|
Averages 51 with the bat and 32 with the ball! He's the new Garry Sobers!
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 14:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 13:11 |
|
|
Doctor Cave posted:Well, I guess he has to be a spinner. Or a pancake attendant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 14:45
|
|
|
tanglewood1420 posted:Averages 51 with the bat and 32 with the ball! He's the new Garry Sobers! Knight him right away imo e: Haven't seen this posted, pretty solid discussion about Clarke and his place in the side, worth a read http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2013/jul/24/the-spin-michael-clarke-australia-captain?commentpage=2 Hyperriker fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Jul 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
Match State: Stumps - Day 1 89.4 de Lange to Warner, OUT DA Warner b de Lange 193 (315m 226b 29x4 1x6) SR: 85.39
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
Maxwell got a ton as well. There must be some pie chuckers in South Africa A.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
They both scored at nearly a run a ball. Can't have been high quality bowling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 00:27
|
|
|
Hyperriker posted:Knight him right away imo The guardian cricket writing is best in the business imo
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 00:32
|
|
|
loving Guardian do-gooders. Clarke is a coward who is too scared to move up the order, Australia are poo poo and long may it continue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
Hyperriker posted:Knight him right away imo "Watson ... obvious flaws"
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 01:16
|
|
|
Shmoses posted:The guardian cricket writing is best in the business imo Yeah, that was a fantastic read. In a strange way I hope we lose all 10 Ashes tests, and then another three against South Africa. So many players in the current team grew up in an era when Australia won every game effortlessly, and they still seem to have that mindset - like Watson or Hughes continually getting out the same way and never bothering to fix their obvious flaws. But of course we'll probably fluke a win at some point and nothing will change 
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 01:39
|
|
|
Wait a second, hold up. Even as an England fan, I'm a little perplexed by this apparent campaign in the English press at the moment to make Clarke into a great captain, when he blatantly isn't. Disregarding his calamitous man-management - just because he sets crazy speculative fields and then shuffles them every three balls regardless of result, declares when he's behind, and gives the new ball to his wicketkeeper doesn't mean he's a great captain. If he did all of these things and achieved brilliant results he really would be a great captain, but as it is he's lost six Tests in a row. I know the blameless Michael Holding thinks that it's a sign of Good Agryessive Cricket when Clarke puts himself on to bowl with four slips and two short legs or whatever, but it isn't, it's actually a sign that he's very wank and short of ideas. It's like how everyone always insisted that Michael Atherton was a brilliant captain, despite the fact that he constantly publicly disparaged and repeatedly dropped almost all of the best players England had available (which, amazingly, didn't improve their performances,) always set asinine fields, was always bigged up as "the key player," despite averaging about 34 with the bat, and ultimately won like 8 tests out of 50. I'm Crap fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Jul 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 04:46
|
|
|
The 'wins argument' does not and cannot apply when you're scoring double centuries while the rest of the top order bat like unrelenting dickheads. Ponting wouldn't have won with this team, and neither would Waugh, I wager. e: also the wins argument is dumb and lacks context wherever it shows up Hyperriker fucked around with this message at 06:23 on Jul 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 06:20
|
|
|
This would be 100% correct, except for the fact that Clarke is part of the reason he has no talent around him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 06:38
|
|
|
Clarke is obviously a better captain than Cook and he's just lost two tests to him. Results aren't everything. The two best Australian captains of my life time (taylor and border) won less than Ponting who wasn't crash hot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 06:48
|
|
|
Burn Down Canberra posted:Clarke is obviously a better captain than Cook and he's just lost two tests to him. Results aren't everything. The two best Australian captains of my life time (taylor and border) won less than Ponting who wasn't crash hot. Why is he obviously better? More creative and daring, sure. But is he a better leader of men? After all, the captain's job is to get the most out of his team, with both tactics and leadership. I don't think it's at all clear that Clarke does this better than Cook, regardless of the results. In other news, how the gently caress did Ashton Turner get selected for the tour game? It looks like the selection panel is all but admitting results in the domestic comps are meaningless and that "he's got the looks of a potential star" is the new selection criteria.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 07:21
|
|
|
Hyperriker posted:The 'wins argument' does not and cannot apply when you're scoring double centuries while the rest of the top order bat like unrelenting dickheads. Ponting wouldn't have won with this team, and neither would Waugh, I wager. Stephen Fleming would've made it competitive at least 
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 07:27
|
|
|
Unimpressed posted:Why is he obviously better? More creative and daring, sure. But is he a better leader of men? After all, the captain's job is to get the most out of his team, with both tactics and leadership. I don't think it's at all clear that Clarke does this better than Cook, regardless of the results. They decided to rest everybody and then they were like "oh poo poo we only have 10 players, throw in that Turner bloke" proving that they're loving clueless
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 07:30
|
|
|
Most of the failings in this team are batting related. He potentially chased off 1-3 great batsmen, but what can you do as a captain with Phil Hughes? Shane Watson? You can show them runs should be scored, but you can't bat for them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 07:37
|
|
|
You could not hide at number 5 in the batting order for one thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 07:55
|
|
|
Cook is a loving awful captain.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 08:11
|
|
|
Mister Chief posted:Cook is a loving awful captain. Again, beyond the meme, why exactly?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 08:22
|
|
|
He's an awful ON FIELD captain. He's negative with his field placements (400 runs for Australia to win, they're 5 wickets down and he has 4 guys on the boundary) and he never risks a quick declaration. He's of the school that you make sure you cant lose the game before trying to win it. However OFF FIELD, he's brilliant. He brings an excellent work ethic towards training, gets on with everyone and thus the England team over perform. He's basically the opposite of Clarke.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 08:25
