...?

  On 28/01/2011 at 09:44, why you little said:

What are you talking about??? Michael Clarke has got 3 games to go before the World Cup to find some form...Form that has alluded him for months ok. That is the situation.

I don't Think he should be Captain or picked in the one day side-But the reality is that he is in the side. So i want him to earn his spot, just like the rest of the team

Question 1 / So, who should captain WYL (other than Ricky) ? And who should Clarke be replaced with, seeing as you don't want him in the One Day side ?

  Quote

So he better find that Form Quick.

Question 2 / Does 54 off 74 balls count (top score) ?

*AUST wins ODI series against England. Currently 4-1.

I thought Clarke batted watchfully and carefully. The kind of innings where he had to dig in with D.Hussey and form a partnership as the team was in a precarious position. Whilst I didn't like the way he went out, he was integral to the Aussies posting ~250. I also think his captaincy whilst fielding is more than adequate. Winning form is good form.

  On 31/01/2011 at 00:06, High Tower said:

Question 2 / Does 54 off 74 balls count (top score) ?

*AUST wins ODI series against England. Currently 4-1.

I thought Clarke batted watchfully and carefully. The kind of innings where he had to dig in with D.Hussey and form a partnership as the team was in a precarious position. Whilst I didn't like the way he went out, he was integral to the Aussies posting ~250. I also think his captaincy whilst fielding is more than adequate. Winning form is good form.

Clarke's innings in the context of the game was a good start for the form reversal process. He needs to build on it in the final games and needs to score heavily in the World Cup. He is in the gun as a Captain and as No 4 batsman.

  On 31/01/2011 at 00:52, Rhino Richards said:

Clarke's innings in the context of the game was a good start for the form reversal process. He needs to build on it in the final games and needs to score heavily in the World Cup. He is in the gun as a Captain and as No 4 batsman.

That's how I felt too. He looked in good nick - but he also got out to a poor shot. Good building blocks to a form reversal, though he's not off the hook yet. I really want Clarke to come good though so I'm not at all disappointed that he's being given a lot of time.

WYL will be happy that Clarke put in the request to play some club cricket to find form, but was told no by CA. It shows that it's not a terrible idea - but I still agree with keeping him in the side.

Speaking of bad shots, how about how Haddin got out? I nearly threw up.

  On 31/01/2011 at 01:46, Nasher said:

That's how I felt too. He looked in good nick - but he also got out to a poor shot. Good building blocks to a form reversal, though he's not off the hook yet. I really want Clarke to come good though so I'm not at all disappointed that he's being given a lot of time.

WYL will be happy that Clarke put in the request to play some club cricket to find form, but was told no by CA. It shows that it's not a terrible idea - but I still agree with keeping him in the side.

Speaking of bad shots, how about how Haddin got out? I nearly threw up.

Haddin's dismissal was dismal. Terrible. Same for Prior's dismissal too.

Re: Club cricket. CA had to say no IMO - can you imagine had he gone out cheaply in club cricket ?

Besides, it is better preparation to be facing Finn, Anderson & Co. in this format for the World Cup.

  On 31/01/2011 at 01:46, Nasher said:

That's how I felt too. He looked in good nick - but he also got out to a poor shot. Good building blocks to a form reversal, though he's not off the hook yet. I really want Clarke to come good though so I'm not at all disappointed that he's being given a lot of time.

For God sake, Clarke has been nicking them all summer.

  On 31/01/2011 at 01:46, Nasher said:

Speaking of bad shots, how about how Haddin got out? I nearly threw up.

I know its ODI, but its that sort of decision making which makes Haddin better at 7 than 6.

Disappointing nearly every batsman got a start but no one played the real killer innings.

  On 31/01/2011 at 00:06, High Tower said:

Question 1 / So, who should captain WYL (other than Ricky) ? And who should Clarke be replaced with, seeing as you don't want him in the One Day side ?

Question 2 / Does 54 off 74 balls count (top score) ?

*AUST wins ODI series against England. Currently 4-1.

I thought Clarke batted watchfully and carefully. The kind of innings where he had to dig in with D.Hussey and form a partnership as the team was in a precarious position. Whilst I didn't like the way he went out, he was integral to the Aussies posting ~250. I also think his captaincy whilst fielding is more than adequate. Winning form is good form.

I would give M Clarke a 6.5/7 out of 10 yesterday He really wanted to succeed you could tell, And contrary to what many say on here i do not wish him to fail as either a Batsmen or Captain, He is not my first choice for the ODI side or as it's captain, as i think he is a Test Player.

