Is Stuart Clark worthy of this thread? Seems to rarely get spoken about, but 94 test wickets at 23 to go with 53 wickets in ODIs, filled a role there for a while really well after debuting in international cricket late in his career.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Played a fair bit realistically and was very good at, wasn’t stiff as I recall just took his chance when it appeared and never let it go. For a time Bichel, Kasper and Brett Lee were awfully stiff to be in the McGrath, Gillespie, Warne era where each one of them realistically just got scraps. I was playing lower grades at Randwick in 97 and Anthony Stuart was virtually on the plane when his body gave way and he never got it right again - reckon he would have killed it in the UK - but sliding doorsIs Stuart Clark worthy of this thread? Seems to rarely get spoken about, but 94 test wickets at 23 to go with 53 wickets in ODIs, filled a role there for a while really well after debuting in international cricket late in his career.
Unlucky to be stuck on 99 Test wickets, bowled some absolute peaches. Check out the Dravid wicket here:
Was a better bowler before the national team got hold of him IMO.
They modified his action to lessen the stress on his back, which allowed him to bowl faster and shorter - then got him to bang the ball in short of a length just like the others. He lost a lot of his variation and control - was a lesser bowler after the change.
Schrodinger's cricketer...underrated and overrated at the same time.Mitch Starc, probably.
Also, more than useful with the bat without quite the stats to be a bowling all rounder.Schrodinger's cricketer...underrated and overrated at the same time.
Given his red ball form of late, shouldn't have been playing. But picks up a wicket on the first ball
Also, more than useful with the bat without quite the stats to be a bowling all rounder.
Think his bowling is wildly underrated sometimes. For all that he can go for runs a fair bit, he averages 27 in tests, and he perfectly complements Hazelwood (who is more than capable of going at 1.5 runs an over) and Cummins (also hard to score against).
History's going to be kinder to him than his contemporaries are, I think.
Bairstow against the new and moving ball?I find it hard to believe that Bairstow - who has a test hundred in Australia - couldn’t be more of a threat than Burns or Hameed even if he’s forced to open
Crawley can play, I’m unsure why he’s not opening, Burns was always going to be a huge risk on fast pitchesI find it hard to believe that Bairstow - who has a test hundred in Australia - couldn’t be more of a threat than Burns or Hameed even if he’s forced to open
Bairstow against the new and moving ball?
For some reason, they really like Burns. It made sense while he was productive, but he's not been truly productive for at least a year.I’d take Bairstow against the new or moving ball over wood. He’s flaky, yes - and his tests as a specialist batsman in particular have a poor record (he averages 38 in the tests when he keeps, make of that what you will). But he is dangerous. Hameed I can see some merit in. He soaked up good pressure in both innings so if you’ve got strokemakers to come I can cop that. But burns isn’t good enough to soak up that same pressure imo nor can he hurt you with stroke play. At least someone like Bairstow can really give you some headaches
For some reason, they really like Burns. It made sense while he was productive, but he's not been truly productive for at least a year.
I don't think Bairstow's the answer, though. He plays through the line with an angled bat, hard hands, and is prone to reading the wrong line against the swinging ball. We thought Watson had LBW problems; he'd be nothing to Bairstow against a decent in-ducker bowler.