1st ODI Aust v Eng MCG

[Rik E Boy]

Watto Win! I could hear NFC singing all the way from Queensland. Fantastic stuff.

regards,

REB

[Lightning McQueen]

I felt that during their partnership they looked in control for 95% of it and had a plan in place. As Taylor said, they would be looking to need 90-100 off the last 15 overs with wickets in the shed. I think we exactly that situation. You cant really plan on loosing wickets. When you loose a wicket you naturally adapt your plan etc. We also cant afford to expose our middle order as they are fragile at best. Hence the need for stability at the top

and exactly we won and who did what when and where doesnt really matter. Although our bowling is puss

Plenty of area's of concern still.
Smith: Yeah, 2/12 off 3 was handy, got rid of the danger man IMO, but I think there's better options, would sooner see another specialist batsman or specialist bowler instead of someone who is "ok" at each discipline.

[mal]

If Kallis or Tendulkar made 36 off 57 balls and supported Watson yetserday, I reckon nothing gets posted
But becoz it was Clarke ....

[smithy]

If Kallis or Tendulkar made 36 off 57 balls and supported Watson yetserday, I reckon nothing gets posted
But becoz it was Clarke ....

Quite possibly MAL.
But I think most people get annoyed with Clarke not because of his innings last night, but because it's the same every innings.
He just doesn't seem to take the 1 days risks and have the shots required to be a good 1 day player no matter the situation.
He either plays the anchor role or gets bogged down putting pressure on the other batsman, there is no domination of an attack or risk taking during ANY game, not just last night.

[smithy]

Looks like we're going to have to re-write the cricket forum rules.

If you love watching Clarke play cricket, you are intelligent, knowledgable and have played cricket at a high level.

If you don't like watching Clarke play cricket you are a moron and an idiot whose claim to cricket fame is swinging a tape ball in the backyard.

[Gingernuts]

If Kallis or Tendulkar made 36 off 57 balls and supported Watson yetserday, I reckon nothing gets posted
But becoz it was Clarke ....

Quite possibly MAL.
But I think most people get annoyed with Clarke not because of his innings last night, but because it's the same every innings.
He just doesn't seem to take the 1 days risks and have the shots required to be a good 1 day player no matter the situation.
He either plays the anchor role or gets bogged down putting pressure on the other batsman, there is no domination of an attack or risk taking during ANY game, not just last night.

Good points smithy, I can certainly see where your coming from. I still think his innings last night was spot on though.

There are more pressing issues anyway, like finding a fast bowler who can actually produce some consistent line and length (so bad we've had to knock the lid off of Lee's coffin ), and doing some serious fielding practice (including Haddin behind the stumps).

[Footy Smart]

Looks like we're going to have to re-write the cricket forum rules.

If you love watching Clarke play cricket, you are intelligent, knowledgable and have played cricket at a high level.

If you don't like watching Clarke play cricket you are a moron and an idiot whose claim to cricket fame is swinging a tape ball in the backyard.

never a truer word has been spoken on this thread smithy

[smithy]

Looks like we're going to have to re-write the cricket forum rules.

If you love watching Clarke play cricket, you are intelligent, knowledgable and have played cricket at a high level.

If you don't like watching Clarke play cricket you are a moron and an idiot whose claim to cricket fame is swinging a tape ball in the backyard.

never a truer word has been spoken on this thread smithy

All I got to do now is swing that tape ball.

[smithy]

If Kallis or Tendulkar made 36 off 57 balls and supported Watson yetserday, I reckon nothing gets posted
But becoz it was Clarke ....

Quite possibly MAL.
But I think most people get annoyed with Clarke not because of his innings last night, but because it's the same every innings.
He just doesn't seem to take the 1 days risks and have the shots required to be a good 1 day player no matter the situation.
He either plays the anchor role or gets bogged down putting pressure on the other batsman, there is no domination of an attack or risk taking during ANY game, not just last night.

Good points smithy, I can certainly see where your coming from. I still think his innings last night was spot on though.

There are more pressing issues anyway, like finding a fast bowler who can actually produce some consistent line and length (so bad we've had to knock the lid off of Lee's coffin ), and doing some serious fielding practice (including Haddin behind the stumps).

IF, IF Clarke must be picked, why not open with him and Watson or bat him at 6.
Clarke obviously struggles to hit the fence in the middle stages of an innings so why not put him in when the field is up?
I think you'll find his stats as an opener in 1 day cricket or number 6 ish aren't too bad..............I'm sure if they are the stats will count for this argument.

Can anyone supply his figures as an opener or number 6 compared to overall ?

[Footy Smart]

If Kallis or Tendulkar made 36 off 57 balls and supported Watson yetserday, I reckon nothing gets posted
But becoz it was Clarke ....

Quite possibly MAL.
But I think most people get annoyed with Clarke not because of his innings last night, but because it's the same every innings.
He just doesn't seem to take the 1 days risks and have the shots required to be a good 1 day player no matter the situation.
He either plays the anchor role or gets bogged down putting pressure on the other batsman, there is no domination of an attack or risk taking during ANY game, not just last night.

Good points smithy, I can certainly see where your coming from. I still think his innings last night was spot on though.

