Comments on: Good England Start with Hiccups

By: Krishna

Krishna — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:26:28 +0000

Raj, Barry: I would agree with that assessment. Michael Clarke obviously does not perform as a regular spinner. But if he can sometimes take wickets unexpectedly, why not throw the ball at him in the final overs of the game.

By: raj

raj — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:28:33 +0000

Not sure what kridaya meant. Wondering if he meant something like “Clarke took his wickets in Sydney, but in the next match, Ponting bowled him earlier, and gave him a few more overs than normal, and I think he didnt do that well”.
Something like, when it is a win-win situation, when even if Clarke fails to take a wicket, nobody’s gonna complain, he does take wickets but when he is taken as the spinner in the team with 4 other medium pace bowlers making up the bowling unit, he doesnt deliver?

Ok, I’ll make that simpler “Clarke fails to take wickets under pressure, when put in the spotlight as a bowler who can take wickets”

By: Naked Cricket

Naked Cricket — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:17:53 +0000

England’s middle order is far too predictable, they fail when you expect them too. Collingwood’s dismissal didn’t surprise me, there was no crisis, what was the point in staying on? But that Bopara is one dullhead, another limited overs’ kid, and to hell with those hundreds – even Monty plays straighter than him.

Thought Clarke would’ve bowled at Cardiff – he brings some edge, just that creepy way of his; North too passive.

By: David Barry

David Barry — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 06:05:13 +0000

For some reason, Clarke has the knack of taking wickets when you least expect him to.
I would suggest that he takes wickets when you don’t expect him to because he doesn’t take many wickets, and hence we never expect him to take wickets. 18 wickets in 48 Tests, 6 of them in a few overs in Mumbai.

Flipping the original statement around: when you don’t expect Clarke to take wickets, he occasionally takes wickets.