Michael Clarke's captaincy

[flibbertyjibber]

Matthews and Malinga knew they were getting at least one bouncer an over. It wasn't smart bowling, especially when they were set.

You can't just blame the captain for that though.The bowlers need to take some responsibility on board.It isn't as though they are inexperienced pups who may have frozen under pressure.

The best comparison i can think of for the Aussies is that it looked like watching an England side from the 90's.One that were actually surprised they were in a winning position and had no idea how to finish the job.

 

[TumTum]

There were two slips through most of the PP.

Hardly any edges in the entire match though. They would have been of better use in close saving the singles.

I mean Australia were cruising at that stage, why wouldn't Clarke take a punt and really choke them to death?

 

[vic_orthdox]

You can't just blame the captain for that though.The bowlers need to take some responsibility on board.It isn't as though they are inexperienced pups who may have frozen under pressure.

I wasn't.

 

[Spark]

Might be inexperience but will they allow him to take the top job given he has had so many defeats.

So many defeats? His ODI captaincy record is 12-5 IIRC with tonight's loss. His first T20 loss was the WC final.

For example, bringing up the deep cover (square of the cover inside of the circle), and asked him to hit inside out, off a short of a length delivery or maybe slightly fuller. And then maintain it, with the odd slower ball if he does want to slog it. Or maintain the same plan with either long-on or long-off inside the circle, give him an area where there are singles and make him hit to a certain area for boundaries.

That's not TumTum's point though. TumTum said that everyone should have been brought inside the circle with no singles available from the PP onwards.

And whilst it's a good idea that he should've tried, it wouldn't have worked - Johnson and Siddle would just bowl more half trackers, rendering the whole idea redundant.

 

[TumTum]

-1- That's not TumTum's point though. TumTum said that everyone should have been brought inside the circle with no singles available from the PP onwards.

-2- And whilst it's a good idea that he should've tried, it wouldn't have worked - Johnson and Siddle would just bowl more half trackers, rendering the whole idea redundant.

-1- Yep, but it's not that radical given SL were 8/100 and absolutely collapsing in a heap.

-2- But the point is they were not all massive sixers, some could have been caught had there been fielders there.

 

[TumTum]

Wait, Spark what PP are you talking about?

I am talking about the in-close fielders after SL lost 8 wickets. No after this partnership got out of hand.

 

[vic_orthdox]

To mine, the way that the bowlers went about it indicates that, when the tail is in, the ball is thrown to them with a "Just get them out" attitude. There aren't plans, there's just a concoction of bouncers, short of a length balls and one yorker an over.

It's where a leader of the team (preferably the captain) should, and too often doesn't, pull his teammate in, and tell him how he wants him to bowl, and how we're going to get him out. If at that point, they don't do what the captain says, then they'll find themselves out on their arse before you can say "Scott Muller".

 

[Spark]

Wait, Spark what PP are you talking about?

I am talking about the in-close fielders after SL lost 8 wickets. No after this partnership got out of hand.

Which was the powerplay.

I can't think of a single instance where a captain has pushed every single fielder up in a situation like this.

To mine, the way that the bowlers went about it indicates that, when the tail is in, the ball is thrown to them with a "Just get them out" attitude. There aren't plans, there's just a concoction of bouncers, short of a length balls and one yorker an over.

It's where a leader of the team (preferably the captain) should, and too often doesn't, pull his teammate in, and tell him how he wants him to bowl, and how we're going to get him out. If at that point, they don't do what the captain says, then they'll find themselves out on their arse before you can say "Scott Muller".

Good point though there was a noticeable lack of yorkers there. Just about the one thing that didn't get bowled.

Hastings and Watson did seem to be bowling to a plan later - bowl decent, good areas like to a normal batsmen and those balls were mostly treated with respect. But by then the horse had bolted - the required run rate was so low as to be irrelevant and both batsmen were well-set. The steady stream of wides and occasional four-ball made sure that the result was inevitable.

 

[TumTum]

On a final note before I leave: We will see a much better bowling performance when Ponting comes back as the skipper. Clarke's in-experience was found out here, he assumed SL would give their final 2 wickets away but they didn't.

Ponting would have sniffed an opportunity and gone for the kill. Like the old Aussie teams of the past, do not let the opposition get back into the game, bury them while they are down!

 

[TumTum]

Which was the powerplay.

I can't think of a single instance where a captain has pushed every single fielder up in a situation like this.

Did SL take the batting power-play at the 20th over?

