If Mcgrath and Clark bowled together...............

dream partnership I guess...............

Throw Warne in and yeah..... it's called Ashes 2006/7

It would be dull as f*ck though.

Yeah ... boring.
History.
End of.
Move on.

Why does Clark seem to have a mini fit every 10 seconds? If you watch him closely he frequently performs short and sharp headshakes.

Henry wrote:Why does Clark seem to have a mini fit every 10 seconds? If you watch him closely he frequently performs short and sharp headshakes.

Because he's from the McGrath mould and therefore has to get angered at each Run and Boundary he concedes along with Batsman taking him on.

It's some sort of tic.

It's Dietmar Hamannitis

Clark outbowled him in the England series. You don't need two of these clones.

Red wrote:Clark outbowled him in the England series. You don't need two of these clones.

Who? Dietmar Hamann?

Clark is the embodiment of the skills required for a seam up bowler, which are, in order of importance;

Movement off the straight
Consistency/Accuracy
Bounce





Pace

Red wrote:Clark outbowled him in the England series. You don't need two of these clones.

You forgot to mention he's a better bowler than Sooky Smith ...

embee wrote:

Red wrote:Clark outbowled him in the England series. You don't need two of these clones.

You forgot to mention he's a better bowler than Sooky Smith ...

So's my grandmother. And she's dead.

Mick Sawyer wrote:Clark is the embodiment of the skills required for a seam up bowler, which are, in order of importance;

Movement off the straight
Consistency/Accuracy
Bounce





Pace

Sage....


Ian Chappell said before the last Ashes series that Clark shouldn't play because he was too much like McGrath. That may well have been one of the stoopidest things I've ever heard come out of Chappelli's mouth.

Ian Chappell said before the last Ashes series that Clark shouldn't play because he was too much like McGrath. That may well have been one of the stoopidest things I've ever heard come out of Chappelli's mouth.

The key word is in bold. I'm sure not even Chappell expected England to be as crap as they were.

JGK wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:Clark is the embodiment of the skills required for a seam up bowler, which are, in order of importance;

Movement off the straight
Consistency/Accuracy
Bounce





Pace

Sage....


Ian Chappell said before the last Ashes series that Clark shouldn't play because he was too much like McGrath. That may well have been one of the stoopidest things I've ever heard come out of Chappelli's mouth.

The stoopidest being the sentence after that when he said that Tait should be the bowler instead of Subi

JGK wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:Clark is the embodiment of the skills required for a seam up bowler, which are, in order of importance;

Movement off the straight
Consistency/Accuracy
Bounce





Pace

Sage....


Ian Chappell said before the last Ashes series that Clark shouldn't play because he was too much like McGrath. That may well have been one of the stoopidest things I've ever heard come out of Chappelli's mouth.

Yep . . . last thing any team would want is 2 (two) McGraths . . . .

tac wrote:

JGK wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:Clark is the embodiment of the skills required for a seam up bowler, which are, in order of importance;

Movement off the straight
Consistency/Accuracy
Bounce





Pace

Sage....


Ian Chappell said before the last Ashes series that Clark shouldn't play because he was too much like McGrath. That may well have been one of the stoopidest things I've ever heard come out of Chappelli's mouth.

Yep . . . last thing any team would want is 2 (two) McGraths . . . .

Aye ...with a tail that long it would up to the batsmen in the team to score the runs

So the Poms would never go for it...

[quote="JGK

Ian Chappell said before the last Ashes series that Clark shouldn't play because he was too much like McGrath. That may well have been one of the stoopidest things I've ever heard come out of Chappelli's mouth.

There are so many things that are just plain idiotic about his view. There are many things I've admired about Chappelli - his commentary is not on the list.

But remember, before the ashes, Clark had played just 4 tests, and 3 of them had been on seamer friendly tracks in South Africa. Leading up to the ashes, his bowling in the various ODI tournaments Australia played had taken a serious pounding. Even if he was like Mcgrath in the way that he tried to bowl, there wasn't a whole lot of evidence to suggest that he was as good as Mcgrath. I'm prety sure that's what Chappell was getting at- Why have a poorer version of Mcgrath in the side when they could have something different in the form of Tait or Johnson? Also remember that leading up to the ashes, Shane Watson was expected to bat at six and be the fifth bowler, and he was another right arm fast medium hit the deck bowler.

I seem to remember most Aussies on here wanting Johnson to be in the side for the Brisbane test before Watson got injured.

The thing was though - Clark had played in seamer friendly conditions and outbowled a whole stack of seasoned Test bowlers. It was obvious that he was a guy who was going to make the step up to Test cricket.

embee wrote:

JGK wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:Clark is the embodiment of the skills required for a seam up bowler, which are, in order of importance;

Movement off the straight
Consistency/Accuracy
Bounce





Pace

Sage....


Ian Chappell said before the last Ashes series that Clark shouldn't play because he was too much like McGrath. That may well have been one of the stoopidest things I've ever heard come out of Chappelli's mouth.

The stoopidest being the sentence after that when he said that Tait should be the bowler instead of Subi

Chappelli was always instinctive and emotional rather than considered and logical. That simply reflects the resources at his disposal.

lardbucket wrote:

embee wrote:

JGK wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:Clark is the embodiment of the skills required for a seam up bowler, which are, in order of importance;

Movement off the straight
Consistency/Accuracy
Bounce





Pace

Sage....


Ian Chappell said before the last Ashes series that Clark shouldn't play because he was too much like McGrath. That may well have been one of the stoopidest things I've ever heard come out of Chappelli's mouth.

The stoopidest being the sentence after that when he said that Tait should be the bowler instead of Subi

Chappelli was always instinctive and emotional rather than considered and logical. That simply reflects the resources at his disposal.

You could argue though that we still would have won the Ashes comfortably had someone else played instead of McGrath. Whatever the figures suggest, Clark comprehensively outbowled Glenn and he wasn't the bowler of his apogee. Clark provided the accuracy and moved the ball when conditions suited and the poms were clearly unsettled against him. Hilfenhaus was in career best form that season. Who's to know had he played instead of McGrath that the result would have been much different.

Chappelli is emotional though, the other day he was rabbiting on on radio about how much better the team will be now that Haddin has replaced Gilly. Of course this is partly agenda-driven to side with Warne yet again.

Red wrote:You could argue though that we still would have won the Ashes comfortably had someone else played instead of McGrath.

And all this time the Aussie forummers have argued that you lost the 2005 Ashes because of McGrath's injury.