Custom Bats Cricket Forum

General Cricket => Players => Topic started by: Buzz on November 26, 2012, 01:27:17 PM

Title: is Rikki Clarke the answer?
Post by: Buzz on November 26, 2012, 01:27:17 PM
if England want to play 2 spinners and 3 seamers, something has to give.
We also really need a quality slip catcher.

ladies and gentlemen, I offer up Rikky Clarke.

much improved batting and bowling since his move to the champions oh, and the best slip in the country
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: Alvaro on November 26, 2012, 01:29:29 PM
Best fielder.
I fear the fact he's a Spurs fan rules him out ;)
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: Manormanic on November 26, 2012, 01:29:42 PM
Oddly I had a similar though a few days back.  He is not test class by a long chalk but he would not do manifestly worse in the sub continent than, say, Fat Sammy.  That said, he would have to bat six or seven, and he did not even do that for Warwickshire at times last season!
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: Alvaro on November 26, 2012, 01:30:16 PM
In all seriousness, I'd say Woakes is actually ahead of him in the important disciplines too.
And that's talking not about 'potential' which basically translates as 'not ready'. Woakes is a serious player.
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: Johnny on November 26, 2012, 01:33:08 PM
In all seriousness, I'd say Woakes is actually ahead of him in the important disciplines too.
And that's talking not about 'potential' which basically translates as 'not ready'. Woakes is a serious player.

this
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: procricket on November 26, 2012, 01:34:17 PM
Woakes for me

Anderson can stand at slip and trott was not that bad
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: Manormanic on November 26, 2012, 01:39:17 PM
Woakes....I wonder if they will ever get around to giving him a chance. 

He seems very talented, and he demonstrated when he played some ODIs in Australia that he has a fair bit of gumption too....but I wonder whether he is just a bit short of pace with the ball and just short of being a genuine batsman to get past Bresnan and, especially, the selectors darling Broad...
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: Red Ink Cricket on November 26, 2012, 01:40:41 PM
CLARKE! not a chance. not good enough at test level. Woakes is an option. unsure if theres anyone else in that mould atm
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: Manormanic on November 26, 2012, 01:42:21 PM
We don't have a test class all rounder, full stop.  Doesn;t necessarily mean that there are not circumstances in which you have to go for the next best bet mind...
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: Johnny on November 26, 2012, 01:42:36 PM
Woakes....I wonder if they will ever get around to giving him a chance. 

He seems very talented, and he demonstrated when he played some ODIs in Australia that he has a fair bit of gumption too....but I wonder whether he is just a bit short of pace with the ball and just short of being a genuine batsman to get past Bresnan and, especially, the selectors darling Broad...

Indeed - he looks like he's good enough to at least get a go - it's questionable whether either part of his game is truly test class, but I think the sum of the parts should be enough - I certainly think he has more about him than Fat Sam
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: procricket on November 26, 2012, 01:43:01 PM
In the same way glen Chapple was disgrigaded by England due to pace

Samit Patel is atop class batsman woakes is good but not on the same level as Patel not,even close
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: PedalsMcgrew on November 26, 2012, 01:44:18 PM
Woakes is definitely a great shout, I'd actually forgotten all about him.....what about Stokes at Durham? He was the the next cab off the rank for a period a year or so ago....Last I heard he had a hurty finger.....
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: essexarsenal on November 26, 2012, 01:44:33 PM
Ben Stokes ? - sorry. Yes I agree Ben Stokes or Woakes.
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: Manormanic on November 26, 2012, 01:44:48 PM
Samit Patel is atop class batsman woakes is good but not on the same level as Patel not,even close

No he isn't.  He isn't even close to being a top class batsman!
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: procricket on November 26, 2012, 01:46:47 PM
Well we agree to disagree records state his record is better than average and I suspect given a go he would turn out fine just needs a long sustained chance I suspect, will he get it doubt it

Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: Manormanic on November 26, 2012, 01:47:05 PM
In the same way glen Chapple was disgrigaded by England due to pace

Two sided argument this one.  There is no reason why a guy who bowls int he high 70s can't take wickets in Test cricket - Shaun Pollock did it, as did Chaminda Vaas.  But...well...such bowlers do tend to rely on the conditions to get top players out and, well....

