Aussie one day side to be announced.

[pup11]

He's actually opened quite a bit in T20 internationals.

...And that's where he needs to stick, if he wants to play and do well in the format.

 

[brockley]

Clarke is a **** 20/20 batsmen.
Still muchly repressents the side that was smashed at the 20/20 cup.
England has a good chance to win the 20/20 games,in fact i would back them.

 

[pup11]

Clarke is a **** 20/20 batsmen.
Still muchly repressents the side that was smashed at the 20/20 cup.
England has a good chance to win the 20/20 games,in fact i would back them.

I mean c'mon lets get a bit real here, that Aussie squad for the T20 WC was probably the best that could have been picked (with the exception of Clarke), and more than the team, it has been our attitude towards the T20 format that has been behind our dismal T20 record.

We keep on talking about how we should pick a T20 squad, that consists of T20 experts, but lets not forget apart from Nannes, every other worthy player was there in Australia's T20 WC squad.

 

[Prince EWS]

apart from Nannes, every other worthy player was there in Australia's T20 WC squad.

Haha, DWTA strongly.

 

[aussie]

...And that's where he needs to stick, if he wants to play and do well in the format.

Have to disagree. Pup is a poor T20 batsman, opening in T20 & ODIs is way different. He aint a hitter, he would get strangled at the crease in this format. Much rather Ponting in the side.

 

[pup11]

Haha, DWTA strongly.

I already mentioned that if you take out Clarke and add Nannes to the squad, then that would have been the best possible Aussie T20 squad that could have been picked, Hodge should be one of the first few names when Australia pick a T20 squad, but he for some reason has fallen out of favour with the selectors, so I guess he was never in with a chance to play in the tournament.

Despite all this the other teams weren't a lot better than the Australian side, but the ony difference is they were much better preapred for that tournament, whereas Aussies just turned up thinking, that since we are good test and ODI players, all we need to do is just turn up for the tournament and everything else would just happen on its own, but they obviously learned their lesson the hard way.

 

[pup11]

Have to disagree. Pup is a poor T20 batsman, opening in T20 & ODIs is way different. He aint a hitter, he would get strangled at the crease in this format. Much rather Ponting in the side.

Atm, yes Pup is a poor T20 batsman, but still he is a quality player, and he should be allowed to develop his game in this format for a particular batting slot, and opening slot would be the best suited for him.

I agree Clarke has curtailed his aggressive streak which he had during the initial part of his career, but he is still a natural stroke-player, and he in my book is a good enough player to adapt to this format.

 

[aussie]

Atm, yes Pup is a poor T20 batsman, but still he is a quality player, and he should be allowed to develop his game in this format for a particular batting slot, and opening slot would be the best suited for him.

I agree Clarke has curtailed his aggressive streak which he had during the initial part of his career, but he is still a natural stroke-player, and he in my book is a good enough player to adapt to this format.

Even during Clarke early aggressive days, especially in ODIs when he batted @ 7. He wasn't the kind of batsman who would get who 50 of 25-30 balls, nor was he a 6 hitter. His fast scoring was basically based on improvising & running hard between the wickets.

He takes to long to get going, which in T20s is a no go. He just aint suited to this format unfortuantely.

 

[Prince EWS]

I already mentioned that if you take out Clarke and add Nannes to the squad, then that would have been the best possible Aussie T20 squad that could have been picked.

Yeah, and I already mentioned that DWTA strongly! Stating the exact same thing again isn't going to make me agree any more.

James Hopes was in that squad. There aren't many players less suited to T20 than that bloke. Bowling allrounder who bowls medium pace just short of a length and isn't a big hitter.. yeah that's what the format requires...

Hodge not being likely to be picked has absolutely nothing to do with whether he should have been. It was still possible to pick him so not picking him was an error. Nannes wasn't likely to be picked either and you've still mentioned him.

 

[pup11]

Yeah, and I already mentioned that DWTA strongly! Stating the exact same thing again isn't going to make me agree any more.

James Hopes was in that squad. There aren't many players less suited to T20 than that bloke. Bowling allrounder who bowls medium pace just short of a length and isn't a big hitter.. yeah that's what the format requires...

Hodge not being likely to be picked has absolutely nothing to do with whether he should have been. It was still possible to pick him so not picking him was an error. Nannes wasn't likely to be picked either and you've still mentioned him.

Ignoring Nannes who is pretty close to being the best T20 bowler in Australia to such an extent that his name wasn't even the preliminary 30 man squad is a bigger error than not eventually picking Hodge (who they just don't wanna pick, for whatever reasons), and the selectors have now accepted they made a blunder by not picking Nannes for the T20 WC, by selecting him for the T20's in England.

Agreed a bloke like James Hopes was in that squad, but he was hardly a consequential player or a match-winner, it were the top T20 players like Watson, Warner, Ponting, Husseys, Lee, Bracken, who needed to deliver, but they failed to do so and hence in such a situation its pretty pointless to expect likes of Hopes to pull us through.

The bigger problem that I have with this theory that," we would have done well, had we picked a squad full of T20 specialists for the T20 WC", is that we usually play in these one-off T20 internationals with plenty of T20 specialists as the part of the team, but we still lose pretty consistently.

