*Official* Road to 2013 Ashes

[SS1]

Pietersen is more of a match loser than a match winner. Plays stupid shots and finds ways to get out often when he's on 30.

So dumb to say that you'd take someone because on their day they can smack the ball.... then in the same breath say Warner is no good despite the fact he can score faster centuries than KP.

Clarke > Pietersen.

Dumb ? Dumb is the suggestion that Warner is in anyway similar to Pietersen. Dumb is to suggest that Pietersen is a 'match loser' and finds ways to get out on 30.

Lets compare....

Pietersen has 22 Test match hundreds and 28 fifties at a strike rate of 63. He has an average of 49.56. His average against Australia is 49 also.

Clarke has 21 Test match hundreds and 22 fifties at a strike rate of 55. He has an average of 51.72. His average against England is 37.

So, all in all, both top drawer players. Lets not be needlessly stupid and start dismissing the talents of either simply because they play for the opposition.

[benchmark00]

Like you calling Warner a slogger? Must be told to jog on. Must.

[SS1]

Like you calling Warner a slogger? Must be told to jog on. Must.

Warner has done nothing outside of Australia. He averaged 25 or so in the West Indies. Jog on. Even putting him in the same sentence of KP or Clarke is just idiocy.

[uvelocity]

its the new cevno!

[benchmark00]

I was simply using it to prove a point at how idiotic your assertion that a player is more of a match winner than another player that is much more consistent just because 'when he's on' he can score runs quickly. Absolute lunacy, so I'm glad you can see it as well.

[SS1]

I was simply using it to prove a point at how idiotic your assertion that a player is more of a match winner than another player that is much more consistent just because 'when he's on' he can score runs quickly. Absolute lunacy, so I'm glad you can see it as well.

You'd have a point if I'd ever said that Pietersen is more of a match winner than Clarke. Since I never said that, you don't. You're making it up as you go along. Try actually reading a post and what it says before deciding what you're going to write. I said KP is a matchwinner, which he is. I never said Clarke isn't a matchwinner or that Pietersen is more of a matchwinner than Clarke. Never said any of that. So, once again, jog on.

[Jono]

You implied it by saying you'd take KP because he is a match winner.

[NUFAN]

SS1, I thought you said you'd take Pietersen because the guy is a matchwinner, plain and simple.

If you think Clarke is equally a matchwinner, its a pretty flawed reason to prefer KP.

EDIT - even Jono is defending Benchy, you must be wrong champ.

[benchmark00]

****, do you even read what you write?

When comparing KP to Clarke:

I'd take Pietersen because the guy is a matchwinner, plain and simple. If he fires, you're looking at big scores in a seriously quick space of time. You refer to Clarke treating the short stuff with contempt, Pietersen treats any bowling with absolute disdain when he's on it, including the very, very best.

Nope, you're definitely not saying KP is more of a match winner than Clarke. fmd.

[Prince EWS]

Given a choice between Kallis and Ponting, I'd take Kallis because he's scored a Test hundred.

[Spark]

its the new cevno!

Shouldn't laugh, but did

Anyway, basically all of Clarke's recent tons have come at a seriously high strike rate as has KP's. It's really not a valid point of distinction any more.

[Spikey]

ok now let's look at the bowling figures

[Jono]

Given a choice between Kallis and Ponting, I'd take Kallis because he's scored a Test hundred.

You originally had "played test cricket it" and changed it.

I'm on to you

[Prince EWS]

You originally had "played test cricket it" and changed it.

I'm on to you

Breaking News: Forum Member Edits Post

[Jono]

Breaking Pews

indeed