4 axed for 3rd test

[King Elvis]

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.

And the leader of our side couldn't grit his teeth and get out there. How do you think that would've been received in our pavilion, and on the field by the Indians?

Lester - solid post. I think he has a history of putting himself before the team, and I think he's selfish - and I believe his constant refusal to bat up the order is the biggest example of that. Even his statement the other week - "I'll have to consider moving up the order, I don't have a choice," isn't exactly positive or strong.

 

[The Speaker]

And the leader of our side couldn't grit his teeth and get out there. How do you think that would've been received in our pavilion, and on the field by the Indians?

As desperate and needlessly putting himself at further risk.

 

[MC Bad Genius]

And the leader of our side couldn't grit his teeth and get out there. How do you think that would've been received in our pavilion, and on the field by the Indians?

Lester - solid post. I think he has a history of putting himself before the team, and I think he's selfish - and I believe his constant refusal to bat up the order is the biggest example of that. Even his statement the other week - "I'll have to consider moving up the order, I don't have a choice," isn't exactly positive or strong.

Geez. Give it a rest. Even for a couple of days.

 

[King Elvis]

As desperate and needlessly putting himself at further risk.

By putting the team first.

And he's putting himself at risk by playing IPL, isn't he?

MC - to be fair, I applauded him when he did shift himself to #3

 

[The Speaker]

By putting the team first.

I would've thought that, given the team is riding on his back in more ways than one, ensuring he doesn't injure himself even more would be the best way to "put the team first".

 

[sherb]

And the leader of our side couldn't grit his teeth and get out there. How do you think that would've been received in our pavilion, and on the field by the Indians?

Lester - solid post. I think he has a history of putting himself before the team, and I think he's selfish - and I believe his constant refusal to bat up the order is the biggest example of that. Even his statement the other week - "I'll have to consider moving up the order, I don't have a choice," isn't exactly positive or strong.

You're just a bore now. We get it.

You'd have been the first to whinge and whine if he had gone out injured and got out cheaply. Or is he had aggravated the injury.

Hell, you probably would have got stuck into him for batting injured even if neither of those scenarios occurred.

People such as yourself will criticize him no matter what.

 

[sherb]

I would've thought that, given the team is riding on his back in more ways than one, ensuring he doesn't injure himself even more would be the best way to "put the team first".

He did the sensible thing.

The side had a limited time to bat that evening, so it made sense not to bat and give it a rest overnight.

He was struggling with his movement in the field and that would have impacted on his batting.

I am reluctant to use this terminology, but this is a classic case of "haters gonna hate" in relation to Clarke.

 

[King Elvis]

People such as yourself will criticize him no matter what.

I applauded him for moving up the order.

I think, tactically, he could be a good Captain.

I think he's currently one of the best few batsmen in the world - if not the best.

 

[Ill Chicken]

As desperate and needlessly putting himself at further risk.

He did the sensible thing.

The side had a limited time to bat that evening, so it made sense not to bat and give it a rest overnight.

He was struggling with his movement in the field and that would have impacted on his batting.

I am reluctant to use this terminology, but this is a classic case of "haters gonna hate" in relation to Clarke.

So what is the difference between this and Hobart?

 

[Mateyman]

So what is the difference between this and Hobart?

Waiting half an hour of play didn't give him the opportunity to rest his back overnight?

 

[Mateyman]

I don't even get why Clarke should be batting at 3 in India, when he has 3 other (4 other when Watto is in the team), batsmen who like getting their eye in against the new ball, whereas he prefers getting it in against the old ball... but anyway

 

[Father Jack]

I don't even get why Clarke should be batting at 3 in India, when he has 3 other (4 other when Watto is in the team), batsmen who like getting their eye in against the new ball, whereas he prefers getting it in against the old ball... but anyway

Because none of those batsman are getting the job done, and instead of Clarke having to mount rescue mission after mission, maybe it's a good idea to maximise our best asset and take the pressure off our faltering, developing top order players a bit.

Of course, if you view Clarke's average as more important than the team, you might think otherwise.

 

[rickyp]

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.

Even more important is the mental aspect IMO. Batting at 3 you know you're out there as soon as the first wicket falls. Batting at 5 gives you some down time. Even if you end up coming out in the same over, mentally it is vastly different.

 

[MC Bad Genius]

Of course, if you view Clarke's average as more important than the team, you might think otherwise.

That's such a rubbish comment. It's so brain-numbingly stupid. They are not mutually exclusive at all. In fact, you could very easily and successfully argue that they are strongly correlated ie Clarke having a higher average means that the team is stronger.

It really is that simple.

 

[Father Jack]

That's such a rubbish comment. It's so brain-numbingly stupid. They are not mutually exclusive at all. In fact, you could very easily and successfully argue that they are strongly correlated ie Clarke having a higher average means that the team is stronger.

It really is that simple.

I gather you haven't followed cricket for very long then.

 

[Ill Chicken]

That's such a rubbish comment. It's so brain-numbingly stupid. They are not mutually exclusive at all. In fact, you could very easily and successfully argue that they are strongly correlated ie Clarke having a higher average means that the team is stronger.

It really is that simple.

Yeah like the Shiv. West Indies have had a rock at number 5 and for some reason they struggle to knock over the Bangas.

 

[MC Bad Genius]

Yeah like the Shiv. West Indies have had a rock at number 5 and for some reason they struggle to knock over the Bangas.

So if he batted at 3 and his average was 20 runs lower, the West Indies would be a better team? You know that's not true, so why bother saying it? The problems with West Indies cricket run a hell of a lot deeper than someone being batted in their best position.

 

[MC Bad Genius]

I gather you haven't followed cricket for very long then.

I assume that because you've been following cricket for longer than me (I don't actually know either way), in any difference of opinion I have to defer to your experience?

 

[Mateyman]

Because none of those batsman are getting the job done, and instead of Clarke having to mount rescue mission after mission, maybe it's a good idea to maximise our best asset and take the pressure off our faltering, developing top order players a bit.

Of course, if you view Clarke's average as more important than the team, you might think otherwise.

Doesn't matter where Watson bats, he's still ****, so you might as well have Clarke making runs. Watson and Hughes won't make more runs against an old ball than a new one, but Clarke might

 

[Ill Chicken]

So if he batted at 3 and his average was 20 runs lower, the West Indies would be a better team? You know that's not true, so why bother saying it? The problems with West Indies cricket run a hell of a lot deeper than someone being batted in their best position.

The West Indies statistically win more games with Chanderpaul batting at 3, 4 and 6 than with him at 5, so technically, yes, the West Indies would be better with Chanderpaul in a higher or lower position.

Clarke doesn't experience the same issues as Chanderpaul regarding the WICB and hence should know that even if goes back to state cricket, what he earns is better than 99% of world cricketers.

 

[MC Bad Genius]

The West Indies statistically win more games with Chanderpaul batting at 3, 4 and 6 than with him at 5, so technically, yes, the West Indies would be better with Chanderpaul in a higher or lower position.

Clarke doesn't experience the same issues as Chanderpaul regarding the WICB and hence should know that even if goes back to state cricket, what he earns is better than 99% of world cricketers.

That stat about the West Indies is a good point that I hadn't realised, but it then supports the theory that Clarke should stay at #5 for Australia.