But he has been given the job, and let's not forget he has accepted that job, probably signed a new Contract. So he must find form before the world cup.

Yesterday was a great start, but the shot he went out on was a real Barry Crocker, but he did top score, and there are 2 more games to go.

There are only 2 tournaments worth winning. The Ashes & The World Cup, If Clarke has accepted the Captaincy then he has got to bat well up the order for a good portion of 50 overs

RR talks of Voodoo Dolls & Axes, not me-But it is time for Clarke to stand up, he is getting top $$$$

Brett Lee is a major key to any world cup success, if his old body keeps together we could win games.

Oh and BTW interesting that M Clarke himself requested to play CLUB CRICKET last saturday but was turned down by those weak selectors, who would have never slept again if he had failed!!!! It was a great idea M Clarke, and i give you respect. Sometimes you gotta think outside the Square.

If Clarke was not Captain right now, it is a tough one, but it would have to be Watson or Cam White.

  On 31/01/2011 at 03:49, why you little said:

RR talks of Voodoo Dolls & Axes, not me-But it is time for Clarke to stand up, he is getting top $$$$

If its not knifing Clarke, Ponting or Hussey its misguided swipe at individuals on the selection panel. And you do without every putting up a plausible or reasonable alternative to the player dropped. Its very much a doll/axe situation with the same paltry thinking just a different person involved

And your fixation on the $$$$ is your own. The need to perform is not $$$ based but you try to create it as an imperative.

  On 31/01/2011 at 03:49, why you little said:

Oh and BTW interesting that M Clarke himself requested to play CLUB CRICKET last saturday but was turned down by those weak selectors, who would have never slept again if he had failed!!!! It was a great idea M Clarke, and i give you respect. Sometimes you gotta think outside the Square.

Clearly Clarke has gone through the horrors both on the field and off it. And just because he has suggested club cricket may be as astute as some of his shot selections in the middle or his girlfriends of late. Its hardly weak of the selectors when they are prepared to back a player who in form is critical to the Australian OD side. If he turns it around they will deserve but not get the kudos for it. If he fails in the World Cup they will wear the egg that will also stain Clarke as well. Its a dumb idea. Thinking outside the square means thinking creatively to find solutions to the problem not just falling off the edge of the square.

  On 31/01/2011 at 03:49, why you little said:

If Clarke was not Captain right now, it is a tough one, but it would have to be Watson or Cam White.

Hence the importance of an inform Clarke to the team atm. Watson is too wooden and White aint making runs. Both could make names for themselves at this World Cup as thumping batsmen.

  On 31/01/2011 at 04:20, Rhino Richards said:

If its not knifing Clarke, Ponting or Hussey its misguided swipe at individuals on the selection panel. And you do without every putting up a plausible or reasonable alternative to the player dropped. Its very much a doll/axe situation with the same paltry thinking just a different person involved

And your fixation on the $$$$ is your own. The need to perform is not $$$ based but you try to create it as an imperative.

Clearly Clarke has gone through the horrors both on the field and off it. And just because he has suggested club cricket may be as astute as some of his shot selections in the middle or his girlfriends of late. Its hardly weak of the selectors when they are prepared to back a player who in form is critical to the Australian OD side. If he turns it around they will deserve but not get the kudos for it. If he fails in the World Cup they will wear the egg that will also stain Clarke as well. Its a dumb idea. Thinking outside the square means thinking creatively to find solutions to the problem not just falling off the edge of the square.

Hence the importance of an inform Clarke to the team atm. Watson is too wooden and White aint making runs. Both could make names for themselves at this World Cup as thumping batsmen.

Why is a profesional Cricketer any different to a high end business position, as far as performance goes?? I do not have a fixation on $$$, it is just the reality.

If somebody in any business is on top coin then they have to perform-simple. That includes M Hussey, Ponting & Clarke. I fully understand how harsh cricket can be to compared other sports, but that is why these guys are paid Top Coin.

Saying that Michael Clarke should not play Club Cricket is a dumb idea, is your opinion-it doesn't make it a dumb idea. M Clarke may have thought for him it was the best idea. Whenever a person is stale of ideas, it is always best to do something radically different to get the adrenalin pumping again.

You Rhino just do not wish to agree with my opinions as you are far more conservative (which is your right, & sometimes i do agree with what you say) but certainly not always.

Personally i would have backed Clarke on saturday, sure he may have gone out cheaply-but that's the risk. He also might have made 85-90 come sunday if he had had that club hit out....we shall never know.

Can someone be the bigger man here and just agree to disagree?

There's nothing new (or particularly intersting) being said IMO, and it just seems to be going in circles.

