Richard Hinds:
Twenty20 is not the future of cricket. It is the present.
How badly Cricket Australia initially misjudged the impact Twenty20 would have is apparent when you watch replays of the first internationals played here. The Australians wore silly shirts with their nicknames on the back, the commentators put on party hats and spinning bow-ties and the whole thing was as a massive knee-slapper.
No more. The Big Bash was the surprise hit of the summer, players now practise their overhead scoops and reverse-stance slogs more diligently than their cover drives and - to the relief of those who don't have seven hours to watch Michael Clarke push elegant singles - the joke is on one-day cricket.
(The rest of the article is well worth a read.)
Michael Clarke: 67 off 45 at 149% while chasing 215 off 120 at 179% doesn't quite add up; especially on a Christchurch billiard table / postage stamp.
Still, five fours and two sixes, despite the minuscule ground, says he was chasing the bowling. He had to.
For the first few years of Clarke's career he kept getting out to stupid shots. Then he reined in the tonks (almost: be nice if he put away that weird swipe outside off) and developed his nurdles. That can't be entirely his own doing. Looks to me like he's been sent out with a Michael Bevan brief to hold the innings together. All things point to him batting according to a plan, not batting selfishly.
As for his decision to bowl Tait in the extra over... well, let's just say I would have batted the extra over with Clarke & White, since they were already on the field, warmed up and eye in. Chances are they would have scored more than the six runs Haddin, Warner and White scored.
Is it true that Clarke didn't know there was to be an extra over? Do the extra over figures go into your records? Do you think the Aussies "left something in the shed" when they finished only four down?