My view is that when you pick a team for the T20 format, you should be consistent with it, and what we shouldn't be doing is picking a few new players, everytime we play a T20 game, and that's the only way, we are gonna develop a good T20 side.

 

[pup11]

Even during Clarke early aggressive days, especially in ODIs when he batted @ 7. He wasn't the kind of batsman who would get who 50 of 25-30 balls, nor was he a 6 hitter. His fast scoring was basically based on improvising & running hard between the wickets.

He takes to long to get going, which in T20s is a no go. He just aint suited to this format unfortuantely.

Look mate, its a complete myth that you need to slog the cover off the ball in order to be a good T20 batsman, blokes likes Kallis, Dravid, Shaun Marsh, Dilshan, Sanga, Jayawardene have all proved that good proper cricket, mixed with bit of improvisation can be as good or maybe even more effective than power-hitting.

Clarke is batsman with plenty of natural ability and flair, and all he needs to do is try to bat a bit freely in the T20 games, these T20 games leading upto the T20 WC don't mean much, and I don't think there is any harm in allowing a bloke like him to develop his game for this format by playing in it.

I think one thing we mustn't forget is none of these Australian players get to play much T20 cricket domestically, and hence its hardly surprising to see them struggling to find their feet in this format, so therefore the more T20 cricket they would play the better they would get.

 

[vic_orthdox]

The thing is that Clarke doesn't have that much flair anymore, since he has reined in his game at Test level. He has a very simple game now, uncomplicated, and it's meant that sides can tie him up in ODIs.

 

[four_or_six]

I reckon Clarke can be a decent enough T20 player if he manages to get a role and get some practice in. Also his fielding is really excellent, and his bowling is decent enough, so that really helps.

 

[pup11]

The thing is that Clarke doesn't have that much flair anymore, since he has reined in his game at Test level. He has a very simple game now, uncomplicated, and it's meant that sides can tie him up in ODIs.

If he has to survive in the limited overs format, then he would have to regain that same flair, and I think he is good enough a player to do that, even till the tail-end of the year 2007 he was scoring runs at a fair clip, but since then he has had tough time of it in limited overs cricket, he has been scoring runs every now and then, but he has generally been very scratchy while doing so.


With aggressive players like Hayden, Symonds no longer being there, I think it would upto the likes of Clarke and Ponting to set the tone of the innings from the top of the order, and Clarke can no longer just think of playing that sheet-anchor's role, because as a quality senior batsman he needs to look to dominate bowling attacks a bit more, and shunt that fear of failure that has crept into his game.

 

[Prince EWS]

I reckon Clarke can be a decent enough T20 player if he manages to get a role and get some practice in. Also his fielding is really excellent, and his bowling is decent enough, so that really helps.

Are Australia really that desperate though? It's not like they have no batting depth and need to persist with players until they find their roles and get heaps of practice in, TBH.

If the selectors juggle the rest of the team around, base their whole selection policy on Clarke's role and give him lots and lots of games then yeah, maybe - just maybe - he might be as effective as Hodge in a year or two. But why do that when you can just play Hodge?

 

[pup11]

Are Australia really that desperate though? It's not like they have no batting depth and need to persist with players until they find their roles and get heaps of practice in, TBH.

If the selectors juggle the rest of the team around, base their whole selection policy on Clarke's role and give him lots and lots of games then yeah, maybe - just maybe - he might be as effective as Hodge in a year or two. But why do that when you can just play Hodge?

I think you are forgetting that Clarke falls under the protected species category.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think you are forgetting that Clarke falls under protected spices category.

No, that's precisely the point I'm making. It's not an acceptable reality I'm willing to stop mentioning when it has an impact.

 

[four_or_six]

Are Australia really that desperate though? It's not like they have no batting depth and need to persist with players until they find their roles and get heaps of practice in, TBH.

If the selectors juggle the rest of the team around, base their whole selection policy on Clarke's role and give him lots and lots of games then yeah, maybe - just maybe - he might be as effective as Hodge in a year or two. But why do that when you can just play Hodge?

I don't think you'd have to change things that much to accomodate Clarke. The problem, I guess, is that he doesn't have any other chance to practice T20 than in internationals. I presume there's a reason they don't play Hodge, would be interesting to know what it is.

 

[pup11]

No, that's precisely the point I'm making. It's not an acceptable reality I'm willing to stop mentioning when it has an impact.

Mate, that's the harsh reality of life, some people just get a much easier ride than others, and it has been happening in cricket too for as long as we know, some selectors have favorites who they back to the hilt, and sometimes due to this, some deserving and hardworking blokes like Hodgey suffer, and really there is not much anyone can do about it.

 

[Prince EWS]

Mate, that's the harsh reality of life, some people just get a much easier ride than others

I know this. And when I identify it (in cricket), I'll be posting about it on CricketWeb, as I have here. I'm not going to sit back and think "It's okay Hodge wasn't picked because Clarke's the golden boy. Losing with Clarke in the team is obviously better than winning without him."

Frankly, I don't really care if Australia pick a good Twenty20 team or not. If they want to use it to groom players for captaincy, get their Test stars IPL contracts or whatever, that's fine by me I guess (although presumably not many others). There's a difference between that and actually arguing that Clarke or Hopes should be picked on merit though, or that it's okay to leave Hodge out because Clarke's the golden boy.