1st ODI Aust v Eng MCG

[smithy]

SR Watson not out 161 off 150 strike rate 107.33

BJ Haddin† 39 off 47 strike rate 82.97

MJ Clarke* 36 off 57 strike rate 63.15 - 0 boundaries

SPD Smith 5 off 4 strike rate 125.00

MEK Hussey 21 off 15 strike rate 140.00

CL White not out 25 off 23 strike rate 108.69

Yep, It's glaringly obvious Clarke was the reason we chased down 290+

[smithy]

WATSON

No mention of your baby MJ or last years most lethal MAL ?

[mal]

WATSON

No mention of your baby MJ or last years most lethal MAL ?

Didnt see the game at all
So cant pass my expert comments on this match
But here goes FWIW by reading into the scores

MJ
Equal leading wicket taker


DOUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGIE
Good Test bowler, a leathal weapon last season, but average ODI bowler

SMITH
The Smith bashers on safooty are quick off the mark to clamour over his 4 runs
But cant read any of them commenting about his 2/12 [3]
Still a sensational outfielder


CLARKE 36[57]
Came in at 1/113 and some consolidation was needed
Departed at 2/213
Slowish innings, but not as bad as all the Clarke bashers are carrying on about
IF he gets out for 10 off 10, then we waste a good start
Dont forget you need to get 294, so you need someone to hold an end up whilst SWATTO caned em
I am a Clarke basher in 20/20
His ODI form over a failry long period is sound, and I aint gotta prob with him being in the team


WASTON
161*[150]

[smithy]

WATSON

No mention of your baby MJ or last years most lethal MAL ?

CLARKE 36[57]
Came in at 1/113 and some consolidation was needed
Departed at 2/213
Slowish innings, but not as bad as all the Clarke bashers are carrying on about
:

Likewise MAL, not as good as the Clarke lovers are saying either.

[westcoastpanther]

What did we all think of Smiths overhead smash down the line that caught the edge to make up 4 of his 5. oh sorry, he's a cricketer isn't he, confusing the tennis with the cricket, or am I..... SAND CRAB

[mal]

SR Watson not out 161 off 150 strike rate 107.33

BJ Haddin† 39 off 47 strike rate 82.97

MJ Clarke* 36 off 57 strike rate 63.15 - 0 boundaries

SPD Smith 5 off 4 strike rate 125.00

MEK Hussey 21 off 15 strike rate 140.00

CL White not out 25 off 23 strike rate 108.69

Yep, It's glaringly obvious Clarke was the reason we chased down 290+

Averages and strike rates

WATSON 39-57....84-33
HADDIN 32-36......84-05
CLARKE 44-01......77-88
SMITH...27-80......94-55
HUSSEY..52-32.....87-93
WHITE 37-57........84-17

Clarke strikes slower than the rest
But Clarke has the 2nd best average
His role is to anchor, and rotate the strike
He is a consistent ODI run scorer, and you need guys like this in run chases
Tonight was a 294 chase, and his slowishness showed up
But how often do teams chase 294


When comparing say a Clarke to a White
Could be wrong with this :
Clarke is generally out in his innings b4 the last 10 overs ?
White has batted last 10 overs more often ?
There is a s/r of 6.29 difference, so Whites s/rate should be higher than Clarkes

Generally I think the clarke bashers are too critical
Im thinking too many are associating his recent 20/20 and test efforts when posting about him
He is a good ODI player for the roles he has to do

[mighty_tiger_79]

I have some bad news to report

our very own MAL has been taken into hospital due to a heart attack. He got so excited by his boy WAtto the old boys ticker couldnt cope........

[Ian]

Hope all goes well MAL, take care

[Dogmatic]

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!!

Batsmen do premeditiate going the slog then check up on their swing (depending on the delivery) and play defensive.

[redandblack]

It's certainly not 'garbage', graham.

I'll tell you why when I get more time today.

Basically though, when Clarke got out, any reasonable side should have been able to bolt the game in from where we were. The following batsmen were not, repeat not, under the same pressure, purely because of the fact we were 2/200 plus.

90 off 12 overs with 8 wickets in hand and the not out batsman on 100+?

I'll take that any time.

And anyone who understands cricket would also.

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

You might disagree with me, but spare me the 'garbage' rot.

[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.

[Adelaide Hawk]

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.

[Lightning McQueen]

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.

