November 23, 2013

The battle Clarke can win

Michael Clarke just needs to go back to the basics and trust them to overcome his issues against the short ball; he is a wonderful player and Australia should be proud of him
  shares 22

Everyone has weaknesses, or at least a weakness. From Don Bradman to Sachin Tendulkar, no one is immune. Weaknesses are a given, it just depends on how much you get exposed. It simply depends on the oppositions ability to exploit one. Harold Larwood found one against Bradman, the short, fast ball aimed at the rib cage. Tendulkar, too, found this line difficult. Anytime the body has to jump to counter bounce means a bit of poise is lost.

Ideally, you like to play the ball standing firm, with the back foot square as the key as it provides a solid base in which to hold your body position. However, if the bounce is winning, and you can't keep the ball down, then the option is to drop the back leg to the ground and this holds the head still as you sway and move under the ball. Of course, the attacking options, the hook or pull, or upper cut over slips, are also needed at various stages of an innings, indeed a career.

The dilemma is what to use when bounce is your enemy. And let's be honest, it's probably bounce more than any other form of attack or skill like swing, pace, seam and spin, that is the most difficult, the most threatening, and once it gets into your head can be very hard to remove.

Ricky Ponting's career started to decline when he became found out with his hook shot. That was three years from the end, and it began to slowly creep into his mental state, normally a strong suit of his. Is this now happening to Michael Clarke? No, I don't believe so. Mainly because he isn't a hooker by nature, he is more of a driver. But if he isn't careful this challenge could start to bleed into his overall game.

England, and all other test teams over many years, have struggled to contain Clarke. He is proficient against all attacks. He is unbelievable against spin. He is brilliant against pace. He is vulnerable against himself. We all are.

In the first innings against England at Brisbane he played a bad shot against a short ball from Stuart Broad. He took his eye off the ball. He got pinned in the crease. He has done this a few times recently against Broad. So it is Broad, more than anything or anyone, that has imposed himself as the exposer of Clarke's slightly open wound. Yet, Clarke is the better cricketer. While Broad is certainly maturing into a bloody good one.

What is important for Clarke is that he never stops looking to improve on what he has learnt. Gaining wisdom is hugely healthy for mind and body. It keeps you fresh. I believe Clarke is that sort of man. I believe his motivation is strong with the leadership responsibility he has, with the challenge of regaining the Ashes a major driving force. He thrives on the challenge, so it would follow that he finds new ways to keep the opposition from smelling blood.

In my humble opinion, the best way to play fast bounce is to having the mindset and the head position to stay firm. This means keeping the head in a strong two-eyed tilted position, with a desire to play straight. The moment you look for the short ball and prepare early, that is when the body and head position start to retreat. It may not be noticeable but any shift in balance backwards and you get pinned to the spot, the ball inevitably finding a cornered target. Ideally then, if the head stays firm and sees the ball early, then the body can be more easily moved either out of the way, or under the ball or in attack mode, as the body makes an efficient move to strike.

The other option is to go way back and across as Ian Chappell did. But he did this his whole life and forged a career doing it. For someone like Clarke, who is a classic driver say like Greg Chappell, well that would be too drastic. Ian Chappell's method worked for him, but not many had his ability and appetite for the short ball. He virtually encouraged it from the opposition quicks. He literally talked them into it.

Clarke needs to continue to think 'straight drive'. The straight drive mentality puts the head and body in a great position to play any shot. Again, the key is the head position. Move it early and you get stuck. Hold firm and you see all you need to see and you can move with calm efficiency.

In summary, Clarke just needs to go back to the basics and trust them. This is another way of gaining wisdom, by not getting sidetracked into looking for a band-aid for a perceived problem. By accurately going back to the basics and denying all the spin from getting to get into his head and game, he becomes a wiser and better player. The challenge becomes accepted and the result is positive.

Clarke is a true leader of the modern day. He is smart, energetic, skilful, and inspirational. He is so under appreciated by his fellow countrymen it's not funny. His tactical brain is as good as Mark Taylor's, and better than his two predecessors; Steve Waugh and Ricky Ponting. Too often it's a misunderstanding and a misinterpretation of a good man, a fine player. It's simply a case of operating in a completely different era. Australia will have more bad days. In the past you wondered if that would ever be the case. Back then a lot of gushing went on. These bad days get folk snapping.

Mostly, I like Clarke's equilibrium. He is modern day and old fashioned, flash and stoic, cool and emotional. He is pleasure and pain. Most importantly, he is unique and himself. No one is like him, and not enough like him when they should. He is a treasure and Australia should be damn proud of him.

