Michael Clarke

[Spark]

The Ian Bell thing was more that he scored a disproportionately large portion of his runs in 2011-2 from 60* type scores, usually on the back of a massive platform.

 

[Cabinet96]

Pretty sure de Villiers was the same. He really ****ing pissed me off in that India series in 10/11 where he smashed a not out ton when in an amazing position at Centurion then failed at Durban and Cape Town. Was indifferent to him for a few years after that.

 

[Spark]

Haha I was talking about ABdV in that post. Ironically that period was when Ian Bell was at his least Ian Bell-esque in terms of throwing away starts and downhill skiing.

 

[Jono]

lol you guys serious?

In 2012 People were saying "watch AB, he is an absolute jet and is dominating consistently". Some of you guys are like "nahhhh he's a downhill skieeer". Literally continues to dominate and get better and better from then on. And you guys are saying "still was right about him in 2012". What just a coincidence he started to bat better after that and go from strength to strength and become the best in the world?

Unbelievable. Don't care about whether you think his innings were coming at non-crucial times, watch the ****ing batsman bat. In 2012 it was obvious he had more ability than Ian Bell has ever come close to having. And he's been the best bat in the world ever since.


#neverwrong hashtag comes to mind.

 

[Cabinet96]

lol you guys serious?

In 2012 People were saying "watch AB, he is an absolute jet and is dominating consistently". Some of you guys are like "nahhhh he's a downhill skieeer". Literally continues to dominate and get better and better from then on. And you guys are saying "still was right about him in 2012". What just a coincidence he started to bat better after that and go from strength to strength and become the best in the world?

Unbelievable. Don't care about whether you think his innings were coming at non-crucial times, watch the ****ing batsman bat. In 2012 it was obvious he had more ability than Ian Bell has ever come close to having. And he's been the best bat in the world ever since.


#neverwrong hashtag comes to mind.

Bull. From late 09 to the end of 2011 Bell was straight up better than AB. Outdid him in the 09/10 series, despite facing the tougher bowling attack, then when AB was getting owned when it counted against India, Bell was getting tough runs at Brisbane and Sydney in the Ashes, then gunned it against India. AB had a few good innings, particularly in Asia (thinking the UAE 278, can't remember what he did v India in 2010) that Bell didn't do, but I'd take Bell's late 2009, 2010 and 2011 all the time. Comfortably better figures too Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo Note the higher average, but also three times as many centuries despite two less innings. The guy was actually making a huge ****ing difference in test wins, but nah, AB was getting loads of runs in the UAE when 25 wickets were falling per test match.

In a way, AB and Bell kind of optimise their countries test teams. One was always hyped but often failed to deliver when it mattered. The other was always regarded as mediocre, but somewhat out of nowhere, absolutely gunned it throughout late 2009, 2010 and 2011, and fully deserved all the accolades received at the time. Since then the latter has kind of gone back to what people always thought it was, and the former has started to really deliver and kill any of the doubts people had. But what's happened since doesn't change what was the case three/four years ago. Get the feeling I'll probably be arguing this to my grandkids one day.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah Jono's wrong here. Obviously since 2012 AB has reached a whole new level but before that he was a quite infuriating batsman. Got lots of his big runs in downhill situations and on occasions where you thought "this is it, this is going to be an awesome innings in a tough situation", he'd score a nice 57. His average absolutely did flatter him at the time. Not now, obviously.

 

[Red]

Because Ian Bell is rubbish

I don't reckon he's rubbish. He bores me to watch batting most of the time, but he's had a great career.

 

[Jono]

Bull. From late 09 to the end of 2011 Bell was straight up better than AB. Outdid him in the 09/10 series, despite facing the tougher bowling attack, then when AB was getting owned when it counted against India, Bell was getting tough runs at Brisbane and Sydney in the Ashes, then gunned it against India. AB had a few good innings, particularly in Asia (thinking the UAE 278, can't remember what he did v India in 2010) that Bell didn't do, but I'd take Bell's late 2009, 2010 and 2011 all the time. Comfortably better figures too Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo Note the higher average, but also three times as many centuries despite two less innings. The guy was actually making a huge ****ing difference in test wins, but nah, AB was getting loads of runs in the UAE when 25 wickets were falling per test match.

In a way, AB and Bell kind of optimise their countries test teams. One was always hyped but often failed to deliver when it mattered. The other was always regarded as mediocre, but somewhat out of nowhere, absolutely gunned it throughout late 2009, 2010 and 2011, and fully deserved all the accolades received at the time. Since then the latter has kind of gone back to what people always thought it was, and the former has started to really deliver and kill any of the doubts people had. But what's happened since doesn't change what was the case three/four years ago. Get the feeling I'll probably be arguing this to my grandkids one day.

What in the bluest of blue ****s does Bell's form in 2009 have to do with late 2012? Those posts were made in November/December 2012. Back then, Clarke was the best bat in the world, AB was second or third (he was ranked #1 in the ICC so clearly was close).

Bell was a very good bat for a period. But you just had to watch AB by end of 2012, and then look at the rankings, to know he was better then (and was only improving).

