Michael Clarke's captaincy

[Spark]

No, Ponting doesn't do that at all. I've never seen him do it anyway.

I have never in my entire life seen a captain bring EVERYONE inside the circle except for, say, hatrick balls, or when there's about 3 runs to go. If that's the benchmark for good captaincy...

In LO matches that is.

 

[TumTum]

YouTube - Umbrella Field in a Twenty20 Match!

Voges on a hat-trick, everyone up!!!!!

What about today? Doherty on a hat-trick, and he didn't even have a silly point or short leg, just 2 slips

 

[vic_orthdox]

Renamed the thread so it didn't look like I was making an outlandish statement when I wasn't even the one to start the thread. Hope that's okay, Jack.

Yeah, no worries. Was hoping when I copied that the thread's first post was still made by the original thread starter "Edged&Taken", and that none of the posts in the match thread came before that.

 

[Spark]

YouTube - Umbrella Field in a Twenty20 Match!

Voges on a hat-trick, everyone up!!!!!

What about today? Doherty on a hat-trick, and he didn't even have a silly point or short leg, just 2 slips

So this is how we're judging captaincy now? Whether a hatrick ball has an umbrella field?

---

The only mistake that probably did contribute something to the result I feel was not bowling out Doherty in the PP. Apart from that, everything just turned to ashes in his hands. Bring on a bowler - bowls trash and wides. Set a field - bowler bowls a long hop that doesn't go to his field at all. Can't use his most economical bowler. Runs out of overs for his only other good bowler quickly.

 

[TumTum]

I can't understand how you are calling the bowling thrash. Tell me how many tail-enders can pull a Johnson and Siddle bouncers, considering how many batsmen their injured with those type of deliveries?

I mean it's not like they bowled a slower ball every time, these are good Test match bowlers we are talking about. FFS.

If you can't admit Mendis and Lasith batted well, well I don't know what to say to you.

The only reason why our bowlers got treating this badly was because of the field placements. Tell me how many balls did Malinga hit that could have been caught inside the circle? MANY

As the field was spread at 8/110, Malinga thought to himself "hey why dont i just have a go? big spaces everywhere" And we know the rest. Had the field been up he would have been conscious of lobbing an easy chance to a close fielder, hence played much more in his shell, and edge one behind or something.

Watching this match live I was waiting till Clarke realized there was a good chance that we might lose this game, and attack to finish this game early. It never came.

 

[Spark]

Bad bowling and good batting are not mutually exclusive.

 

[GotSpin]

Siddle bowled particularly awful. Can't blame this on Clarke

 

[vic_orthdox]

The problem was that most of the bouncers were being a cracked out at Matthews, who pulled them wonderfully.

 

[Spark]

Siddle bowled particularly awful. Can't blame this on Clarke

I thought Johnson was worse myself.

They weren't even bouncers though. A proper bouncer gets to head height, those were chest height - long hops.

 

[TumTum]

Bad bowling and good batting are not mutually exclusive.

But how can you judge what quality bowling it was?

If you take the batsmen out of the equation, the bowling looks pretty decent. There were no short and wide ones or anything of that nature.

It was basically good length balls going to the ropes. Why? Because the batsmen had no pressure in the world and freeing their arms. Where does pressure come from? Close in fielders.

 

[Matt79]

Were you watching tonights match? There were wides, there were ill directed short balls, there was too much leg-side dross. It was a poor display from Siddle and Johnson.

 

[TumTum]

Were you watching tonights match? There were wides, there were ill directed short balls, there was too much leg-side dross. It was a poor display from Siddle and Johnson.

True there were wides. But those are not the balls that got put away. Most balls that got put away are the good length ones.

 

[Spark]

But how can you judge what quality bowling it was?

If you take the batsmen out of the equation, the bowling looks pretty decent. There were no short and wide ones or anything of that nature.

It was basically good length balls going to the ropes. Why? Because the batsmen had no pressure in the world and freeing their arms. Where does pressure come from? Close in fielders.

I'd say at least half the runs came from pull shors. There were about 10 wides thrown in there too.

 

[GotSpin]

We were clearly watching a different game. Both Johnson and Siddle bowled trash. Unless Clarke put 3 fielders out on the midwicket boundary he couldn't do anything to stop the flow

 

[TumTum]

I'd say at least half the runs came from pull shors. There were about 10 wides thrown in there too.

Yer but a pull shot is a result of good batting, not poor bowling. On another day Mathews could have pulled that ball like Dilshan and got out.

 

[Spark]

We were clearly watching a different game. Both Johnson and Siddle bowled trash. Unless Clarke put 3 fielders out on the midwicket boundary he couldn't do anything to stop the flow

And another 3 at square leg, and another 3 at fine leg...

---

Are you kidding me? If a half tracker gets bowled it's a **** ball. Needs a good shot to put it away but it's still a **** ball.

 

[GotSpin]

Yer but a pull shot is a result of good batting, not poor bowling. On another day Mathews could have pulled that ball like Dilshan and got out.

That ball was a lot better than the stuff he was serving up later.

 

[TumTum]

Half trackers from bowlers bowling at well over 140 clicks and plenty of Test match experience and well know for their aggressiveness.

Did you ever happen to think that those might be good balls?

 

[Spark]

Nah, not when they got hit for four for about the seventh time.

Once or twice I can get, with runs in the bank, but after that they really should've cottoned on that this guy likes the pull shot.

 

[TumTum]

That ball was a lot better than the stuff he was serving up later.

How will you prove that?