Mike Smith
Ed Giddins
Simon Brown

I could go on...
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: wilkie113 on November 26, 2012, 01:47:13 PM
I really can't understand why Samit is in the team.

In my opinion he isn't a good enough batsmen or bowler for the test scene. I could never see him coming in a scoring a vital 150 when england really needed him too, or batting out the last session for England to get a draw.
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: procricket on November 26, 2012, 01:49:38 PM
He has hardly been given the chance though has he.

Not saying he is world class but the boy is certainly a better bat than woakes

I suspect though his due for the chop

How many people have watched him a few times he is know as having as much natural ability as anybody on the scene

Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: procricket on November 26, 2012, 01:50:49 PM
Two sided argument this one.  There is no reason why a guy who bowls int he high 70s can't take wickets in Test cricket - Shaun Pollock did it, as did Chaminda Vaas.  But...well...such bowlers do tend to rely on the conditions to get top players out and, well....

Mike Smith
Ed Giddins
Simon Brown

I could go on...


Well as I grew up with Glen and played in many of the same sides as him it what he was told by England from the horses mouth shame realy he could have offered so much and can bat as well but that is old ground.
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: lastmanstand on November 26, 2012, 01:51:19 PM
firstly not a massive patel fan but hes getting a harsh deal here. Scored a decent 100 in the warm up and had 2 shocking lbw decisions in the first test, which couldnt be helped

Granted his bowling has been poor but he hardly had a series yet. stick with him as 3rd spinner for this series at least
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: bigbenh99 on November 26, 2012, 01:52:55 PM
Woakes is a quality batsman, he only bats at 8 for the Bears to try and manage his workload because he opens the bowling, if he were playing for England he'd be 1st change, could easily be a 6 or 7 bat. As for his pace, he's bowling around 83/84 i think now, he gained a few mph over the winter last season so it'd be interesting to see if he increases his pace even more for next season, but I think his control is superb and that is what matters more than his speed. Clarke could definitely do the job but is too old to be anything other than a stop gap.

Little known fact about Rikki Clarke, he doesn't have hands, just 2 buckets.
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: Kulli on November 26, 2012, 01:53:11 PM
Two sided argument this one.  There is no reason why a guy who bowls int he high 70s can't take wickets in Test cricket - Shaun Pollock did it, as did Chaminda Vaas.  But...well...such bowlers do tend to rely on the conditions to get top players out and, well....

Mike Smith
Ed Giddins
Simon Brown

I could go on...

Vernon Philander...
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: bigbenh99 on November 26, 2012, 01:56:28 PM
On the subject of Woakes, does anybody know what's going on with him? He's not in the Lions squad, has he suddenly been dropped out of favour?
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: Manormanic on November 26, 2012, 01:58:44 PM
Well we agree to disagree records state his record is better than average and I suspect given a go he would turn out fine just needs a long sustained chance I suspect, will he get it doubt it

Really?  As of today his first class record shows just over 6'000 runs at 39 with 16 tons, which is solid (and, if we're being fair and transparent, marginally better than Marcus Trescothick and Michael Vaughan's when they came into the test arena) but nothing exceptional given the general upward trend since the move to four day cricket.

Some comparisons for you with other established players who either failed at Test level or never made it as far as the test side shows just how average his record is:
Anthony McGrath 14500 runs at 37 with 35 tons
David Sales 13000 at 39 with 26
Bobby Key 16000 at 41 with 46
Owais Shah 16000 at 42 with 44
Vikram Solanki 13000 at 36 with 31

and going back just a few years further:
Ben Smith 18500 at 40 with 40
Ed Smith 13000 at 42 with 34
Mal Loye 15000 at 40 with 42
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: Manormanic on November 26, 2012, 02:00:09 PM
Well as I grew up with Glen and played in many of the same sides as him it what he was told by England from the horses mouth shame realy he could have offered so much and can bat as well but that is old ground.