I agree to some degree although I felt that he was playing a little too defensive at times and was mounting more pressure on Watson, if Watto had of got out for less than 120 I don't know whether we would've still won. That's what used to p!ss me off about Mike Hussey, he'd push and paddle the ball around with no real sense of urgency watching the run rate required go higher and then time his run home. This quite often worked if he remained at the crease at the end of the innings but killed our chances if he was dismissed.

[Footy Smart]

No extra pressure was put onto Watson last night. That is purely made up to justify you obvious hatred for M Clarke. When did Watson looked troubled? when did he look like he was struggling to score or playing rash shots? i cant remember any

It seems the clarke bashers expect all batsmen to strike at 100 every innings when it isnt needed. Averages and Strike Rates can be missleading as its a team game and certain situations during a game determine how the player plays. As a result the players stats can be adversly affected hence be missleading.

[Lightning McQueen]

No extra pressure was put onto Watson last night. That is purely made up to justify you obvious hatred for M Clarke. When did Watson looked troubled? when did he look like he was struggling to score or playing rash shots? i cant remember any

It seems the clarke bashers expect all batsmen to strike at 100 every innings when it isnt needed. Averages and Strike Rates can be missleading as its a team game and certain situations during a game determine how the player plays. As a result the players stats can be adversly affected hence be missleading.

Who was that aimed at?

[Drop Bear]

We won. Next game please.

[Footy Smart]

No extra pressure was put onto Watson last night. That is purely made up to justify you obvious hatred for M Clarke. When did Watson looked troubled? when did he look like he was struggling to score or playing rash shots? i cant remember any

It seems the clarke bashers expect all batsmen to strike at 100 every innings when it isnt needed. Averages and Strike Rates can be missleading as its a team game and certain situations during a game determine how the player plays. As a result the players stats can be adversly affected hence be missleading.

Who was that aimed at?

A number of posts have referred to Watto being put under pressure as clarke strike rate was only 70ish... the bloke was smashing them and never looked in trouble.

[redandblack]

SR Watson not out 161 off 150 strike rate 107.33

BJ Haddin† 39 off 47 strike rate 82.97

MJ Clarke* 36 off 57 strike rate 63.15 - 0 boundaries

SPD Smith 5 off 4 strike rate 125.00

MEK Hussey 21 off 15 strike rate 140.00

CL White not out 25 off 23 strike rate 108.69

Yep, It's glaringly obvious Clarke was the reason we chased down 290+

smithy, your stats are just that - stats.

Firstly, you don't take into account that Clarke batted only when the field was out. he didn't have the benefit of any power plays, as most of the others did.

You have to also take into account the state of the game.

However, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll accept your stats and congratulate Smith and Hussey for having the highest strike rates and winning us the game and we should drop Clarke and Haddin for striking at less than 100

[Lightning McQueen]

No extra pressure was put onto Watson last night. That is purely made up to justify you obvious hatred for M Clarke. When did Watson looked troubled? when did he look like he was struggling to score or playing rash shots? i cant remember any

It seems the clarke bashers expect all batsmen to strike at 100 every innings when it isnt needed. Averages and Strike Rates can be missleading as its a team game and certain situations during a game determine how the player plays. As a result the players stats can be adversly affected hence be missleading.

Who was that aimed at?

A number of posts have referred to Watto being put under pressure as clarke strike rate was only 70ish... the bloke was smashing them and never looked in trouble.

I was more concerned when he was strinking at 50 odd, it was only one over that got us back in the hunt. I don't dislike Clarke or his batting style in ODI's, I was concerned of our chances if Watto got out, he didn't, we won so it was a non event.

[Footy Smart]

No extra pressure was put onto Watson last night. That is purely made up to justify you obvious hatred for M Clarke. When did Watson looked troubled? when did he look like he was struggling to score or playing rash shots? i cant remember any

It seems the clarke bashers expect all batsmen to strike at 100 every innings when it isnt needed. Averages and Strike Rates can be missleading as its a team game and certain situations during a game determine how the player plays. As a result the players stats can be adversly affected hence be missleading.

Who was that aimed at?

A number of posts have referred to Watto being put under pressure as clarke strike rate was only 70ish... the bloke was smashing them and never looked in trouble.

I was more concerned when he was strinking at 50 odd, it was only one over that got us back in the hunt. I don't dislike Clarke or his batting style in ODI's, I was concerned of our chances if Watto got out, he didn't, we won so it was a non event.

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