  On 31/01/2011 at 06:06, 45HG16 said:

Can someone be the bigger man here and just agree to disagree?

There's nothing new (or particularly intersting) being said IMO, and it just seems to be going in circles.

I agree, but i will not be walked over, for having an opinion.........The Results of the World Cup will be fascinating.

  On 31/01/2011 at 05:34, why you little said:

Why is a profesional Cricketer any different to a high end business position, as far as performance goes?? I do not have a fixation on $$$, it is just the reality.

If somebody in any business is on top coin then they have to perform-simple. That includes M Hussey, Ponting & Clarke. I fully understand how harsh cricket can be to compared other sports, but that is why these guys are paid Top Coin.

Its not relevant when you are trying to pick the best sides. Its not a relevant consideration for selectors. I didn't know you knew much about high end business positions beside a fascination with the $$$ that go with it and probably a fair lashing of tall poppy syndrome as well.

Its got nothing to do with conservatism just a belief in rationale well thought out and considered points of view which are short supply in your corner.

  On 31/01/2011 at 06:06, 45HG16 said:

Can someone be the bigger man here and just agree to disagree?

There's nothing new (or particularly intersting) being said IMO, and it just seems to be going in circles.

Fair enough. Going around in circles!!!....that's WYL position. B)

  On 31/01/2011 at 07:07, why you little said:

I agree, but i will not be walked over, for having an opinion.........The Results of the World Cup will be fascinating.

As usual you miss the point. If you cant have an opinion thats not challenged on a forum...well then..... keep working on the blog.

On a more interesting note, India has announced that Eden Gardens (home of Indian cricket like the MCG is to Australia) currently being upgraded for the World Cup wont be ready for the blockbuster England vs India clash.

The Commonwealth Games all over.

It says alot about the ICC when the elephant in the competition is incompetent at event organisation.

  On 31/01/2011 at 06:06, 45HG16 said:

Can someone be the bigger man here and just agree to disagree?

There's nothing new (or particularly intersting) being said IMO, and it just seems to be going in circles.

+1

  On 01/02/2011 at 02:32, Rhino Richards said:

It says alot about the ICC when the elephant in the competition is incompetent at event organisation.

I'll say!

The structure of the ICC board is a massive problem and I'm not sure it'll ever be reformed.

  Quote

Batsman Callum Ferguson has been added to the Australian one-day squad for the final two matches against England as Shaun Marsh awaits the results of scans on his injured hamstring.

I said he was the unlucky bat, and it's no surprise he's been added. I think we're a good but not great ODI team, and the injuries we have make it tough for us to win the World Cup IMO.

Good innings by Clarke, and a good partnership with Hussey.

It's a shame they seemed to lose their head with a couple of overs to go - there was no need to 'go the tonk' with the RRR around 7.

I was also glad to see Trott get MOTM despite being on the losing side, because I'm always annoyed when it seems to go to a player on the winning team by default.

  On 02/02/2011 at 12:35, Rogue said:

Good innings by Clarke, and a good partnership with Hussey.

It's a shame they seemed to lose their head with a couple of overs to go - there was no need to 'go the tonk' with the RRR around 7.

I was also glad to see Trott get MOTM despite being on the losing side, because I'm always annoyed when it seems to go to a player on the winning team by default.

Back in form Clarke having posted 82 off 70 balls and steering Australia to victory. The opening stand played a big part though - so it must be made mention of. Clarke looked more sure of himself, that's what Australia needs from him.

Class innings by Trott and thoroughly deserved MOTM.

Good captaincy to put Johnson in ahead too.

  On 02/02/2011 at 20:48, 45HG16 said:

Good captaincy to put Johnson in ahead too.

Indeed. Both he and Ferguson formed an important partnership too. Ferguson looked very good. White needs to be out there longer.

  On 02/02/2011 at 20:48, 45HG16 said:

Good captaincy to put Johnson in ahead too.

Absolutely. I was glad to see Clarke down the order a bit.

  On 02/02/2011 at 22:33, High Tower said:

White needs to be out there longer.

Yeah. I wonder if he feels he needs to play the big shots all the time since he's one of the power hitters in our side. If he's out there a while his strike rate will look after itself, so he should focus on playing a longer innings. I understand there was some pressure to get going last night, but in general I feel like he tries to hit out a little too much.

Really good innings from Clarke. Shows that you don't need to be a massive power hitter to chase down big scores in one day cricket. He was just so intelligent the way he went about the chase - scoring off nearly every ball and then pushing hard for twos. He ran the Poms ragged in the same way that Bevan used to.