Oh, Chappell deserved a chance, there is no doubt about that - it must have beenreally galling for him when his team mate at Lancashire Peter Martin was getting a game despite being a considerably worse bowler.
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: procricket on November 26, 2012, 02:01:42 PM
Really?  As of today his first class record shows just over 6'000 runs at 39 with 16 tons, which is solid (and, if we're being fair and transparent, marginally better than Marcus Trescothick and Michael Vaughan's when they came into the test arena) but nothing exceptional given the general upward trend since the move to four day cricket.

Some comparisons for you with other established players who either failed at Test level or never made it as far as the test side shows just how average his record is:
Anthony McGrath 14500 runs at 37 with 35 tons
David Sales 13000 at 39 with 26
Bobby Key 16000 at 41 with 46
Owais Shah 16000 at 42 with 44
Vikram Solanki 13000 at 36 with 31

and going back just a few years further:
Ben Smith 18500 at 40 with 40
Ed Smith 13000 at 42 with 34
Mal Loye 15000 at 40 with 42

You forgot nick speak and his wonder season

Well he is in the team I hope he gets a chance as well a quality player lies there

Key should have played more for me as well

Plus averages have been coming down I do believe not so many runs about as they used to be not that many make 1000 runs in a season any more not like they used to maybe the rolling situation has helped the bowlers

All suggestive to say I like him England seem to rate him as well I guess
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: Manormanic on November 26, 2012, 02:06:48 PM
You forgot nick speak and his wonder season

Well he is in the team I hope he gets a chance as well a quality player lies there

Key should have played more for me as well

Plus averages have been coming down I do believe not so many runs about as they used to be.

All suggestive to say I like him England seem to rate him as well I guess

I don't know about averages coming down - I think if anything they are becoming more standardised because of four day cricket and better pitches. 

Graham Lloyd would have been another good one to include in the above list come to think of it.
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: Alvaro on November 26, 2012, 03:42:44 PM
Sales would have played a good few Tests if he hadn't knacked his knee in the Caribbean and he certainly became too fond of the tea trolley.

I like Patel, strikes me as one of those bats who gets stinking decisions. He also seems to be out strangled a lot.
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: Alvaro on November 26, 2012, 03:43:41 PM
Really?  As of today his first class record shows just over 6'000 runs at 39 with 16 tons, which is solid (and, if we're being fair and transparent, marginally better than Marcus Trescothick and Michael Vaughan's when they came into the test arena) but nothing exceptional given the general upward trend since the move to four day cricket.

Some comparisons for you with other established players who either failed at Test level or never made it as far as the test side shows just how average his record is:
Anthony McGrath 14500 runs at 37 with 35 tons
David Sales 13000 at 39 with 26
Bobby Key 16000 at 41 with 46
Owais Shah 16000 at 42 with 44
Vikram Solanki 13000 at 36 with 31

and going back just a few years further:
Ben Smith 18500 at 40 with 40
Ed Smith 13000 at 42 with 34
Mal Loye 15000 at 40 with 42

I'm so glad you left out Chris Adams there...
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: Manormanic on November 26, 2012, 05:24:40 PM
I'm so glad you left out Chris Adams there...
he would have been a good call but I can't bring myself to consider the loathsome *deleted*
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: Buzz on November 26, 2012, 06:19:31 PM
I think that woakes is a talented player - but not a test no 6 - he is a bowling alrounder for me. We are looking for a batting allrounder and the massive advantage of Clarke is his bucket hands at slip - think of the difference two the first test if trott hadn't dropped Pujara on 8...

Strauss has taken more catches than any other outfielder. As Collingwood has shown that makes a huge difference.
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: Nickauger on November 26, 2012, 06:44:19 PM
I like Patel, strikes me as one of those bats who gets stinking decisions. He also seems to be out strangled a lot.

There's probably a reason for that, and its probably because his technique isn't good enough!
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: PedalsMcgrew on November 26, 2012, 06:46:12 PM
It's a fair point Buzz, we are lacking at slip.....and I agree about Woakes. I like him a lot but his batting isn't even close to being good enough to play test cricket as a batting allrounder. He could be a good option to replace Broad as a like for like though.....

So who are the main candidates if we decided to look for a batting allrounder then?

