Mark Waugh lambasts the Clarke technique

[Ice goddess]

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,16964843%5E2882,00.html

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Personally, i think Clark has a better technique than Mark Waugh

Mark was always very loose and used to struggle against the odd ball that came back into him at pace, a bit like clark does.

However, thats being very critical as most right handers are troubled by the ball coming back into them at pace.

Nothing much in that article

 

[Dog Town]

Mark Waugh is kidding himself.I am not a huge Clarke fan but Waugh had a hideous technique.Lucky he could take a decent catch otherwise he would have played half the test matches he did.

 

[Syd Kennets]

Pfft, my mum has a horrible techneque and she can spot Clarke's weaknesses.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Thank You Very Much Indeed Syd Kennets

 

[Cooldude]

Junior is fast becoming an idiotic pundit

When he was playing, he used to hate the media for talking about his "laziness" and commenting on his batting

Now he's doing the same now that he's one of them.

 

[archibald]

Junior is fast becoming an idiotic pundit

When he was playing, he used to hate the media for talking about his "laziness" and commenting on his batting

Now he's doing the same now that he's one of them.

He always said he hated people who had never played cricket commenting on his batting. So i guess he feels he has a right to comment since he scored over 8000 runs.

 

[Ice goddess]

Waugh used to constantly play away from his body. What I find amusing is the most productive #4 ever. Certainly only in terms of total runs scored but at an unflattering average considering some of the bowling he faced. He used to get easily found out by the very best bowlers too.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Waugh used to constantly play away from his body. What I find amusing is the most productive #4 ever. Certainly only in terms of total runs scored but at an unflattering average considering some of the bowling he faced. He used to get easily found out by the very best bowlers too.

I disaggree slightly, Mark Waugh was a supberb batsmen who proved himself against quality bowlers by the likes of Ambrose, Walso, Pollock, Donald etc ect when they were at their peak.

I agree that Mark Waugh was at times very loose and playing away from his body cost him his wicket many times. However,

he was very unselfish and if he felt the team had enough runs or he had made a ton then most times he would up the anty and take more risks, that i feel might explain his slightly low average,

I have always felt Mark could have made a lot more runs if he truly wanted too.

A bit like Doug Walters could have actually

 

[crownie]

how do you determine a good technique from a bad one?, with a ball getting bowled that fast you dont have time to think.

experts say not to have your bat lift flash to point but Lara's does and his scored truck loads, you just goota bat how you feel comfortable.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Wise words crownie

 

[Cooldude]

Lara is a one-off, he is just brillant, though you can easily say the way he constantly goes 3 stumps back and across is clearly bad technique

Pup just needs to play straighter and stop playing across the line too early on in his innings.

 

[Ice goddess]

I disaggree slightly, Mark Waugh was a supberb batsmen who proved himself against quality bowlers by the likes of Ambrose, Walso, Pollock, Donald etc ect when they were at their peak.

I agree that Mark Waugh was at times very loose and playing away from his body cost him his wicket many times. However,

he was very unselfish and if he felt the team had enough runs or he had made a ton then most times he would up the anty and take more risks, that i feel might explain his slightly low average,

I have always felt Mark could have made a lot more runs if he truly wanted too.

A bit like Doug Walters could have actually

Walters couldn't really have made more runs unless he was playing against bowlers who couldn't move the ball much. He struggled big time in England and was eventually dropped for the 5th test in 1972 ; he couldn't combat the swinging ball because of his technique. He battled against really good fast bowling (even in his own words), so could never bat higher than #6. Ambrose sorted Mark Waugh out, dismissed him more than any other bowler, I don't subscribe to this theory of the laconic Waugh not averaging what he should have. Let's face it he always averaged early to mid 40's despite publicly stated he was aiming for an average of 50.

 

[frankrizzo]

Mark Waugh might have been a lazy player, he might have switched off at times when he felt his spot was safe, but please anybody who watched his innings in 98 at the Adelaide Oval knows the bloke has a technique far better than Clarke.

 

[Cooldude]

Mark Waugh had some of the best hand-eye coordination you'd see from a batsman, but at times, his footwork and shot selection is comparable to Glenn McGrath's.

I'm still a fan of Junior purely due to the entertainment factor

 

[frankrizzo]

I agree when it was bad jeez it was bad but Clarke looks even worse when out of nick more to the point I really can’t see Clarke ever scoring runs against good pace attacks.

Even in India khan and Pathan were unlucky to have him dropped numerous times.

 

[thefugitive]

Over 8,000 test runs, 20 test centuries. I think M Waugh is very much entitled and more than qualified to comment on Clarkes technique. One of the best batsman to watch I have ever seen, which was due to his beautifully smooth free flowing technique. I feel a reason why his average was a little low was due to his lack of big hundreds, his highest score of 153 shows that. Was a very consistent player, who made some very important hundreds for Australia. Clarke will be good, but not that good. He is very overrated. He isnt in the same class as a Ponting, Gilchrist, or Hayden. To me Clarke plays a lot like Slater. He could prove me wrong but i dont think his average will be much higher than it is now for his whole test career.

 

[Cooldude]

Pup will come good, still maturing as a batsman and as a person, these failures will do him good

He just needs to stop hanging on the backfoot too often

 

[frankrizzo]

At some point he could be a fine test player, but right now he’s not good enough, a few years in pura cup showing he can not just belt attacks when conditions suit him but rather change his game to suit conditions is needed before he continues in the baggy green.

 

[Cooldude]

Slater comparsion's not far off the mark, he idolises Slats (Why would anyone wanna do that in the first place though?), the same recklessness in their batting, but Pup's already done 100 times more than Slats has ever done at least in the One Day game.

Not the same petulence and whinging sooky up-himself ********er that Slats is, too.

He'll mature with age, sooner or later he'll know that this type of extravagent batting ain't gonna generate consistent runs

 

[embleygirl]

Clarke's not ready for the No.4 spot yet. He's young and still got a lot to learn.

I do think if he was dropped just for 1 or 2 games he might realise some things and try to protect his wicket a bit more.

 

[Rob B]

In my opinion, Watson should bat at number 4, and Clarke at 6.

Watson is a better batsman than Clarke from what I have seen.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Clark is a gun - there is no doubt about that, probably the most exciting young batsmen in the world. However, he is still relatively inexperienced even at first class level

He'll end up averaging about 45

Watson will be a gun

 

[Rob B]

Most excited young batsman in the world? You have to be kidding me.

Aren't you forgetting Ian Bell?

Want to be stunned, look at this scorecard. I was. : http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/shared...et/scorecards/2005/9/11866/html/scorecard.stm

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Have a look at the bowlers he got them off


DUDS