There are more pressing issues anyway, like finding a fast bowler who can actually produce some consistent line and length (so bad we've had to knock the lid off of Lee's coffin ), and doing some serious fielding practice (including Haddin behind the stumps).

IF, IF Clarke must be picked, why not open with him and Watson.
Clarke obviously struggles to hit the fence in the middle to later stages of an innings so why not put him in when the field is up?
I think you'll find his stats as an opener in 1 day cricket aren't too bad..............I'm sure if they are the stats will count for this argument.

Can anyone supply his figures as an opener ?

Hitting the boundary and taking risks isnt what 50 over cricket is all about! 20/20 is yes.

What hasnt been talked about is the bowling that doesnt allow you to easy work runs and or hit the boundary in the middle overs.

Stats in cricket can be used to support and arguement when looked at objectively and the stats used in relation to clarke havent been IMO.

Ive got some left over tape you can have smithy

[Lightning McQueen]

If Kallis or Tendulkar made 36 off 57 balls and supported Watson yetserday, I reckon nothing gets posted
But becoz it was Clarke ....

Quite possibly MAL.
But I think most people get annoyed with Clarke not because of his innings last night, but because it's the same every innings.
He just doesn't seem to take the 1 days risks and have the shots required to be a good 1 day player no matter the situation.
He either plays the anchor role or gets bogged down putting pressure on the other batsman, there is no domination of an attack or risk taking during ANY game, not just last night.

Good points smithy, I can certainly see where your coming from. I still think his innings last night was spot on though.

There are more pressing issues anyway, like finding a fast bowler who can actually produce some consistent line and length (so bad we've had to knock the lid off of Lee's coffin ), and doing some serious fielding practice (including Haddin behind the stumps).

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, if he or Watto had of got out while he was 24 off 46 or Watto just past his ton and we lost, it would've been him to blame to some degree, fortunately this didn't happen and his innings was timely and needed.
I think Clarke is a consistent performer who sculpts his innings, he is watchful early on and then bridges the gap between balls faced and runs once he gets in the 70's. He just has to make sure he gets to this stage to stop the criticism, and yes, opening wouldn't be a bad idea.

[Lightning McQueen]

I must say ODI cricket is alive and well after last nights game, to have almost 600 runs in under 100 overs on an oval close to 100 metres to most parts of the boundary is a magnificent effort by both teams.
It had a great blend of sensible batting, desperate fielding and precision bowling, as mal would say "its backkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk"

[Gingernuts]

I must say ODI cricket is alive and well after last nights game, to have almost 600 runs in under 100 overs on an oval close to 100 metres to most parts of the boundary is a magnificent effort by both teams.
It had a great blend of sensible batting, desperate fielding and precision bowling, as mal would say "its backkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk"

Several times last night I thought "damn, I forgot how much I love this format!". I love the fact that the game is long enough for proper strategies to be played out, and that the game ebs and flows so much.

Long live 50 over cricket!

[Footy Smart]

I dont think this issue has been raised.

The next level of cricketer isnt even playing 50 over cricket currently. This stupid 20 and 25 over crap dictates the way the players of the future bat and then they have to bat differently if and when they play international cricket. Cricket Australia has allot to answer for.

Speaking to a few state players re the one day format, they said they were asked to trial it in a top end series in the pre season and provide feedback. No players liked the format yet CA introduced it anyway!

[Lightning McQueen]

I must say ODI cricket is alive and well after last nights game, to have almost 600 runs in under 100 overs on an oval close to 100 metres to most parts of the boundary is a magnificent effort by both teams.
It had a great blend of sensible batting, desperate fielding and precision bowling, as mal would say "its backkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk"

Several times last night I thought "damn, I forgot how much I love this format!". I love the fact that the game is long enough for proper strategies to be played out, and that the game ebs and flows so much.

Long live 50 over cricket!

Ditto, it's like a game of speed chess. Strategies are so important and it's not necessarily the best team that wins, it's the team that can execute the best game plan and stick to it.

[dedja]

The stability Clarke gave at the time is what has been missing.

I thought Clarke played the perfect back up to Watson in the middle overs. Watson did the hitting, Clarke turned over the strike and pushed for quick singles and twos, whilst never taking a risk and gifting his wicket away.

Exactly what you want during mid innings in the 50 over stuff.

Stop it. you're making too much sense, as if you actually know something about the game, you're not supposed to do that on this forum.

Mind giving me a hand? I seem to be lost and have landed in the thread reserved for Bradman Medal winning posters.

Where can I find the thread for crickets noobs?

Cheers ...

[Gingernuts]

The stability Clarke gave at the time is what has been missing.

I thought Clarke played the perfect back up to Watson in the middle overs. Watson did the hitting, Clarke turned over the strike and pushed for quick singles and twos, whilst never taking a risk and gifting his wicket away.

Exactly what you want during mid innings in the 50 over stuff.

Stop it. you're making too much sense, as if you actually know something about the game, you're not supposed to do that on this forum.

Mind giving me a hand? I seem to be lost and have landed in the thread reserved for Bradman Medal winning posters.

Where can I find the thread for crickets noobs?

Cheers ...

Mate I played 1 season of under 12's. Based on that I've got no ******* idea what I'm talking about.

[dedja]

Shhhhhhhhh, don't let the others know