Clarke
Stokes
Is Ervine eligible yet??  :D
Oooh!! Coles at Kent (Or Sussex, I forget which!) He's a talented lad

Any others?
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: Nickauger on November 26, 2012, 06:47:10 PM
In 5 years time.... Lewis Gregory!
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: The_Bird on November 26, 2012, 06:48:09 PM
The Overton twins look handy
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: Nickauger on November 26, 2012, 06:49:10 PM
Haha, I'm sure every-one could look at a few youngsters at their counties who could do a job in a few years time.
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: PedalsMcgrew on November 26, 2012, 06:51:48 PM
Haha, I'm sure every-one could look at a few youngsters at their counties who could do a job in a few years time.

So who are the ones who could do it in the next 12 months?
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: cricketbadger on November 26, 2012, 06:52:48 PM
Clarke isnt going to get picked lets be honest
are we seriously suggesting he should be picked based on his Slip fielding?
he had his chance nearly 10 years ago, merely a decent championship allrounder now

got to look to the future, in Woakes, who's batting performances and stats are impressive bearing in mind hes probably classed as a bowling allrounder
or Stokes perhaps in a few more years when hes injury free and more experienced
Im sure everyone else has plenty of thoughts and players in mind
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: alba caerulea on November 26, 2012, 06:58:38 PM
We have just watched England win a Test match by 10 wickets. In this game Englands 2nd seamer has contributed absolutely nothing and their leading seamer took 1 wicket. The question I have to ask is why do we want a 3rd seamer?

In any case Clarke is not a Test number 6 although his bowling has drastically improved in the last couple of seasons

Stokes is unproven but has huge potential and is a batsman who can bowl. He is not a good enough bowler to be bowling in a Test match yet

Coles looks a very good player too and is a bowler who can bat similar to Woakes. One of these 2 guys must be in the frame for NZ if Broad doesn't buck up in the next 2 Tests
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: Tom on November 26, 2012, 07:01:12 PM
James Allenby.
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: The_Bird on November 26, 2012, 07:04:39 PM
James Allenby.

He's an aussie, we get enough stick for fielding saffas!!
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: procricket on November 26, 2012, 07:07:47 PM
We have just watched England win a Test match by 10 wickets. In this game Englands 2nd seamer has contributed absolutely nothing and their leading seamer took 1 wicket. The question I have to ask is why do we want a 3rd seamer?

In any case Clarke is not a Test number 6 although his bowling has drastically improved in the last couple of seasons

Stokes is unproven but has huge potential and is a batsman who can bowl. He is not a good enough bowler to be bowling in a Test match yet

Coles looks a very good player too and is a bowler who can bat similar to Woakes. One of these 2 guys must be in the frame for NZ if Broad doesn't buck up in the next 2 Tests

Hate to say this but do you really think Broad will get dropped
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: PedalsMcgrew on November 26, 2012, 07:09:47 PM
We have just watched England win a Test match by 10 wickets. In this game Englands 2nd seamer has contributed absolutely nothing and their leading seamer took 1 wicket. The question I have to ask is why do we want a 3rd seamer?

In any case Clarke is not a Test number 6 although his bowling has drastically improved in the last couple of seasons

Stokes is unproven but has huge potential and is a batsman who can bowl. He is not a good enough bowler to be bowling in a Test match yet

Coles looks a very good player too and is a bowler who can bat similar to Woakes. One of these 2 guys must be in the frame for NZ if Broad doesn't buck up in the next 2 Tests

Personally I would drop Broad for Woakes now! Broad's bowling is now so poor that bringing in Woakes could only be seen as a positive move!. I wouldn't drop Patel though....I think he's got a lot to offer in these conditions....maybe not long term but at the moment we need a spinning allrounder and I can't think of anyone else to do that...!
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: The_Bird on November 26, 2012, 07:14:14 PM
I always get the impression with broad that he thinks he's arrived as a cricketer and now that he's been made vice he presumes he's undroppable. Prior should've been vice as form will always come and go with bowlers.
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: petehosk on November 26, 2012, 07:14:43 PM
I would drop Broad for Meaker as he is there in the squad already and has better pace!
And I would think about playing Root at number 6 instead of Patel! Root is a better batsman and can still bowl half decent spin. Plus if you are going to introduce a young player to Test match conditions, number 6 seems a good place to start?
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: cricketbadger on November 26, 2012, 07:17:24 PM
If, and its a big if, if they drop Broad I dont think theyd bring someone in from outside the current squad, such as Woakes or Coles.
more likely to be Finn, but as its been said that will only lengthen the tail, but in my opinion wont make much difference due to Broads lack of runs anyway

