Drop Clark

Drop Clark

Post by JPD » Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:23:56


:)
 
 
 

Drop Clark

Post by Dipak Jone » Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:30:39


Quote:
> :)

This may actually happen. By virtue of this second innings***ing he
may be putting his place at risk if the Oval is as flat as they are
saying. Australia may require Hauritz again and at the moment Clark is
the obvious choice to make way for him.

 
 
 

Drop Clark

Post by Don speaks the trut » Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:34:42


Quote:
> :)

That will be the most stupid decision...Hauritz has flopped in this
series and
Aus have nothing to lose by including 4 pacers....problem is Ponting
is not
bowling M.Clarke as much as he should(wonder whats the reason behind
it).

Don't give stupid rashful statements like one RB Rao....lets be a lil
mature in
the analysis.

Don

 
 
 

Drop Clark

Post by JPD » Tue, 11 Aug 2009 02:56:43



Quote:

> > :)

> That will be the most stupid decision...Hauritz has flopped in this
> series and
> Aus have nothing to lose by including 4 pacers....problem is Ponting
> is not
> bowling M.Clarke as much as he should(wonder whats the reason behind
> it).

> Don't give stupid rashful statements like one RB Rao....lets be a lil
> mature in
> the analysis.

> Don

"Baldrick, do you know what irony is?"

"Of course.  It's like goldy and bronzy, only it's made of iron."

--

JPD

 
 
 

Drop Clark

Post by David » Tue, 11 Aug 2009 08:23:19

Quote:


>> :)

> This may actually happen. By virtue of this second innings***ing he
> may be putting his place at risk if the Oval is as flat as they are
> saying.

I'm expecting to see 'lively' crop up suddenly and frequently regarding the Oval
pitch. What flat pitch?

Quote:
> Australia may require Hauritz again

I don't think I've seen 'require' and 'Hauritz' in the same sentence before.
 
 
 

Drop Clark

Post by dechuck » Tue, 11 Aug 2009 08:30:35


Quote:


>>> :)

>> This may actually happen. By virtue of this second innings***ing he
>> may be putting his place at risk if the Oval is as flat as they are
>> saying.

> I'm expecting to see 'lively' crop up suddenly and frequently regarding
> the Oval pitch. What flat pitch?

>> Australia may require Hauritz again

> I don't think I've seen 'require' and 'Hauritz' in the same sentence
> before.

Have you got the memory of a goldfish? It was in the post you replied to :-)
 
 
 

Drop Clark

Post by Andrew Dunfor » Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:19:53



Quote:

>> :)

> That will be the most stupid decision...Hauritz has flopped in this
> series and
> Aus have nothing to lose by including 4 pacers....problem is Ponting
> is not
> bowling M.Clarke as much as he should(wonder whats the reason behind
> it).

> Don't give stupid rashful statements like one RB Rao....lets be a lil
> mature in
> the analysis.

Says the person who made a rash statement about Hauritz being a 'flop'.

Although he looks a very ordinary bowler, Hauritz's figures actually stack
up quite well against other playing in the series.  There is only one
English bowler with a better average: Hauritz's figures are much better than
either Anderson and Flintoff who have received plenty of positive noise, and
leave his opposite number Swann for dead.

<snip>

Andrew

 
 
 

Drop Clark

Post by dechuck » Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:34:55


Quote:




>>> :)

>> That will be the most stupid decision...Hauritz has flopped in this
>> series and
>> Aus have nothing to lose by including 4 pacers....problem is Ponting
>> is not
>> bowling M.Clarke as much as he should(wonder whats the reason behind
>> it).

>> Don't give stupid rashful statements like one RB Rao....lets be a lil
>> mature in
>> the analysis.

> Says the person who made a rash statement about Hauritz being a 'flop'.

> Although he looks a very ordinary bowler, Hauritz's figures actually stack
> up quite well against other playing in the series.  There is only one
> English bowler with a better average: Hauritz's figures are much better
> than either Anderson and Flintoff who have received plenty of positive
> noise, and leave his opposite number Swann for dead.

Hauritz is ineligible for England
 
 
 

Drop Clark

Post by JPD » Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:31:12


Quote:


> >> :)

> > This may actually happen. By virtue of this second innings***ing he
> > may be putting his place at risk if the Oval is as flat as they are
> > saying.

> I'm expecting to see 'lively' crop up suddenly and frequently regarding the Oval
> pitch. What flat pitch?

> > Australia may require Hauritz again

> I don't think I've seen 'require' and 'Hauritz' in the same sentence before.

I think I have seen those words in the same sentence, along with the
word "not".  Then again, refer to Dunford's post later in this thread.