 

[Jono]

Yeah Jono's wrong here. Obviously since 2012 AB has reached a whole new level but before that he was a quite infuriating batsman. Got lots of his big runs in downhill situations and on occasions where you thought "this is it, this is going to be an awesome innings in a tough situation", he'd score a nice 57. His average absolutely did flatter him at the time. Not now, obviously.

Yeah that's right, the people who said "AB is up there with the best in the world" and was backed up by the the rankings which also said "hey AB is up there with the best in the world" is wrong when it turns out that AB is actually up there with the best in the world.

Ok.

The best bit is people in this thread in 2012 weren't just saying AB's record is a bit flattering, they were saying he wasn't close to Clarke or the other good batsmen at the time. That's a different level of not admitting you're wrong.

 

[Jono]

Haha yeah, just went back and looked through the thread.









This though.

just you and me Daemondo

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

There needs to be more talk of Younis Khan.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah that's right, the people who said "AB is up there with the best in the world" and was backed up by the the rankings which also said "hey AB is up there with the best in the world" is wrong when it turns out that AB is actually up there with the best in the world.

Ok

Wtf are you talking about? Your digging up of old posts in this thread made no sense. AB being the best in the world now doesn't prove you right or the others wrong. Some felt that AB at the time was flattered by his stats but also generally admitted that he could become the best in the world soon. At least I did. Him actually becoming the best later on doesn't mean he was actually as good as the rankings said back then. Right now, he deserves the acclaim he's getting. Two years ago, he didn't.

This is simple enough to understand imo.

Edit: also you can't tell me with a straight face that AB was better than Amla in during that period. If anyone was considered as the best in the world or second behind Clarke, it was Amla. Not AB.

AB has taken over since 2013-14 though obviously.

 

[Jono]

ummm, you weren't even here when the posts were made...

no one was here admitting he could become best in the world, they were saying he's a downhill skiier who wasn't close. Literally every tour thread AB was potted for being a frontrunner.

 

[OverratedSanity]

you weren't even here when the posts were made...

Been here longer than you think #obviousMultiJoke

And there was an Amla vs Clarke thread. Not AB vs Clarke/Amla

 

[Jono]

What's Amla got to do with this?

Oh you edited your other post to say Amla was better than AB back then. Great. Doesn't mean AB wasn't close to the top echelon (he was ranked #1). Look at the posts in this thread ffs, it was as if AB wasn't fit to tie Clarke's laces. The idea he was way off the top pack was ludicrous.

Anyway people were still making frontrunner posts about AB when Aus toured SA in 2014. Then AB made them taste humble pie, so that was them having to taste it enough, even if they are #neverwronging it in this thread.

 

[Daemon]

This thread is an interesting read for me. I'm starting to rate players based on the awesome things they do more than their stats, which brings cricket closer to how I rate players in my own sport. I know most will think they're one and the same, so let me explain. Sangakkara gets a lot of stick from some quarters for being a hometown hero or a subcontinent pitch bully (because they're all the same obviously #cwatgthreads) but without looking at his statz his Hobart knock against a classy Aussie side where they only got him out through sawing him off, his ton against Bond and co. and the double v Southee and Boult are more than enough for me to think he's the goods.

Same with Clarke and his home and away record. He's done enough awesome things for me to put him up with Waugh. I think Ponting, Border and Greg Chappell are just above him but Clarke is the man.

This is also making me reconsider though. I would have said Clarke > YK but I don't really have much to stand on. It's more a function of YK usually batting at 3am on a Wednesday when I'm alseep. That and the Big Three media machine making everything all about The Ashes, Border-Gavaskar Trophy and whatever England and India play each other for.

Statistics are a strange beast though. Ian Bell has over 20 test hundreds that I have no idea who he scored about 10 of them against, and his average of 45 or whatever it is is 5 runs shy of Clarke and Younis and equal to Laxman and Crowe and I wouldn't have Bell anywhere near them. MoYo is another who stole an awesome career record that makes him look as good as Younis and Inzi.

I've probably got all those stats wrong too which means I am now a true rate by awesome moments cricket watcher. Go me.

yeah, most people don't get to watch a lot of test cricket because of interest, time zones, work and sleep. it's evident from the lack of activity in the match threads of say, pakistan v sl. the things you watch tend to stick more in your mind compared to waking up the next morning and glancing at a scorecard and match report.

 

[Jono]

yep, there's no doubt Ind, Eng and Aust players get an advantage in terms being rated due to exposure and media coverae.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah guys like Younis and Sanga didn't get anywhere near their deserved acclaim for ages. Younis probably still doesn't, although him destroying Australia a few months ago certainly helped a great deal in bringing some attention to how good he is.

 

[Jono]

Chanders too during those 5 years or so when he was epic, to an extent.

 

[morgieb]

Chanders too during those 5 years or so when he was epic, to an extent.

Yeah, those three prove my theory of Test crickets who play for "mid-tier" nations need to do more to appease the general public.

Although with Chanders there are some serious question marks to his record in contrast to Younis/Sanga.