Michael Clarke Discussion thread

[Precambrian]

Don't get too smug, he's got Geoff Marsh's strikerate right now.

So true. when since 98 from 133 balls in an ODI qualified as a good effort? That too from an Aussie?

 

[Son Of Coco]

So true. when since 98 from 133 balls in an ODI qualified as a good effort? That too from an Aussie?

When you're 3 for not a lot I'd imagine. I think it's best judged when we see how NZ bat...if they come out and blaze to 225 in 40 overs then we can say it was poor.

 

[Furball]

So true. when since 98 from 133 balls in an ODI qualified as a good effort? That too from an Aussie?

Haven't seen the game, but surely it's far too simplistic to go "OMGZ, strike rate of >80, rubbish batting."

If you're up against tight, accurate bowling, then surely it's a bigger crime to get out slogging and trying to force the scoring rate? He's still scored 3 runs off every 4 balls, it's not like he's done a Gavaskar and carried his bat through 60 overs for an unbeaten 30-odd.

 

[Precambrian]

Haven't seen the game, but surely it's far too simplistic to go "OMGZ, strike rate of >80, rubbish batting."

If you're up against tight, accurate bowling, then surely it's a bigger crime to get out slogging and trying to force the scoring rate? He's still scored 3 runs off every 4 balls, it's not like he's done a Gavaskar and carried his bat through 60 overs for an unbeaten 30-odd.

Crap.

If you haven't watched it, better catch the highlights before commenting on it.

BTW, Australia were not in dire straits when Clarke and Hussey did their stuff. The fact that Aussies were only 5 down showed they underutilised their batting innings.

 

[pup11]

Crap.

If you haven't watched it, better catch the highlights before commenting on it.

BTW, Australia were not in dire straits when Clarke and Hussey did their stuff. The fact that Aussies were only 5 down showed they underutilised their batting innings.

Why don't you get it, if everyone in the Australian team had scored at a better rate then Clarke then your argument would make sense, but that wasn't the case, was it?

And as for your argument for the batting being underutilised, then it wasn't as if Viv Richards and Michael Bevan were padded up to come in at no.6 and 7, had Clarke played loosely and got out early, a similar target ala Perth would have been on the cards or maybe even less.

 

[Precambrian]

Why don't you get it, if everyone in the Australian team had scored at a better rate then Clarke then your argument would make sense, but that wasn't the case, was it?

And as for your argument for the batting being underutilised, then it wasn't as if Viv Richards and Michael Bevan were padded up to come in at no.6 and 7, had Clarke played loosely and got out early, a similar target ala Perth would have been on the cards or maybe even less.

What can explain then that Clarke failed to accelerate even after 40 overs?

Or that Aussies were only 5 down at the end of 50 overs?

I can understand defending your players, but sometimes it get atrocious.

 

[Son Of Coco]

What can explain then that Clarke failed to accelerate even after 40 overs?

Or that Aussies were only 5 down at the end of 50 overs?

I can understand defending your players, but sometimes it get atrocious.

Probably because the batsmen following Clarke didn't get out...let's be honest, it wasn't exactly a swing-a-thon at the end was it? If they'd have gotten out then we'd have been 7/8/9/ or 10 down...simply really.

 

[cowboysfan]

clarke is a good player-not as good as ponting but still a class player.he is also a bigger P**** than ponting.

 

[Son Of Coco]

clarke is a good player-not as good as ponting but still a class player.he is also a bigger P**** than ponting.

I've just noticed you seem to have posted a lot more around here since Dubya left office...

 

[Evermind]

Here's my concern about Michael Clarke - he's a dick.

 

[Burgey]

Here's my concern about Michael Clarke - he's a dick.

Don't let it worry you mate. Being an international cricketer, he's in good company.

 

[NUFAN]

So, so great to see M Clarke improve so much, he's a brilliant Test Cricketer these days.