They have to drop him in my opinion for the next test, even though we won this one. Didnt bowl in 2nd innings
our front line seamer Anderson only bowled 4 overs, which is due to the conditions obviously
but because of his pace Finn has to come back in when he is fit again, even if its a risk his injury may flare up again, theres plenty of part time bowling to cover for him

Patel is a funny one, selectors obviously rate him to keep trying him again, but he hasnt set the world alight yet
Winning this test may have just saved him for the next test instead of Root, similarly with Broad aswell I think they may name an unchanged side unfortunately
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: procricket on November 26, 2012, 07:18:10 PM
Prior to me seems like a leader no matter what titles there no doubt he had a massive hand in sorting the rift with kp and is a leader in his own right been very impressed with him in everything he does seems a top cricketer and bloke
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: PedalsMcgrew on November 26, 2012, 07:18:40 PM
I always get the impression with broad that he thinks he's arrived as a cricketer and now that he's been made vice he presumes he's undroppable. Prior should've been vice as form will always come and go with bowlers.

I agree! His attitude is appalling and, now I think about it, Prior is an obvious choice for a Vice Captain...all Prior has ever done in an England shirt is improve!
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: alba caerulea on November 26, 2012, 07:20:46 PM
Personally I would drop Broad for Woakes now! Broad's bowling is now so poor that bringing in Woakes could only be seen as a positive move!. I wouldn't drop Patel though....I think he's got a lot to offer in these conditions....maybe not long term but at the moment we need a spinning allrounder and I can't think of anyone else to do that...!
I don't think there is any need to change the balance of the side atall. We have just won a Test match by 10 wickets and the next pitch will be not be much different, it might turn less but there is not any need for a 3rd seamer on this tour. Patel has done little wrong and as you say he is the best available in his position. I get the feeling that as soon as Finn is proved fit Broad will be carrying some drinks
Title: Re: is Rikky Clarke the answer?
Post by: cricketbadger on November 26, 2012, 07:21:02 PM
Prior to me seems like a leader no matter what titles there no doubt he had a massive hand in sorting the rift with kp and is a leader in his own right been very impressed with him in everything he does seems a top cricketer and bloke

agreed
Title: Re: is Rikki Clarke the answer?
Post by: Alvaro on November 26, 2012, 07:58:36 PM
Ditto on Prior.
I actually think Broad is a good bowler done on form. A break for a Test or two is probably fair. He's one of the few who plays all three formats, so he could be due a break for the long-term good of England.

Root though? I think he's in the squad for experience and will only play if someone break a finger. He was a strange pick, particularly as Bairstow is technically reserve keeper, so with Morgan there too, he seems extraneous in a playing sense.
Title: Re: is Rikki Clarke the answer?
Post by: Manormanic on November 26, 2012, 08:16:25 PM
We have just watched England win a Test match by 10 wickets. In this game Englands 2nd seamer has contributed absolutely nothing and their leading seamer took 1 wicket. The question I have to ask is why do we want a 3rd seamer?

Well, not all pitches that might require a second spinner will be quite so one sided as the one that has just been played on, and it is always a big risk to have just the two.
Title: Re: is Rikki Clarke the answer?
Post by: Manormanic on November 26, 2012, 08:17:35 PM
Patel is a funny one, selectors obviously rate him to keep trying him again, but he hasnt set the world alight yet
Winning this test may have just saved him for the next test instead of Root, similarly with Broad aswell I think they may name an unchanged side unfortunately

Not sure about that - Bairstow and Bell perhaps?
Title: Re: is Rikki Clarke the answer?
Post by: cricketbadger on November 26, 2012, 08:54:41 PM
Not sure about that - Bairstow and Bell perhaps?

yeh completely forgot about Bell coming back
Title: Re: is Rikki Clarke the answer?
Post by: alba caerulea on November 26, 2012, 09:19:12 PM
Well, not all pitches that might require a second spinner will be quite so one sided as the one that has just been played on, and it is always a big risk to have just the two.