At series end you will see why.

Martin Crowe, one of the leading batsmen of the late '80s, played 77 Tests for New Zealand

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • on November 23, 2013, 2:22 GMT

    spot on!! I just don't understand why Clarke has had to contend with such back biting...he's always been100% committed to winning and has been the glue that has held many innings together! I also worry that if he starts thinking too much about short pitched bowling and works too much on this thought that he will lose what makes him such a good batsman...his instinct!! Watch golfers when they tinker with what works for them and they lose their game..everybody can't be coached into being the same it's their individuality that makes a great player which I believe he is.He has always conducted himself well as captain and should not have to answer to anybody about how he chooses to spend his private time...bravo Michael!.... I love your captaincy and your talent!

  • ravi.m on November 24, 2013, 7:09 GMT

    Ponting & Gilchrist in their prime were as good as you could ask for against serious short balls. But, my top 5 picks will be - taking the helmet factor into account - Sobers, Viv Richards, Ian Chappell, Derek Randall & David Steele! Those 5 were probably the most unflappable I could think of (since the 1960s).

  • acnc on November 24, 2013, 7:09 GMT

    Jonathan Trott would do well to read this article and bookmark this page...

  • on November 23, 2013, 13:52 GMT

    I'd really like to know his basis for saying Clarke is a better captain than Waugh. He may well turn out to be, but his record to date certainly doesn't suggest he is a better captain than Waugh, nor does Waugh's record suggest he was not a great captain.

    I admire the innovation of Clarke (especially after the less than strategic years of Ponting) but I am at a loss to understand why this makes him a better captain.

  • kunshah on November 23, 2013, 13:32 GMT

    Michael Clarke is the best captain and one of the top three batsmen in world cricket. Anyone who doesn't understand this, better follow another game.

  • Beertjie on November 23, 2013, 13:14 GMT

    Agree @ravi.m on (November 23, 2013, 1:54 GMT) - that was no "weakness" which is why the laws were changed. Clarke will go down as a great batsman, but if you were to ask him now whether he'd trade some of that individual aura for regaining the Ashes, I know what his answer would be.

  • swarzi on November 23, 2013, 11:47 GMT

    Martin, Your point that all batsmen have a weakness against short bowling is well taken. However, you, Sambit Bal and others are making 'a mountain out of a mole hill' with this Clarke vs Broad matter! You're implicitly, but erroneously using the Clarke vs 'Broad' brush, to paint Clarke's entire ability against fast bowling! To me, this is far from the truth! Which other fast bowler apart from Broad has created any 'news-worthy' problem in short bowling for Mr Clarke? I've seen him play all the fast bowlers of his time, and, until these few episodes against Broad, he has played them as well as, or better than some of the touted great players you guys frequently elevate! Tendulkar had more problems against Anderson, the said Broad and Co.; and the young green horns in Aus few years ago, but no one created the non-existent crisis which is now being created about Clarke; though there was enough evidence to raise the alarm bells for Sachin! Clarke vs Broad is just a psychological problem!

  • dunger.bob on November 23, 2013, 10:57 GMT

    I'm not a serious contender in the facing the Windies debate because my memory ain't good enough, but I'd like to say this much. At his absolute peak Graeme Wood would have run out at least 3 of your top 7 before the first drinks break. He was, as far as I can recall, one of the most diabolical judges of a run to ever set foot on a cricket field. Especially before he got off the mark. Then when he got near fifty and when he was in the high nineties it was tip and run. .. Great bloke but wouldn't recognise a safe single if it slapped him in the face.

  • wix99 on November 23, 2013, 9:13 GMT

    There are some weak links in the Australian team. However, Michael Clarke is not one of them. He is the only player in the current team who can be compared with the likes of Border, Steve Waugh and Ponting.

  • Cool_Jeeves on November 23, 2013, 8:23 GMT

    Biggus, AB did incredibly well in one series, but after that, they got him. Same with Amarnath. He did very well there in 82-83, followed by 001000 (those were his innings scores in 6 innings). They always got them in the end. If anyone would break in, it is probably the author of this article himself. He was not too bad against pace, either. Big hundred in West Indies, and almost a hat-trick in NZ.

  • on November 23, 2013, 2:22 GMT

    spot on!! I just don't understand why Clarke has had to contend with such back biting...he's always been100% committed to winning and has been the glue that has held many innings together! I also worry that if he starts thinking too much about short pitched bowling and works too much on this thought that he will lose what makes him such a good batsman...his instinct!! Watch golfers when they tinker with what works for them and they lose their game..everybody can't be coached into being the same it's their individuality that makes a great player which I believe he is.He has always conducted himself well as captain and should not have to answer to anybody about how he chooses to spend his private time...bravo Michael!.... I love your captaincy and your talent!