 

[GIMH]

I've got concerns about Michael Clarke

 

[Top_Cat]

I've got concerns about Michael Clarke

Peaked early, tbh. All downhill from here.

 

[pasag]

Yeah, I don't think he won't be able to turn it around, just that until now the stats are pretty indicting. For the record I reckon he'll be the best Test batsman in the world in a couple of years.

On his way

 

[Matt79]

On his way

Been saying it for years:

Clarke's record over the same period (since 2005/6) suggests that Kallis has been better, but maybe by not as much as I'd have thought:
10 matches (15 innings), 508 runs, 46.18 average, 2 centuries, 1 half century

Despite Kallis only playing 4 additional tests, he played 27 innings compared to Clarke's 15. That said Kallis has obviously been the better batsman - though whether he'll continue to be remains open to be seen.

Kallis is the much better batsman though and ten matches is an indication of form, not class. Based on his career, reputation and solidity, Kallis would likely get picked in the Australian Test team before Hussey and Clarke.

Also, are you suggesting Kallis will start to decline and Michael Clarke will become a better batsman?

I think Clarke will certainly become a better batsman - I think he showed a new level of skill and maturity with the blade in the last few tests he played (almost 9 months ago, but hey). Whereas, those stats show that Kallis has in the last couple of seasons not matched his own very high peak, and the guy is the wrong side of 30. I'm certainly not writing him off as a quality batsman, but its likely he's not going to dramatically improve, or indeed recapture his peak form.

Form/class aren't distinct things, at some point they blend into each other. Those figures take in at least a couple of series, so I don't think they tell the story of who's the better batsman full stop, but they do show how both guys are going. And that shows that the last couple of seasons for Clarke have been better than his overall career, whereas the last couple of seasons for Kallis have been not quite as good as his overall career for him.

You seriously think Michael Clarke will end up a better batsman than Jacques Kallis?

The thing is though, we've been looking at his last 14 games, or the last couple of seasons. If we stretch it back to 20 games then we can see that he's averaged 53.23, almost matching his career. The point of what I'm saying? I'm not quite sure TBH I think what I'm trying to prove is that a player of Kallis' class, skill and mental ability will very rarely struggle for the runs, even if he's hit somewhat of a downward slope. You have to take more things into consideration than just the runs he has scored. Over the last couple of seasons he's played the best team in the world six times, and scored two centuries whilst keeping an average of 50+. Now to me that says he still has the goods to suceed, and has done so.

Clarke benefited greatly from coming back into the Australian side for the 2007 Ashes, no doubt about it, and he looked a much better player. I still think it's ludicrous to suggest that he will turn out to be better than Kallis, but I'd love to be proven wrong.

Agree with most of your post. But to clarify, I'm not saying that I think at the end of his career, Clarke's record will be better overall than Kallis' record overall. I'm saying that over the next couple of years, Clarke could well perform better than Kallis. That's not a function of class, or at least not only of class, its also the fact that Kallis is a fair bit older than Clarke and is realistically in the latter half of his career, whereas Clarke is just emerging as the Test player we all hope he'll become.

*sigh* miss the old Perm

 

[pup11]

Peaked early, tbh. All downhill from here.

In this series he is almost replicating his performance from the last Ashes series down under, in both the series he has made a 50's in the 1st test, and then backed it up with 100's in the 2nd and 3rd test, it was downhill from there in 2006/07, hopefully that won't be the case this time around.

 

[pup11]

Well concerns with Michael Clarke just don't seem to die, 18 months ago was struggling to cement a place in the test side, despite being one of the better limited overs batsman in the world, and now though he has improved beyond recognition as a test cricketer, his limited overs game is in complete mess.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Had a smile to myself the other day during one of the 2020s when one of the comms (might have been Knight) mentioned about the possibility of a split captaincy. At this rate Clarke might find himself a test specialist, never mind limited overs skipper.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Honestly I can't see Clarke being dropped from either of the shorter forms. Ever.