4 axed for 3rd test

[Cold Gin]

None of these other fewking pie tossers can take a wicket, even with their home work done.

Now some homework for Mickey Arthur; A hundred lines:

I must not suspend our best bowler.
I must not suspend our best bowler.
I must not suspend our best bowler.
I must not suspend our best bowler.

But seriously, what a magnificent innings from Dharwan. One of the best test innings I've seen.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

But seriously, what a magnificent innings from Dharwan. One of the best test innings I've seen.

It was a good knock, but he was facing some Grade quality bowling for much of it.

 

[catman 71]

thanks for the diatribe champ though sadly it missed the point so badly that I really wonder if you read any of the thread or whether your hair-trigger got the better of you - I didn't mention money in relation to sportspeople or complain about their earnings...not sure where you pulled that from???

for what its worth, I am happy for sporting stars to earn as much as they are able, i just don't want to hear them whinge about their #firstworldproblems or spit the dummy as they are called out over their churlish behaviour

clearly you've never been in a position to be 'overpaid' (as you put it) because if you had, you'd understand that there are always strings attached - the more you earn, the more you have to give up (e.g. extended work travel, weekend/holiday work, 24/7 on-call, difficult Board members etc etc)

if you ever reach that point in your career, you will learn that when you accept the big salary, you also accept the responsibility that goes with it - I hope our next vice-captain learns that life lesson

as for the post you responded to, it was simply me stating that I see no reason to denigrate someone simply because they are a manual labourer rather than an executive...

...personally i think people who lose sight of that are douchebags and thankfully you came along at just the right moment to prove the point

Another reason someone can get a big salary is because they bring much revenue into the business, therefore need to be looked after.

For example, say there is an executive who brings in a company's twenty largest clients and millions into the company each year. You have to pay him or her as much as possible to keep them from getting a better offer elsewhere, because they bring a lot and not keeping them happy will cost you a lot.

It is the same with sport. If players are bringing spectators through the gates, then they are making lots of money for that sport, as so should get a large slice of the pie.

It is a good thing that there is no free agency in cricket. Shane Watson could just walk out on Australia, and join another country's team instead. If the rules allowed it, I'm sure that another team would be interested in Watson, and offer him big money to move. However, because you are stuck playing for one country, the coaches can take advantage of this, knowing that Watson comply or not play Test cricket at all.

You get money sometimes based on the "stroke" you have, and then can command that your talents are recognized.

Also, sportspeople are paid whatever the market dictates and sponsors are prepared to pay. So, don't blame the sportsperson, blame capitalism. If someone pushes a star player too much, don't be surprised if they go somewhere where they are appreciated more (both financially and otherwise).

 

[catman 71]

I wonder, if this homework had been set when they were in England, would these four have been withdrawn during an Ashes series?

Either something is wrong or it isn't. If they suspend these four for not doing their homework in India, then the same rules would apply if Australia were 2-all in an Ashes series in England as well. But I don't think that they would be held accountable then, not when Australian pride is on the line.

 

[western royboy]

An interesting comment from a writer that I respect;

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cric...isses-opportunity-to-lead-20130318-2g9vk.html

 

[Phone]

Your best batsman player is greatly affected by a back injury, and there's 2 odd hours left in the day. Do you: Send him out there when he's nowhere near his best and increase the chances of getting him out, or do you give him the night and hope tomorrow he'll be a bit more recovered, a bit better, more likely of performing to a high standard. Common sense says you do the 2nd. Old Australian cricketers say you do the first. Perfect

 

[The Passenger]

An interesting comment from a writer that I respect;

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cric...isses-opportunity-to-lead-20130318-2g9vk.html

dude that was a horrid article.

i think clarke still has someone to go as a leader (as a tactician and batsmen he is top shelf), but it was obvious to anyone watching that he wasn't in any shape to bat. there's battling through niggles and what not, and then there's try to bat through a chronic back injury that we know he's had for ages.

there was a few suggestions that clarke pulled a swifty cause he wanted a reason not to bat 3 but come on? are we seriously turning on ourselves that badly.

 

[Phone]

he's only in doubt for the next test to make us feel sorry for him

 

[western royboy]

I'm sure he was in pain, no doubt - but in terms of what has gone on, I reckon he missed an opportunity to send a really strong message that he's up for the challenge.