  • ravi.m on November 24, 2013, 7:09 GMT

    Ponting & Gilchrist in their prime were as good as you could ask for against serious short balls. But, my top 5 picks will be - taking the helmet factor into account - Sobers, Viv Richards, Ian Chappell, Derek Randall & David Steele! Those 5 were probably the most unflappable I could think of (since the 1960s).

  • acnc on November 24, 2013, 7:09 GMT

    Jonathan Trott would do well to read this article and bookmark this page...

  • on November 23, 2013, 13:52 GMT

    I'd really like to know his basis for saying Clarke is a better captain than Waugh. He may well turn out to be, but his record to date certainly doesn't suggest he is a better captain than Waugh, nor does Waugh's record suggest he was not a great captain.

    I admire the innovation of Clarke (especially after the less than strategic years of Ponting) but I am at a loss to understand why this makes him a better captain.

  • kunshah on November 23, 2013, 13:32 GMT

    Michael Clarke is the best captain and one of the top three batsmen in world cricket. Anyone who doesn't understand this, better follow another game.

  • Beertjie on November 23, 2013, 13:14 GMT

    Agree @ravi.m on (November 23, 2013, 1:54 GMT) - that was no "weakness" which is why the laws were changed. Clarke will go down as a great batsman, but if you were to ask him now whether he'd trade some of that individual aura for regaining the Ashes, I know what his answer would be.

  • swarzi on November 23, 2013, 11:47 GMT

    Martin, Your point that all batsmen have a weakness against short bowling is well taken. However, you, Sambit Bal and others are making 'a mountain out of a mole hill' with this Clarke vs Broad matter! You're implicitly, but erroneously using the Clarke vs 'Broad' brush, to paint Clarke's entire ability against fast bowling! To me, this is far from the truth! Which other fast bowler apart from Broad has created any 'news-worthy' problem in short bowling for Mr Clarke? I've seen him play all the fast bowlers of his time, and, until these few episodes against Broad, he has played them as well as, or better than some of the touted great players you guys frequently elevate! Tendulkar had more problems against Anderson, the said Broad and Co.; and the young green horns in Aus few years ago, but no one created the non-existent crisis which is now being created about Clarke; though there was enough evidence to raise the alarm bells for Sachin! Clarke vs Broad is just a psychological problem!

  • dunger.bob on November 23, 2013, 10:57 GMT

    I'm not a serious contender in the facing the Windies debate because my memory ain't good enough, but I'd like to say this much. At his absolute peak Graeme Wood would have run out at least 3 of your top 7 before the first drinks break. He was, as far as I can recall, one of the most diabolical judges of a run to ever set foot on a cricket field. Especially before he got off the mark. Then when he got near fifty and when he was in the high nineties it was tip and run. .. Great bloke but wouldn't recognise a safe single if it slapped him in the face.

  • wix99 on November 23, 2013, 9:13 GMT

    There are some weak links in the Australian team. However, Michael Clarke is not one of them. He is the only player in the current team who can be compared with the likes of Border, Steve Waugh and Ponting.

  • Cool_Jeeves on November 23, 2013, 8:23 GMT

    Biggus, AB did incredibly well in one series, but after that, they got him. Same with Amarnath. He did very well there in 82-83, followed by 001000 (those were his innings scores in 6 innings). They always got them in the end. If anyone would break in, it is probably the author of this article himself. He was not too bad against pace, either. Big hundred in West Indies, and almost a hat-trick in NZ.

  • Biggus on November 23, 2013, 7:56 GMT

    @Gerry_the_Merry:- I don't quite know who I'd drop but I'd have to find a spot for Allan Border in that top 7 of your's there. He also handled the Windies quicks better than most.

  • gmsjgmsj on November 23, 2013, 7:06 GMT

    Great insights Mr.Crowe. You weer always an admired batsman not only for your technique and strokes but also on what goes on between your eyes. In a very lucid and simple analysis (even for tennis ball cricketers!) you have brought out the perils of an un-still head and the resultant poorly coordinated balance and judgement. A master class in the art of tackling fast bounce!

  • on November 23, 2013, 5:04 GMT

    It was great to see M Clarke straight away playing the pull shot to anything short delivered by Broad today.

    This is the right thing. I believe, he is vulnerable to the short stuff if he decides to just fend them off or decides to duck under them, with the back injury he is carrying.

