of the big picture, and as such are wrong.

 

[aussie]

aussie

gosh people, we all are down on richard today

 

[marc71178]

It's possible to know that there are certain rules with barely an exception, yes.

Right so without watching these players you can write them off and contradict the views of people who've actually seen them performing?

 

[Mr Casson]

gosh people, we all are down on richard today

Gee whillikers, Batman!

 

[aussie]

aussie

Gee whillikers, Batman!

ur sarcasm is quite dull mate

 

[Mr Casson]

ur sarcasm is quite dull mate

So it'll get on well with you, then.

 

[aussie]

aussie

So it'll get on well with you, then.

ha ha , whatever

 

[Richard]

exactly what im talking about

with you you dont get a discussion, its all 'im right and your wrong'

Exactly - if I think they know better than me, I tend not to volunteer information at all, merely listen to what is being said.
If, however, I think I know, then I do think I'm right and they're wrong - and people don't often persuade me to change my views unless something effecting that view changes.

 

[Richard]

your 'facts' while sometimes right, are often not representative of the big picture, and as such are wrong.

A fact is a fact.
Whether or not it's "reprisentative of the big picture" doesn't alter that.

 

[Richard]

Right so without watching these players you can write them off and contradict the views of people who've actually seen them performing?

If there are certain principles, yes.
Especially given that one principle is people tend to be hugely optimistic about young players, I do tend rather a lot to not take praise of them too seriously.

 

[age_master]

A fact is a fact.
Whether or not it's "reprisentative of the big picture" doesn't alter that.

yes but your whole opinion is based on your 'facts' which means you dont always understand the greater context meaning that your are often quite wrong. people just cant be stuffed arguing about it

 

[Richard]

I understand what is interpreted to be the wider context.
Sometimes I don't agree with that general interpretation.

 

[age_master]

only sometimes?

 

[Richard]

Yes, believe it or not, only sometimes.

 

[Mister Wright]

Well, Micheal Clarke & Micheal Kasprowicz both finished with 38 runs for the series. All hype & No performance.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Well, Micheal Clarke & Micheal Kasprowicz both finished with 38 runs for the series. All hype & No performance.

It won't last, he's a class player. It's worth noting that Kasprowicz averaged almost 40 for the series with the ball, and Gillespie averaged about the same, so it's not only Clarke who had a rough time of it.

 

[C_C]

You can only HOPE it doesnt last, Faaip..as do i...but there is no garantee that class equals performance...if it were so, Graeme Hick and Carl hooper would've been counted amongst the greatest batsmen ever.

 

[Son Of Coco]

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.

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.

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

hahahahahahahahaha...so when you hit the stumps and the guy is out this is not a good thing? I think you'll find part of what leads up to a run out is the ball being 'picked up cleanly'.

Having seen Clarke field out here this summer I think he goes alright.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

You can only HOPE it doesnt last, Faaip..as do i...but there is no garantee that class equals performance...if it were so, Graeme Hick and Carl hooper would've been counted amongst the greatest batsmen ever.

Fine, but I think it won't last, and accusing someone of being nothing but hype when they are among the top ODI batsmen in the world and have had a few poor months in test cricket is pretty ridiculous.

 

[Son Of Coco]

No surprises there. Because I form my own ideas instead of taking as gospel what everyone else takes as gospel...

what if you're wrong...

Just because an idea is original doesn't make it a good one. I don't ask anyone else what they think when forming my opinons on cricketers etc either Richard, but having played for a while I find quite a bit of what you say very strange. As I said in another thread, it's all about getting the basics first - then improvise...like cricket really.