 

[Mateyman]

I'm sure he was in pain, no doubt - but in terms of what has gone on, I reckon he missed an opportunity to send a really strong message that he's up for the challenge.

Yeah, let's sacrifice the only thing in our team that's been going right to send a message. If he'd missed the Ashes due to some exacerbation of the injury, oh well, the message would have been all the more clear!!!

he's only in doubt for the next test to make us feel sorry for him

Nah, what he;s really doing is trying to have Watson captain and fail so that he can look better, didn't you know? Wants to protect his captaincy statistics

 

[Phone]

it would have been stupid and selfish to go out there just to send a message. This isn't like Graeme Smith at the SCG. If it was the last session of play and Clarke didn't go out, ok fire away (and just btw I remember a NSW game where Clarke had a bad back and had bigger fish to fry than saving a game for a team he almost never plays for, but out he went.). Clarke still had a night's rest and some time for team staff to work on his back, and possibly make it better and hence his performance better and hence the team better. How stupid would it have been had Clarke gone out there in a crippled state, got out because he's in a crippled state, and then tomorrow morning when the first ball is bowled, it turns out his back is about 200% better. It would have been very macho, it would not have been in the team's best interest. The article gets better near the end when he talks about selection and the james pattinson thing, but the point about how he should have gone out there is just insane.

 

[Mateyman]

This article is typical of the macho "playing your natural game" mentality, which leads to us struggling to shut up shop and block out games

 

[western royboy]

This article is typical of the macho "playing your natural game" mentality, which leads to us struggling to shut up shop and block out games

Look at another way, if you were India, what kind of psychological kick did they get by seeing him not come out at No.3, or 4 or 5. Knowing he was wounded would have certainly have helped me if I was in the opposition.

 

[Mateyman]

Look at another way, if you were India, what kind of psychological kick did they get by seeing him not come out at No.3, or 4 or 5. Knowing he was wounded would have certainly have helped me if I was in the opposition.

If I was India, it would've given me an even bigger kick knowing he injured himself further and therefore couldn't play the 4th test

 

[sherb]

I'm sure he was in pain, no doubt - but in terms of what has gone on, I reckon he missed an opportunity to send a really strong message that he's up for the challenge.

And if he had gone out clearly injured and got out cheaply I wonder what the reaction from his critics would have been then?

I think the answer is pretty obvious.

Face it - with some people the bloke just can't win.

 

[Ill Chicken]

Your best batsman player is greatly affected by a back injury, and there's 2 odd hours left in the day. Do you: Send him out there when he's nowhere near his best and increase the chances of getting him out, or do you give him the night and hope tomorrow he'll be a bit more recovered, a bit better, more likely of performing to a high standard. Common sense says you do the 2nd. Old Australian cricketers say you do the first. Perfect

So what is the difference between that stance and Hobart?

If I was India, it would've given me an even bigger kick knowing he injured himself further and therefore couldn't play the 4th test

Yeah India are like, man I hope Clarke is injured next test because it is going to suck winning this test series 4-0 anyway.

 

[Mateyman]

Yeah India are like, man I hope Clarke is injured next test because it is going to suck winning this test series 4-0 anyway.

Point has no relevance. Clarke missing a test>>>>Clarke batting at 6 in an innings for impact on our team - they would have won this test anyway doesn't mean they wouldn't be disappointed to see him in the squad

 

[damochandler]

An interesting comment from a writer that I respect;

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cric...isses-opportunity-to-lead-20130318-2g9vk.html

forgetting gregg chappell and the underarm

 

[King Elvis]

Clarke had a chance to make a statement, in a Test we were never going to win. He finally moves himself up the order - gets out playing a terrible, terrible shot in the first - he needed to front up in the second and show some leadership, out the team first and guts his way through it.

He missed that chance, and it doesn't reflect well on him.

Would Ponting have shifted himself down the order?

Clarke in the last Ashes, the Adelaide Test, he was basically crippled.

 

[The_Reaper]

Look at another way, if you were India, what kind of psychological kick did they get by seeing him not come out at No.3, or 4 or 5. Knowing he was wounded would have certainly have helped me if I was in the opposition.

India were winning 2 nil, had a debutant score 190 odd off 170 odd balls and took a wicket in the first over.