--

JPD

 
 
 

Drop Clark

Post by Don speaks the trut » Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:04:31


Quote:


> >> :)

> > That will be the most stupid decision...Hauritz has flopped in this
> > series and
> > Aus have nothing to lose by including 4 pacers....problem is Ponting
> > is not
> > bowling M.Clarke as much as he should(wonder whats the reason behind
> > it).

> > Don't give stupid rashful statements like one RB Rao....lets be a lil
> > mature in
> > the analysis.

> Says the person who made a rash statement about Hauritz being a 'flop'.

> Although he looks a very ordinary bowler, Hauritz's figures actually stack
> up quite well against other playing in the series. ?There is only one
> English bowler with a better average: Hauritz's figures are much better than
> either Anderson and Flintoff who have received plenty of positive noise, and
> leave his opposite number Swann for dead.

Hauritz figures may look good (i never go by stats) but he has come a
cropper in the crucial situations like on 5th day deteriorating wicket
in first test.....if he is not gonna be even half a threat as Warne
was for Eng, its better to go with another pacer like Clark who can at
least chip in when required.

Don

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> <snip>

> Andrew

 
 
 

Drop Clark

Post by Don speaks the trut » Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:05:14


Quote:



> > > :)

> > That will be the most stupid decision...Hauritz has flopped in this
> > series and
> > Aus have nothing to lose by including 4 pacers....problem is Ponting
> > is not
> > bowling M.Clarke as much as he should(wonder whats the reason behind
> > it).

> > Don't give stupid rashful statements like one RB Rao....lets be a lil
> > mature in
> > the analysis.

> > Don

> "Baldrick, do you know what irony is?"

First label your thread as sarcasm or straight one and then i can
respond accordingly.

Don

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> "Of course. ?It's like goldy and bronzy, only it's made of iron."

> --

> JPD- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

 
 
 

Drop Clark

Post by alve » Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:58:23

Quote:

> :)

It's possible.
And I had to laugh when he was being taken apart while going wicketless in
I2. All those screeching 'Mr Reliable Must Play!' headlines...

alvey    

 
 
 

Drop Clark

Post by higg » Tue, 11 Aug 2009 18:33:13


Quote:


> >> :)

> > That will be the most stupid decision...Hauritz has flopped in this
> > series and
> > Aus have nothing to lose by including 4 pacers....problem is Ponting
> > is not
> > bowling M.Clarke as much as he should(wonder whats the reason behind
> > it).

> > Don't give stupid rashful statements like one RB Rao....lets be a lil
> > mature in
> > the analysis.

> Says the person who made a rash statement about Hauritz being a 'flop'.

> Although he looks a very ordinary bowler, Hauritz's figures actually stack
> up quite well against other playing in the series. ?There is only one
> English bowler with a better average: Hauritz's figures are much better than
> either Anderson and Flintoff who have received plenty of positive noise, and
> leave his opposite number Swann for dead.

> <snip>

> Andrew

Of course, if you want to judge a player on stats alone, go for your
life.

As I said elsewhere, I consider Flintoff to have been the pick of the
bowlers in this series, at least he was prior to T4 (I wrote that at
the end of T3). Of course, his stats don't say as much, in fact he was
the 3rd best performed English bowler prior to T3.

Statistically, I can't prove it, and I'm not really bothered by that.
I also said that one of his spells was as fine an exhibition of fast
bowling as you'd have seen in the past 10 years. He didn't take 9fer
or anything like that, so it ain't gonna satisfy some people,
especially a month or two down the track when someone says 'actually,
Onions bowled much better, look at his figures'.

So what?
Don't bother watching the games, just read the scorecards and tell us
what *really* happened

Higgs

 
 
 

Drop Clark

Post by JPD » Tue, 11 Aug 2009 19:41:12



Quote:




> > > > :)

> > > That will be the most stupid decision...Hauritz has flopped in this
> > > series and
> > > Aus have nothing to lose by including 4 pacers....problem is Ponting
> > > is not
> > > bowling M.Clarke as much as he should(wonder whats the reason behind
> > > it).

> > > Don't give stupid rashful statements like one RB Rao....lets be a lil
> > > mature in
> > > the analysis.

> > > Don

> > "Baldrick, do you know what irony is?"

> First label your thread as sarcasm or straight one and then i can
> respond accordingly.

I thought an outrageous subject line such as the one above, with
nothing but a smiley in the text, was a pretty clear signal.  YMMV.

--

JPD

 
 
 

Drop Clark

Post by JPD » Tue, 11 Aug 2009 19:43:28


Quote:

> > :)

> It's possible.
> And I had to laugh when he was being taken apart while going wicketless in
> I2. All those screeching 'Mr Reliable Must Play!' headlines...

It did make for good theatre, but you actually can't argue with his
spell that demolished what one laughingly refers to as the England
Middle Order in I1.

For Don:  This was a serious contribution.  Time to next sarcasm
uncertain, will advise.

--

JPD