England were 3 for 42 when Clark took his first wicket.
Obviously England were smashing Australia and without Clark's THREE wickets we would have lost that test.
Three for forty-two
Big, fat, stinking deal. Instead of winning of winning by an innings an 80 runs Australia might have only won by 10 or 9 wickets and had to bat again. What a disaster. I'm glad Clark was tehre to save Australia with his THREE wickets.
I mean Siddle cleaning up the tail, something Australia failed to do in 4/5 matches had nothing to do with. People go on about Clark's THREE wickets more than Siddle's five. Yeah, 4/5 wickets were tail enders. Someone remind me how the English tail performed at Cardiff please.
You still seem to be conducting a lone tilt at the "Australia would have lost without Clark" windmill. Enjoy it!
Anyhow, think about the 2nd innings at the Oval - England 3 down for bugger all - Australia could have done with THREE more quick wickets at that stage, don't you think?