|
|
|
Overly reactionary and cautionary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 08:25
|
|
|
Unimpressed posted:Again, beyond the meme, why exactly? He is a very reactionary captain. When haddin went after Finn in the first test he moved a fielder to the location Haddin hit a four every time. He pulls his slips very quickly even when in a strong position. He is cautious and is concerned first with runs rather than wickets. Its a plight with modern captains because they play more limited over cricket than test cricket. Clarke on the field is proactive and busy and even at our worst he's still always looking for wickets.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 08:34
|
|
|
Smorgasbord posted:Stephen Fleming would've made it competitive at least See this sums it up. Can you remember the 2001/2 tour of Australia where Fleming was comfortably the better captain and Waugh almost lost the series with some slightly arrogant declarations in particular the kiwis were drat unlucky at the gabba. Yet Australia didn't lose the series.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 08:44
|
|
|
Burn Down Canberra posted:See this sums it up. Can you remember the 2001/2 tour of Australia where Fleming was comfortably the better captain and Waugh almost lost the series with some slightly arrogant declarations in particular the kiwis were drat unlucky at the gabba. Waugh is generally regarded as a good captain, which really helps to understand how good Fleming was when you compare those two squads and how that series went.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 08:51
|
|
|
Burn Down Canberra posted:See this sums it up. Can you remember the 2001/2 tour of Australia where Fleming was comfortably the better captain and Waugh almost lost the series with some slightly arrogant declarations in particular the kiwis were drat unlucky at the gabba. Watching McGrath bowling absurdly wide to secure a draw in the first match was a serious mindfuck, especially when you remember that this was the Australian team that was winning test matches in three days on a regular basis.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 10:20
|
|
|
I'm Crap posted:It's like how everyone always insisted that Michael Atherton was a brilliant captain, despite the fact that he constantly publicly disparaged and repeatedly dropped almost all of the best players England had available (which, amazingly, didn't improve their performances,) always set asinine fields, was always bigged up as "the key player," despite averaging about 34 with the bat, and ultimately won like 8 tests out of 50. Yeah, I like Atherton as a commentator (good cricket writer too), but it makes me laugh when he goes on about team spirit and getting the best out of mediocre players and whatnot with all the stories of how dysfunctional the England dressing room was in the 90s. He was a hard nosed fucker and an awful man manager, him and Ray Illingworth were peas in a pod really.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 11:23
|
|
|
I wonder what Peder Brofuck would be writing about this series if he was still with us?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 11:44
|
|
|
biglads posted:I wonder what Peder Brofuck would be writing about this series if he was still with us? Exactly the same as anyone else except with a thesaurus
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 11:52
|
|
|
If it was anything like his "criticisms" of England used to be then he'd say it's indicative of the decline of anglo-saxon society in modern Australia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 11:54
|
|
|
Lionel Richie posted:If it was anything like his "criticisms" of England used to be then he'd say it's indicative of the decline of anglo-saxon society in modern Australia. "Flamin' Lebs" ?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 11:57
|
|
|
I'm Crap posted:It's like how everyone always insisted that Michael Atherton was a brilliant captain, despite the fact that he constantly publicly disparaged and repeatedly dropped almost all of the best players England had available (which, amazingly, didn't improve their performances,) always set asinine fields, was always bigged up as "the key player," despite averaging about 34 with the bat, and ultimately won like 8 tests out of 50. Pretty awful man-manager, though. * in the context of 90s England Batsmen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 11:59
|
|
|
biglads posted:I wonder what Peder Brofuck would be writing about this series if he was still with us? He'd probably be writing about Joe Root a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 12:03
|
|
|
Just replace all mentions of England with Australia in this http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/422153.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 12:17
|
|
|
Anyone know where I can watch Kuwait vs Vanuatu? It'll be a more interesting contest than the next test.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 12:31
|
|
|
No but you can watch the Australian Indoor Cricket finals tomorrow http://www.cricket.com.au/indoor-cricket-live
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 12:36
|
|
|
Paul.Power posted:To be fair, he averaged 37 and a bit. Which ultimately made him better* than everyone except Thorpe and Stewart.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 13:45
|
|
|
Burn Down Canberra posted:He is a very reactionary captain. When haddin went after Finn in the first test he moved a fielder to the location Haddin hit a four every time. All you're saying here is that he's more cautious a captain. If you win more games being more cautious than not being more cautious then I would say you're a better captain overall by being more cautious. Thus this doesn't prove that Clarke is a better captain at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 16:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 13:11 |
|
|
Cook is a defensive captain and Strauss before him was considered just as defensive and cautious too in his field placings. They definitely remove slips earlier than most and are quick to cut off boundaries with placing men back sweeping compared to traditional concepts and ideas of how to set a field. But with how data driven England have been under Flower I've been wondering for a while now if that is actually something they've studied in depth and found that being more defensive than the commonly accepted norm is actually statistically superior. It's all well and good having Botham, Chappelli, Taylor and the like in the commentary box saying "in my day we'd have three slips for the first 20 overs regardless" or that a fielder on the boundary is "only there for a bad ball so it's poor captaincy" etc. etc. But with modern analysis of every ball faced by every batsman in their international career available to be exploited and the current England set up being extremely heavily into that type of analysis, I don't think it's an accident that England have been very conservative in their field placings for the last three years. I'm sure they'll have looked into things like how often Watson gets out to third slip versus how many runs you save by moving that slip out and having him at deep extra cover preventing the boundary and then done the cost-benefit analysis of whether it's worth keeping the slips in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2013 17:32
|
|