Page 2 of 2

Re: Michael Clarke new book controversies

PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2016 6:57 am
by GarlicJam
several pages from Clarke's book* make for interesting reading:

Image

Image

Image


*or not.

Re: Michael Clarke new book controversies

PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2016 8:37 am
by sussexpob
Surely you picked up the parody copy. This can not be real!

Re: Michael Clarke new book controversies

PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2016 8:40 am
by Dr Cricket
Wow clarke sound like a spoiled brat in that book, really hard to believe the book is real.
might buy the book looks a good read lol.

Re: Michael Clarke new book controversies

PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:32 am
by sussexpob
I have a feeling that these are jokes someone has made, Bhavi.....

Re: Michael Clarke new book controversies

PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:39 am
by Arthur Crabtree
Not many words on a page. Maybe this is the pre-school version...

Re: Michael Clarke new book controversies

PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:58 am
by Gingerfinch
It's obviously a joke, but I have to admit it took me a few lines to realise, and I did also wonder why he was sending photo's to Brian Lara, forgetting about Lara Bingle :hide

Re: Michael Clarke new book controversies

PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2016 10:57 am
by GarlicJam
It's the only use I have found for any/all of the sports betting websites that advertise on my facebook feed. One of them - this one, Sportsbet - does have some funny things from time to time.

Never spent a cent with them yet, though.

Re: Michael Clarke new book controversies

PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2016 11:30 am
by sussexpob
GarlicJam wrote:It's the only use I have found for any/all of the sports betting websites that advertise on my facebook feed. One of them - this one, Sportsbet - does have some funny things from time to time.

Never spent a cent with them yet, though.



I am a little bit gutted that the Gilmour CD thing isnt true. But it did give me a chuckle

Re: Michael Clarke new book controversies

PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 10:25 am
by GarlicJam
But wait, there is more:

Image

Image

Re: Michael Clarke new book controversies

PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 3:11 pm
by yuppie
:laugh :laugh

Brilliant find GJ :clap

Re: Michael Clarke new book controversies

PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:59 pm
by Arthur Crabtree
Good stuff. Clarke's got some way to go before he can claim to be as oleaginous as Mark Nicholas though.

Re: Michael Clarke new book controversies

PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2016 8:40 am
by meninblue
Arthur Crabtree wrote:
clubcricketeradi wrote:He was a top class batsman. At certain point of time he was worlds best. Technically he had a good control of forearm while playing on the up strokes. The elbow position complimented it.Only Jaddu troubled him as he picked his wicket 5 times in one tests series versus us in India.

His fielding too was incredible.

Bowling wise i cannot forget his 6 wicket hail in test versus us at Mumbai. He won that test match with his bowling.

As a captain although he did make couple of blunders, but overall he was succesful considering the win:loss ratio. The worst match could be the test in South Africa where his team gof out for 71?

I hope his autobiography is as good as his cricketing skills were.


He had at least two legendary innings, hundreds in Cape Town, at the start of the noughties on a damp wicket to Morkel/Steyn/Philander, and the second at Cape town with a broken shoulder. Players need those kind of knocks to be remembered, and surely these are among the very best innings played by Australians.

Also, as I've mentioned in the past, his stats aren't bolstered at all by games against minnows. If you strip out BD and Zimbabwe, he soars up the averages list. He was a fine skipper and he soldiered on amazingly well with a pretty bad back injury. He carried the Aussie team for a few years, and had a period where he was clearly the best bat in the world, and had one of the best years for runs ever.

I think there's a good case for him being one of the greats. But it sort of doesn't work when you try it. My little Test for taking the hype out of the game is to look at the players above and below in the stats. Minimum 5000 runs since 1990, excluding the minnows, Clarke falls between Dravid and Sehwag. Both are Hall of Famers.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... pe=batting

I wonder a bit if Aussies just got bored of having great batters. I've lived through Chappell, Border, Waugh and (Aussies say so, but I'm not sure) Ponting. Maybe they're just spoiled for batting legends.


Sadly i remember the 300+ he scored against us.

Re: Michael Clarke new book controversies

PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2016 9:28 am
by Arthur Crabtree
Cape Town at the start of the teens, not noughties, of course...

Re: Michael Clarke new book controversies

PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2016 2:21 pm
by alfie
Listened to a radio interview with Clarke today...I quite like him . As he acknowledges , he started as a leader without really "getting "it , and gradually learned how to lead his team...though by then he was starting to run out of star players. He wasn't in the mould of his predecessors : Border , Taylor , Waugh etc ..." Drink a beer , dog in the back of the ute , etc" and could see why not everyone took to him. But he gives Smith - a very different type of leader - support in the new style of Australian Captain in which there are a lot of coaches and managers hanging over his head...

He could bat all right too.