Of course they won't all be one sided. But they will all be spin dominated. You have 2 specialist spinners bowling at least 50% of the overs on pitches that favour spin. Just how many overs each do you think these 3 seamers are going to get through? I would rather lengthen my batting order with Patel or Root who are both capable of bowling overs during a days play as is KP if required. I doubt if there is one pitch in India that warrants 3 out and out seamers. Different story if we had a wicket-taking seamer who is a better bat than Patel but we don't
Title: Re: is Rikki Clarke the answer?
Post by: bigbenh99 on November 27, 2012, 01:36:47 AM
Just a note to those who are talking about Woakes as a bowler who can bat a bit, he averages 38 in 1st class, with 6 tons and 10 fifties, Broad's average is 24 in 1st class with 1 ton and (admittedly) 16 fifties with 31 more games under his belt. Make no mistake, Woakes is a VERY accomplished bat, a different class to Broad.
Title: Re: is Rikki Clarke the answer?
Post by: Manormanic on November 27, 2012, 10:17:36 AM
Of course they won't all be one sided. But they will all be spin dominated. You have 2 specialist spinners bowling at least 50% of the overs on pitches that favour spin. Just how many overs each do you think these 3 seamers are going to get through? I would rather lengthen my batting order with Patel or Root who are both capable of bowling overs during a days play as is KP if required. I doubt if there is one pitch in India that warrants 3 out and out seamers. Different story if we had a wicket-taking seamer who is a better bat than Patel but we don't

I was not necessarily referring to India though - the pitches in Pakistan last winter, and to a lesser extent in Sri Lanka as well, would have been perfect for a fie man attack. In a different way, a five man set up would be good in Australia too, where it would help combat the long hot days.
Title: Re: is Rikki Clarke the answer?
Post by: Buzz on November 27, 2012, 10:32:04 AM
indeed - to have a 5 man attack you either need an all-rounder (Flintoff, Beefy, Craig White) or to loose a batsman.

Chris Woakes is massively talented but a future number 7 at best, not a number 6, we have Prior at 7, I am not hugely keen on changing that, so Rikki Clarke it is!!
Title: Re: is Rikki Clarke the answer?
Post by: Alvaro on November 27, 2012, 11:20:43 AM
Clarke bats below Woakes for Warwickshire... ;)
Title: Re: is Rikki Clarke the answer?
Post by: Byo on November 27, 2012, 11:53:32 AM
If you are looking for a batting all rounder then how about Darren Stevens or Pete Trego??  They have been successful at county level for some time...
Title: Re: is Rikki Clarke the answer?
Post by: Alvaro on November 27, 2012, 11:57:43 AM
Darren Stevens is getting on a bit...
Title: Re: is Rikki Clarke the answer?
Post by: cricketbadger on November 27, 2012, 12:05:47 PM
If you are looking for a batting all rounder then how about Darren Stevens or Pete Trego??  They have been successful at county level for some time...

Trego seems to have gone un-noticed, quite suprised espcially in the shorter forms of the game
I like him as a player and I think he could maybe do a decent job for England as a batting allrounder
Title: Re: is Rikki Clarke the answer?
Post by: Manormanic on November 27, 2012, 12:15:43 PM
The new Ronnie Irani?  :)
Title: Re: is Rikki Clarke the answer?
Post by: Buzz on November 27, 2012, 12:20:32 PM
I think I am a little obsessed by wanting a really good slip fielder in my team - having a waugh, botham, taylor at slip makes a huge difference to the way the team bowls, knowing the edges are going to get snaffled.

Swann is a decent, but not spectacular slip - I hold little faith in Trott and not a great deal in Cook at 1st - but he will almost certainly have a go.
Title: Re: is Rikki Clarke the answer?
Post by: Manormanic on November 27, 2012, 12:30:00 PM
Its always an advantage to have someone like that - and England have been relatively lucky in recent years to have the likes of Strauss, Collingwood, Flintoff and Swann who were/are all decent.  But even Phil Sharpe wouldn't be woth a place in the side as a specialist fielder - I mean, we barely even accept the need for a specialist with the gauntlets nowadays!