    He is good at playing the pull as well. He looked as natural as any other batsman who play the pull shot. So, in a way, this back issue of him may turn out to be a blessing in disguise. We will see a more free flowing Clarke.

    He drives and flicks like in a dream. Add some strong pulls into that package and you get one awesome batsman.

  • Clyde on November 23, 2013, 5:01 GMT

    This is a good article as it is profoundly about cricket. Batting can become unpleasant if you don't know how to deal with short stuff. Young batsmen tend not to find out early enough, as the bowlers are not strong enough at that stage. The old boys/girls need to be invited to play against school teams. If, has been opined, technique is learnt at school, this is one aspect of it that has to be learnt later. Hence, it is learnt not by reflex or intuition, but through the intellect and the willingness to change that is cited in the part of Clarke, who has just followed his short-ball error with a hundred.

  • Webba84 on November 23, 2013, 4:50 GMT

    Proving to be quite insightful, given todays Brisbane happenings.

  • Alexk400 on November 23, 2013, 4:03 GMT

    I disagree 100%. Michael clarke always have weakness when ball comes fast and at chest. It is just that we do not have that many good bowlers around to exploit his weakness. Its all about match up. Nothing else. He can grind out slow medium bowlers and spin. He and dhoni can be found out same way. For dhoni fast ball at off stump he will knick one. Clarke do not like short ball. He is kinda indian batsman with lots of wrist play. Do not like to get hit on the body. Its pity that there is no 150kmph bowlers around to hit him hard. I compared to dhoni and clarke because they are rooster in chinese astrology. They are lucky people.

  • on November 23, 2013, 2:35 GMT

    This article is about Clarke! Why do most articles turn into something about a past or present Indian player?

  • dunger.bob on November 23, 2013, 2:34 GMT

    Some of us appreciate him Martin.

  • Emancipator007 on November 23, 2013, 2:12 GMT

    To think that batsmen are getting tested with short-pitched deliveries at Broad's pace! During 70s/80 uptill mid-90s, thunderbolts at fiery,intimidating pace were bowled by Roberts,Holding,Croft,Marshall,Thommo,Imran,Bishop,Patterson. Roberts had 2 bouncers- both deceptive. Akram could bowl searing, lifting deliveries but never above 90 mph. Walsh occasionally touched 90 mph. Emergence of Akthar with his well-directed bouncers/snorters in 2000s at 90 mph plus made life a little hostile for batsmen on featherbeds. Lee's pace was never threatening.Indian batters tackled him with aplomb though Akthar hustled/harried all Big 5 Indian batters & OZ top bats (as in that famous Docklands Stadium ODI series in OZ in 2002). Bond sadly petered out cos of a weak body-constitution as his pacy bouncers were lethal. Steyn's bouncers are pacy but not lethal.

  • ravi.m on November 23, 2013, 1:54 GMT

    "Harold Larwood found one against Bradman, the short, fast ball aimed at the rib cage."

    One would expect better than that from NZ's greatest batsman! That wasn't a weakness. When someone's peppered with short balls at 90mph with 7-8 fielders in the leg side (mostly behind square), there's not much you could do about it.

    No protective gear above waist other than a pair of "gloves" meant you had to fend it off or hit it. And, with that many fielders on the leg, Bradman was forced to hit them through off and he got out after quick fire 70s instead of big 100s.

    Once again, it wasn't a weakness!

  • on November 23, 2013, 1:52 GMT

    Great article, thoroughly enjoyable read...

  • Emancipator007 on November 23, 2013, 1:22 GMT

    Will urge all young players with a propensity to drive (and not go back & across like Chappelli )to just WATCH videos of Sunil Gavaskar who possessed the best defensive technique in Test cricket history. He was balanced; body weight slight/loose, eyes pinned on ball trajectory on ball till last possible nano-second before ducking/weaving/swaying out of line or length of the short-pitched delivery-without a helmet.SMG tackled Holding/Roberts with ease during their bodyline bloodbath in Jamaica in'76 when Bedi declared both Indian innings to avoid body injuries! Holding was bowling to maim! (Vishy/Gaekwad were bloodied). Later in '83 again, SMG tackled Holding/Marshall/Davis by hooking them to hit 121 & 90 at Sehwaguesque SRs!Express pacy Imran stopped testing SMG with bouncers as it expended wasted efforts for his injury-wracked body. Videos of SMG tackling Thommo/tyro McDermott are available with Channel 9 (possibly '77 India tour with ABC).

