Michael Clarke Discussion thread

[NUFAN]

Well here goes innings number 13 for Clarke.

 

[Richard]

Clarke>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hodge

Not convinced it merits that many chevrons TBH. Nor am I convinced it's actually the case at the moment, even if it might well be on potential (given Hodge was, what, 29 before he actually started scoring the runs consistently, having often gone from averaging 70 one season to 25 the next previously).

 

[Redbacks]

Would prefer Dave Hussey in the squad! Clarke pushes hard at deliveries, and also doesn't put enough value on his wicket in my opinion.

 

[NUFAN]

Clarke now has his highest score ever in a "pressure situation".

 

[Jamee999]

W37C0M 70 DA 1|\|7AR\/\/38Z

 

[Richard]

ITSTL.

Clarke now has his highest score ever in a "pressure situation".

This is an interesting one actually. Is this really one of these ubiquitous "pressure" situations? I've long been on record as opposing use of the term "pressure" as if it was some sort of fixed thing. Pressure is unique to the individual and where one may feel tremendous pressure another may relish.

Anyway, how is any player supposed to be particularly under the pump when his team has about as much chance of avoiding defeat as I have of swimming the channel? Surely this is the very definition of "no worries"? The game's gone (barring miracles) - it doesn't matter how Clarke plays as far as the difficulty of the team's situation is concerned, because he can't possibly hope to make any impact on the team's outcome.

 

[Prince EWS]

ITSTL.

This is an interesting one actually. Is this really one of these ubiquitous "pressure" situations? I've long been on record as opposing use of the term "pressure" as if it was some sort of fixed thing. Pressure is unique to the individual and where one may feel tremendous pressure another may relish.

Anyway, how is any player supposed to be particularly under the pump when his team has about as much chance of avoiding defeat as I have of swimming the channel? Surely this is the very definition of "no worries"? The game's gone (barring miracles) - it doesn't matter how Clarke plays as far as the difficulty of the team's situation is concerned, because he can't possibly hope to make any impact on the team's outcome.

He was referring to the stats he did on it before which were based on the score when the player came in. Several problems with that method, of course, least not the ability of wickets to fall in clumps shortly after a player arrives at the crease, but they were interesting all the same.

 

[Richard]

TBH, if you wanted the best impression possible of which innings were "easy" and which ones were "hard" the best method would be one that depended not on a set value (ie, arbitrary scorelines) but simply on an examination of the innings, what immediately preceded the innings and what immediately succeeded it.

Wouldn't be any more difficult to do than an arbitrary-scoreline set of figures, and while it'd be subjective rather than objective I actually think you'd probably get less disagreement.

 

[Uppercut]

ITSTL.

This is an interesting one actually. Is this really one of these ubiquitous "pressure" situations? I've long been on record as opposing use of the term "pressure" as if it was some sort of fixed thing. Pressure is unique to the individual and where one may feel tremendous pressure another may relish.

Anyway, how is any player supposed to be particularly under the pump when his team has about as much chance of avoiding defeat as I have of swimming the channel? Surely this is the very definition of "no worries"? The game's gone (barring miracles) - it doesn't matter how Clarke plays as far as the difficulty of the team's situation is concerned, because he can't possibly hope to make any impact on the team's outcome.

Agree with that. Going back to England's first match second innings in New Zealand in February, Ian Bell played a knock there when everyone else was folding, finishing with 50~ not out. Those who feel he's useless under pressure said it was because all hope was lost, while those defending him said it wasn't his fault the rest of the batting fell apart. Can't have it both ways.

However, i do think you're exaggerating how lost this cause is for Australia. I'm not going to go into depth, because i don't see it happening, but the bookies currently have the draw at 7/1. The odds of you swimming the channel are considerably longer, i dare say.

 

[Richard]

The point is that both would require something near-unthinkable in order to happen.

(Unless, that is, rain is forecast - I'm kinda presuming it's not)

 

[GotSpin]

However, i do think you're exaggerating how lost this cause is for Australia. I'm not going to go into depth, because i don't see it happening, but the bookies currently have the draw at 7/1. The odds of you swimming the channel are considerably longer, i dare say.

You must be getting ripped off! From what I've seen odds are 9-1 now with India at $1.07

 

[Uppercut]

You must be getting ripped off! From what I've seen odds are 9-1 now with India at $1.07

Down to 13/2 now actually, with and India win 1/14 (bet365). Not that i'll be having a dip at either of those

 

[NUFAN]

TBH, if you wanted the best impression possible of which innings were "easy" and which ones were "hard" the best method would be one that depended not on a set value (ie, arbitrary scorelines) but simply on an examination of the innings, what immediately preceded the innings and what immediately succeeded it.

Wouldn't be any more difficult to do than an arbitrary-scoreline set of figures, and while it'd be subjective rather than objective I actually think you'd probably get less disagreement.

Would have to watch every innings in order to achieve this. Don't really know how what immediately succeeded the innings would have anything to do with it?

 

[Matt79]

The point is that both would require something near-unthinkable in order to happen.

(Unless, that is, rain is forecast - I'm kinda presuming it's not)

How does rain help you swim the Channel?

 

[NUFAN]

He was referring to the stats he did on it before which were based on the score when the player came in. Several problems with that method, of course, least not the ability of wickets to fall in clumps shortly after a player arrives at the crease, but they were interesting all the same.

Yeah I was aware of this issue as collapses would put even more pressure on the batter. Very hard to judge this though by just looking up scorecards.

 

[Richard]

How does rain help you swim the Channel?

Means overwater is the same as underwater, obv.

Seriously - I was meaning I'd need some sort of miracle to swim the channel tomorrow; likewise it'll take some sort of miracle (and rain seems extremely unlikely) to save Australia on day-five.

 

[Richard]

Would have to watch every innings in order to achieve this.

Nah, just look at the 'cards.

Don't really know how what immediately succeeded the innings would have anything to do with it?

Well, y'know... the score as he came in and how many quick wickets had fallen?

 

[NUFAN]

Nah, just look at the 'cards.

Well, y'know... the score as he came in and how many quick wickets had fallen?

Oh okay so you just wrote what Prince had written.

I read 'succeeded' as after, all good.

 

[Precambrian]

Watching the 4th day replay, there was a ripper from Mishy that beat Clarke and the stumps by a micron. And the commentators were talking how his back leg is not being in line with the ball or acting as a second line of defence to deliveries that pitch outside the leg stump and turning in.

 

[Top_Cat]

Watching the 4th day replay, there was a ripper from Mishy that beat Clarke and the stumps by a micron. And the commentators were talking how his back leg is not being in line with the ball or acting as a second line of defence to deliveries that pitch outside the leg stump and turning in.

Yup. Has been the very reason he's always struggled against balls moving away from him, pace or spin.