1st ODI Aust v Eng MCG

[dedja]

Settle down everyone.

We're all entitled to our opinion regardless of how much cricket we've played.

In this case, though, the anti-Clarke brigade are wrong

Shutup you socialist bastard ...

[RoosterMarty]

Only fitting that Watto hits the winning runs like that, what a brilliant performance. Great chase (a record at the MCG) by the Aussies.

[whufc]

Selfish innings from Watto, wasnt impressed

[redandblack]

Clarke's previous form has nothing to do with his contribution tonight.

Without it, Australia would not have made the highest ever 1 day score against England at the MCG tonight.

He played it perfectly.

Oh, and Watson was OK too.

[Dogmatic]

Superb effort by Watto. Especially on top of bowling 8 overs.
You are a freak Watto.

[Footy Smart]

Mate have no problem with clarke the man or as captain but even you must admit he is struggling with the bat this summer.
Dont think too many guys are having personal digs at clarke and most of us are frustrated with his batting because he is a shadow of what most people are used to from him

yes he is def not hitting the ball as well as he is capable of but hey everyone goes through a tough patch. To say he is over and drop him etc etc when he was doing the team thing and played a big part in supporting watto is unjust. Its not just tonight but throughout the ashes some of the cheap shots and over reaction is un called for in some cases like this clarke situation tonight.

Hell we won the game watto smashed them thats all Clarke and us Australian supporters should care about

[stampy]

what a magnificent innings and what a way to finish it!!, the guy is a superstar

[whufc]

Clarke's previous form has nothing to do with his contribution tonight.

Without it, Australia would not have made the highest ever 1 day score against England at the MCG tonight.

He played it perfectly.

Oh, and Watson was OK too.

yep yep, i dont think he was hitting the ball that well and he definatly didnt look like an 'inform' batsmen BUT he played the perfect partner to Watson and his innings while not being spectacular was crucial giving us wickets in hand and keeping the run rate in the manageable distance of 7 an over.

[Phantom Gossiper]

The night belonged to Watson, and despite the criticism towards Clarke, the aussies really did make this chase look clinical.
One of the greatest indivdual innings if not THE greatest from an aussie.

[redandblack]

Settle down everyone.

We're all entitled to our opinion regardless of how much cricket we've played.

In this case, though, the anti-Clarke brigade are wrong

Shutup you socialist bastard ...

'Seriously committed' socialist bastard, please

[dedja]

Da Comrade ...

[Grahaml]

One bloke hits 161* of 150 then 300 should be on the cards every day of the week. Clarke batted ordinary. Struggled to rotate strike or find boundaries to make up for it and got out playing an ordinary shot for a bloke who had yet to find the middle.

After seeing how easily White and Hussey got things moving on you wonder whether things might have been finished earlier if one of those two had gone in at 3.

Anyway, magnificent innings by Watson. One of the great knocks. Not many cricketers going around have been better in all forms of the game than this guy. Just wish he'd turn more of those test 50s into 150s, then he's lay claim to being just about the best right now. But I expect it'll happen. Can't score that regularly without being good enough, just needs to figure out how to do it.

[redandblack]

'Clarke batted ordinary'

Why do you think White and Hussey 'got things moving', graham? Perhaps because the pressure was off at that time. And why was the pressure off? Perhaps because when Clarke got out, we only needed about 7 an over with 8 wickets in hand. We didn't go any quicker after Clarke was out until the last 2 or 3 overs. Why? Because once Clarke was out, Watson didn't get much strike for a long time. So much for Clarke not rotating the strike.

The facts and result speak for themselves.

[westcoastpanther]

Why did the worst of the batsmen bat 4 in Smith. The powers that be really want him to do something to justify his selection and they give him every opportunity. Fancy Steve Smith batting before AUS only in form batsmen for the summer, Sir Mike

Clarke put an enormous amount of pressure on Watson to score the runs he himself simply couldn't and AUS were very lucky Watto didn't get out as a result. Clarke is at the biggest crossroads of his career.....I'd bring in mid on to Clarke as that seems to be his only scoring zone, albeit lame singles

[mal]

Should refer every ball then.

What if Australia lose by a run and you went through the footage of every ball and found England bowled two no-balls that weren't called, but weren't referred because they didn't take a wicket?

The above has been highlighted before by astute punters on this forum, but it highlights the current inconsistency in the use of the technology.

Thanks for mentioning me

WATSON

[mal]

if the no ball was called on time the batsmen may have gone for a slog, knowing he couldnt get out (apart from run out)

by not calling it the batsmen feels it is a legit delivery

Very very very very good point

WATSON

[Grahaml]

'Clarke batted ordinary'

Why do you think White and Hussey 'got things moving', graham? Perhaps because the pressure was off at that time. And why was the pressure off? Perhaps because when Clarke got out, we only needed about 7 an over with 8 wickets in hand. We didn't go any quicker after Clarke was out until the last 2 or 3 overs. Why? Because once Clarke was out, Watson didn't get much strike for a long time. So much for Clarke not rotating the strike.

The facts and result speak for themselves.

What garbage. There was pressure on right up till about 4 overs to go, well after Clarke had got out.

"We didn't go any quicker after Clarke was out until the last 2 or 3 overs" This statement is utter nonsense. Run rate picked up as soon as Clarke was out. A guy who was out there for 50 balls couldn't score as quickly as a guy who didn't have that luxury. If Mike Hussey hits 10 off 15 (Clarke's SR) instead of 21 off 15 we need 15 or so off that last over instead of 4.

Clarke scored 36 off 57, 4,5 and 6 combined for 51 off 42. On what was obviously a very good batting wicket.

The result was because Watson won us the game. Watson's batting allowed us to keep wickets in hand and keep the run rate manageable despite Clarke going at a strike rate of 65. And the fact we won and they lost doesn't mean all our blokes played well and all their blokes played badly. Don't let a great performance by one player wallpaper a poor performance by another by saying the result proves anything so grandiose.

[westcoastpanther]

if the no ball was called on time the batsmen may have gone for a slog, knowing he couldnt get out (apart from run out)

by not calling it the batsmen feels it is a legit delivery

Very very very very good point

WATSON

No batsmen ever goes the slog because they hear the call of no ball, absolute tripe. The call isn't heard in enough time even at Port Lincoln B grade level FFS.......anyone here trys to tell me they changed their stroke cause they heard no ball I'll call a liar!!

[Grahaml]

if the no ball was called on time the batsmen may have gone for a slog, knowing he couldnt get out (apart from run out)

by not calling it the batsmen feels it is a legit delivery

Very very very very good point

WATSON

No batsmen ever goes the slog because they hear the call of no ball, absolute tripe. The call isn't heard in enough time even at Port Lincoln B grade level FFS.......anyone here trys to tell me they changed their stroke cause they heard no ball I'll call a liar!!

I think only the slowest of slow bowlers is a batsman any realistic chance of changing their shot in time. and even then, they would probably have to already be thinking about smashing it.

[mal]

Mighty Tiger posted MAY have gone for a slog

WATSON