Just goes to show that you need to give your best players time when they aren't playing well. Clarke is a class batsman who has shown he is good enough over several years. He's still only 29 and has many years of good cricket left in him.

Interesting to note that Clarke is the 3rd highest run scorer in this ODI series (behind Trott and Watson). Even when he's out of form, he's still one of the best (if not the best) batsmen in Australia.

Hopefully now the cringeworthy media witch hunt can end and we can concentrate the World Cup.

  On 02/02/2011 at 23:51, Axis of Bob said:

Just goes to show that you need to give your best players time when they aren't playing well. Clarke is a class batsman who has shown he is good enough over several years. He's still only 29 and has many years of good cricket left in him.

Hopefully now the cringeworthy media witch hunt can end and we can concentrate the World Cup.

Exactly Bob. It makes a furphy of the one rule 5 strikes and your out. Clearly there is an imprtant element of judgement that the selectors should apply to each and every case. And like you said Clarke is proven class notwithstanding his run of outs.

However, he is not out of the woods yet and needs to back this form up coming into and throughout the World Cup. But there are positive signs in his past 2 knocks.

Anyone want to speculate the reasoning behind the Johnson promotion to four? I'm not that interested in the obvious - clearly it was because Clarke wanted a player who could continue the run rate as set by Watson. Clarke had White, Hussey, Smith and even himself who could play that role, so why Mitch?

Trying to put myself in Clarke's head and work out why, perhaps it was because he knew that with such a large total there was a every chance Johnson would need to bat sooner or later and believed he was more likely to respond when just playing a role of building on a good start, rather than being responsible for the run chase later on in the innings? I don't know - that seems plausible, but seems a bit wishy-washy to justify such a risky move.

Thoughts?

I would say that Johnson went in because Yardy had come on to bowl and had 1 for 9 in his 3rd over. It only would have been right handers coming in to face the left arm spinner would turned the ball away, so by bringing in Johnson he was able to turn that left arm spinner into a weakness for England rather than a strength. Especially during the Power Play, since Johnson is notoriously harsh on left arm finger spinners with his power to mid wicket.

It didn't necessarily pan out that way, but Johnson was there to hit Yardy. Plus Clarke knew that his strength didn't lie in the Power Play overs when he first gets in, so he sent in a hitter. Why not White, Smith or Hussey? Probably because the experiment was for 5 overs, rather than 40 overs. He did't expect Johnson to still be there later when Clarke would be better off knocking the ball around, and he'd rather have his best power batsmen available for the last 10 overs when the foot really needed to go down.

I doubt the Johnson decision was inteded for any more than the next 5 overs. Any more than that would have been a bonus.

Voges into the squad - the forgotten man makes his return.

  On 02/02/2011 at 20:48, 45HG16 said:

Good captaincy to put Johnson in ahead too.

Agreed. 'Floaters', as they are sometimes called, can be a useful tool in ODIs and T20s. Batting orders aren't as important in limited overs cricket.

  On 02/02/2011 at 23:37, Rogue said:

Yeah. I wonder if he feels he needs to play the big shots all the time since he's one of the power hitters in our side. If he's out there a while his strike rate will look after itself, so he should focus on playing a longer innings. I understand there was some pressure to get going last night, but in general I feel like he tries to hit out a little too much.

Hopefully he, like Clarke, will get back into some form before the World Cup. With him on-song we'll lift another notch from where we are now. At the moment I think he's just not timing the ball well and that leads to him trying the big shots to hit one in the middle or just get some bonus runs or something. But I'd prefer to see him bunker down and score slowly, and not go out, than try for a couple fo boundaries and get out. Ultimately, though, we need him playing his usual game with a SR of over 100.

  On 03/02/2011 at 09:17, Nasher said:

Anyone want to speculate the reasoning behind the Johnson promotion to four? I'm not that interested in the obvious - clearly it was because Clarke wanted a player who could continue the run rate as set by Watson. Clarke had White, Hussey, Smith and even himself who could play that role, so why Mitch?

Trying to put myself in Clarke's head and work out why, perhaps it was because he knew that with such a large total there was a every chance Johnson would need to bat sooner or later and believed he was more likely to respond when just playing a role of building on a good start, rather than being responsible for the run chase later on in the innings? I don't know - that seems plausible, but seems a bit wishy-washy to justify such a risky move.

Thoughts?

Maybe it was a confidence thing as well? I mean, I thought it was because they had the spinner on and he plays spin well, but maybe he thought that we might as well utilise his hitting early on and have the more stable back ups of White and Hussey down the order should it fail.