Their morale was already sky high.

 

[Black Diamond]

Clarke had a chance to make a statement, in a Test we were never going to win. He finally moves himself up the order - gets out playing a terrible, terrible shot in the first - he needed to front up in the second and show some leadership, out the team first and guts his way through it.

He missed that chance, and it doesn't reflect well on him.

Would Ponting have shifted himself down the order?

Clarke in the last Ashes, the Adelaide Test, he was basically crippled.

Don't forget Katich.

 

[Wicked Lester]

Clarke had a chance to make a statement, in a Test we were never going to win. He finally moves himself up the order - gets out playing a terrible, terrible shot in the first - he needed to front up in the second and show some leadership, out the team first and guts his way through it.

It's an interesting point. McArdle is a former first class cricketer and in my opinion has a little more insight as to what inspires teammates and occurs behind closed doors than some of the professional cricketing journos. Initially, when I read McArdle's opinion piece I thought he'd been too hard on Clarke in this particular case and I still think that's the case. I thought the better question would have been to ask why the hell its taken this long for him to move up the order in the first place.

Which brings me to the other point of McArdle's opinion piece - that Clarke's approach to his cricket has, in the past if not now, been selfish.

Selfish seems to be the word of the moment and has been thrown about with gay abandon to describe Shane Watson's approach to his cricket. The thing is, apart from Watto's dummy spit and the fact he's got a mug on him that people seem to take a disliking to, I find it hard to pin point exactly exactly where his selfishness has been. Pat Howard hinted at it but has since been returned to whatever it is he actually does and well away from a microphone and Pup and Arthur have been keen to play the allegations down. Meanwhile Ponting (the consumate team man) put in a good word for Watson and said he'd always played for the team during his time. Even by Arthur's account, Watson is highly professional about the way he prepares himself for his cricket, he's bounced back after multiple injuries and when his country needed him was prepared to move to the top of order and take on the new ball, a move that met with considerable success for a time.

And that's a good segue back to what I think McArdle should have focussed on - Clarke's long term reluctance to lead by example and move up the order. Perhaps I'm a broken record on this topic so, sorry and call me old fashioned, but the world's best batsman does not bat at number 5 in my book. It may be ok when you've got Ricky Ponting at three and a very good number four but when you're the captain and the top order is crumbling over and over again its an absolute cop out. Lead by example Pup - as a batsman you're certainly good enough and even if it means you're average dips a little so be it. It will be better for the side having a rock around which other batsmen can build an innings rather than mounting lower order rescue missions.

 

[western royboy]

India were winning 2 nil, had a debutant score 190 odd off 170 odd balls and took a wicket in the first over.

Their morale was already sky high.

Put your cricketing hat on or captain's hat on if you have ever had it. First innings are over you have a smallish lead on the back of some devastating batting. You get a wicket in the first over, of the only real thrashing mashine in the top six, then the main bat doesn't come out and you see a bloke who is averaging 4.5 against you wander out.

What would you as a player be thinking? I know what I would and as a Captain I know what I would have been reinforcing to my team and bowlers.

 

[The Passenger]

I thought the better question would have been to ask why the hell its taken this long for him to move up the order in the first place.

i agree. should've moved to four as soon as the cracks appeared.

people point to hit poor record at four but i reckon that has more to do with the fact when he was batting at four he was in poor form. he wasn't gonna score runs batting anywhere. he had 21 of his 32 innings at number 4 were during 2010-11. the rest have been scattered about with most being in 2005 during the early part of his career when he was still pretty hit and miss.

normally i'd advocate batting where is best for him, as guys like steve waugh and sachin tendulkar (never once batted three in test cricket) have done over the careers. but they've been surrounded by fantastic batting line-ups. clearly that isn't the case for clarke.

the obvious concern is he moves to number 4, struggles, and we never see him get back to anything like that form again? surely the jump can't be that mental. what's the difference between coming in at 2/40 or 3/60?

 

[Simple Jack]

the obvious concern is he moves to number 4, struggles, and we never see him get back to anything like that form again? surely the jump can't be that mental. what's the difference between coming in at 2/40 or 3/60?

People always say 'oh with our crap top order he basically bats 3 anyway' but in reality, the difference is often 10 overs plus.

That's a hell of a lot of shine off the ball/seem flattening.