Anyway power-play or not, all the fielders should have come in. Why wouldn't you when you have a team 8 down needing a further 140 runs to win?

 

[Spark]

Did SL take the batting power-play at the 20th over?

Anyway power-play or not, all the fielders should have come in. Why wouldn't you when you have a team 8 down needing a further 140 runs to win?

They took the batting powerplay as soon as Malinga came in...

How did you not know this?!

The reason bringing more than the required amount of fielders is silly is that there isn't anywhere you can put them which is really useful, i.e. will actually save runs/take a catch, as you've already got plenty of men in there anyway. All you're doing is opening up more areas for boundaries.

 

[TumTum]

They took the batting powerplay as soon as Malinga came in...

How did you not know this?! Missed it.

The reason bringing more than the required amount of fielders is silly is that there isn't anywhere you can put them which is really useful, i.e. will actually save runs/take a catch, as you've already got plenty of men in there anyway. All you're doing is opening up more areas for boundaries.

Risk vs Reward. And Risk isn't that great against a tail-ender when they need 140 to win.

Once the highlights come out of this game, you will be able to see how easy those two had it. Malinga just swung for fun because the field was spread.

Doherty had the batsmen in total confusion (including Mathews) and there were no fielders in sight. Cmon get a silly point or short leg in. Where were the orthodox attacking position when a spinner is causing havoc? And 8 wickets down.

This freedom would have never happened had there been pressure. Hence no boundaries.

 

[Furball]

I can't understand how you are calling the bowling thrash. Tell me how many tail-enders can pull a Johnson and Siddle bouncers, considering how many batsmen their injured with those type of deliveries?

When you've got a tail ender groping at deliveries outside offstump, do you

a) Bowl at the stumps and try to get him out bowled, or
b) Bowl short at him, a delivery which he has no chance of hitting, and thus no chance of getting out to?

 

[TumTum]

When you've got a tail ender groping at deliveries outside offstump, do you

a) Bowl at the stumps and try to get him out bowled, or
b) Bowl short at him, a delivery which he has no chance of hitting, and thus no chance of getting out to?

Depends how bad they are. If they are good enough to continue working away straight deliveries for singles, you bounce him out.

The ball doesn't have to hit the stumps to get someone out, especially against tail-enders who like to fend away balls that are directed at their body.

Malinga would have played like a proper tail-ender had there been pressure. There wasn't so he was just swinging balls knowing well that even if he hits it uppishly, he can't get out.

 

[Furball]

Depends how bad they are. If they are good enough to continue working away straight deliveries for singles, you bounce him out.

The ball doesn't have to hit the stumps to get someone out, especially against tail-enders who like to fend away balls that are directed at their body.

Malinga would have played like a proper tail-ender had there been pressure. There wasn't so he was just swinging balls knowing well that even if he hits it uppishly, he can't get out.

That's my point though, Johnson and especially from what I saw, Siddle, didn't try and test that out.

Siddle in particular bowled a lot of short rubbish that was never in danger of getting Malinga out.

 

[TumTum]

I understand your point too. But what I am saying is that the tail-ender would not have played as aggressively as was the case had there been more pressure. Or at least if they were going to play aggressively either way, they would not hit the ball as cleanly due to the pressure.

 

[Jono]

This debate is interesting for mine. I may watch the highlights to have a look again at the last 20 overs of bowling. Whilst watching I was more in awe of the batting that I didn't over analyse the bowling too much. I know Australia bowled short balls, but whether they were bad or good, not sure.

I do think that sometimes teams have to realise that not every subcontinental batsman sucks at the short ball. So a barrage isn't always going to work in limited overs cricket. Better to use it as a surprise ball (ala Dilshan). When Dilshan was getting constant short stuff in the T20 he smashed it. But the surprise ball was well directed and got him.

If you're bowling to Ravindra Jadeja, fair enough. But Mathews has been quality, and once you saw his technique, constant short balls weren't going to work.

Short balls at Malinga just didn't make sense since it looks a few times like he could get caught behind by playing away from his body. Bowlers should have backed themselves on eventually getting the edge.

 

[vcs]

Is Mathews a better player of pace than spin? I vaguely recollect Migara saying something of the sort. If that's the case, I guess Clarke's biggest error was taking Doherty off when he was going great guns. Could have given him a slip and some catchers on the offside and asked him to attack by inviting the uppish drive.

 

[Lostman]

Is Mathews a better player of pace than spin?

Yes, from what I have seen of him.
Not too comfortable using his feet against the spinners.

 

[Himannv]

Agree with Lostman. I think he's better against pace than spin.