  • Emancipator007 on November 23, 2013, 1:22 GMT

    Will urge all young players with a propensity to drive (and not go back & across like Chappelli )to just WATCH videos of Sunil Gavaskar who possessed the best defensive technique in Test cricket history. He was balanced; body weight slight/loose, eyes pinned on ball trajectory on ball till last possible nano-second before ducking/weaving/swaying out of line or length of the short-pitched delivery-without a helmet.SMG tackled Holding/Roberts with ease during their bodyline bloodbath in Jamaica in'76 when Bedi declared both Indian innings to avoid body injuries! Holding was bowling to maim! (Vishy/Gaekwad were bloodied). Later in '83 again, SMG tackled Holding/Marshall/Davis by hooking them to hit 121 & 90 at Sehwaguesque SRs!Express pacy Imran stopped testing SMG with bouncers as it expended wasted efforts for his injury-wracked body. Videos of SMG tackling Thommo/tyro McDermott are available with Channel 9 (possibly '77 India tour with ABC).

  • on November 23, 2013, 1:52 GMT

    Great article, thoroughly enjoyable read...

  • ravi.m on November 23, 2013, 1:54 GMT

    "Harold Larwood found one against Bradman, the short, fast ball aimed at the rib cage."

    One would expect better than that from NZ's greatest batsman! That wasn't a weakness. When someone's peppered with short balls at 90mph with 7-8 fielders in the leg side (mostly behind square), there's not much you could do about it.

    No protective gear above waist other than a pair of "gloves" meant you had to fend it off or hit it. And, with that many fielders on the leg, Bradman was forced to hit them through off and he got out after quick fire 70s instead of big 100s.

    Once again, it wasn't a weakness!

  • Emancipator007 on November 23, 2013, 2:12 GMT

    To think that batsmen are getting tested with short-pitched deliveries at Broad's pace! During 70s/80 uptill mid-90s, thunderbolts at fiery,intimidating pace were bowled by Roberts,Holding,Croft,Marshall,Thommo,Imran,Bishop,Patterson. Roberts had 2 bouncers- both deceptive. Akram could bowl searing, lifting deliveries but never above 90 mph. Walsh occasionally touched 90 mph. Emergence of Akthar with his well-directed bouncers/snorters in 2000s at 90 mph plus made life a little hostile for batsmen on featherbeds. Lee's pace was never threatening.Indian batters tackled him with aplomb though Akthar hustled/harried all Big 5 Indian batters & OZ top bats (as in that famous Docklands Stadium ODI series in OZ in 2002). Bond sadly petered out cos of a weak body-constitution as his pacy bouncers were lethal. Steyn's bouncers are pacy but not lethal.

  • dunger.bob on November 23, 2013, 2:34 GMT

    Some of us appreciate him Martin.

  • on November 23, 2013, 2:35 GMT

    This article is about Clarke! Why do most articles turn into something about a past or present Indian player?

  • Alexk400 on November 23, 2013, 4:03 GMT

    I disagree 100%. Michael clarke always have weakness when ball comes fast and at chest. It is just that we do not have that many good bowlers around to exploit his weakness. Its all about match up. Nothing else. He can grind out slow medium bowlers and spin. He and dhoni can be found out same way. For dhoni fast ball at off stump he will knick one. Clarke do not like short ball. He is kinda indian batsman with lots of wrist play. Do not like to get hit on the body. Its pity that there is no 150kmph bowlers around to hit him hard. I compared to dhoni and clarke because they are rooster in chinese astrology. They are lucky people.

  • Webba84 on November 23, 2013, 4:50 GMT

    Proving to be quite insightful, given todays Brisbane happenings.

  • Clyde on November 23, 2013, 5:01 GMT

    This is a good article as it is profoundly about cricket. Batting can become unpleasant if you don't know how to deal with short stuff. Young batsmen tend not to find out early enough, as the bowlers are not strong enough at that stage. The old boys/girls need to be invited to play against school teams. If, has been opined, technique is learnt at school, this is one aspect of it that has to be learnt later. Hence, it is learnt not by reflex or intuition, but through the intellect and the willingness to change that is cited in the part of Clarke, who has just followed his short-ball error with a hundred.

  • on November 23, 2013, 5:04 GMT

    It was great to see M Clarke straight away playing the pull shot to anything short delivered by Broad today.

    This is the right thing. I believe, he is vulnerable to the short stuff if he decides to just fend them off or decides to duck under them, with the back injury he is carrying.

    He is good at playing the pull as well. He looked as natural as any other batsman who play the pull shot. So, in a way, this back issue of him may turn out to be a blessing in disguise. We will see a more free flowing Clarke.

    He drives and flicks like in a dream. Add some strong pulls into that package and you get one awesome batsman.