Michael Clarke Discussion thread

[Sir Alex]

He's been a bit better of late tbf. I'm thinking and hoping his ablity vs spin in the longer form might hold him in good stead with a WC on the subcontinent due soon.

All that provided he's in some decent form going in of course.

He's a monty for the test team - his form the past 12 months has been good, albeit he failed to convert many starts this summer just gone.

I think he could quite easily sit out t20s - I think we've got better options, but it won't happen.

His ability against spin is useful in the subcontinent, but it is not as if Australia are struggling to find batsmen who can play spin, well atleast in ODIs. Tackling spinners require one to take risks and be aggressive or otherwise they'd strangle you. Clarke at best of times scores just about on par with run a ball and when that does not happen, he becomes bogged down. He eats into others strikes and generally grounds down the innings score rate. As an Indian supporter, it always give me pleasure to see Clarke coming in to bat against us and particularly when we have got two quick wickets because his style of play is predictable. He will never venture to go on the aggressive and the opposition captain can choose to bring in the lesser bowlers when he is on and get away with it. While it is ridiculous to put the blame of an ODI loss entirely on a batsman, there is no denying there have been quite a number of ODIs which Australia lost where one of the reasons have been them getting 20-30 runs lesser than they should have ideally, and Clarke's contribution to that, quite obvious.

The main (only) argument for dropping him is his strike rate; he's certainly been scoring enough runs. While that's a perfectly valid argument, I do think it's been blown slightly out of proportion. One must look at Clarke's role - he either comes in during the middle overs when the field is back and the aim of the game is to score at about 4.5rpo while conserving wickets for the late assault, or at the start of the innings after Australia have lost two quick ones when the aim of the game is to score at about 4rpo and rubuild the innings before upping the rate. I think #4 in ODIs for most teams has become a position for a good old-fashioned ODI batsman, who scores runs with awesome regularity but at a reduced pace - this batsman ensures the total that is set is competitive while still leaving the door open for a massive total if they late assault is effective. Look at some of the other ODI #4s - Yousuf, Chanderpaul, Kallis, Jayawardene - they all play that same role.

Yousuf and Chanderpaul play in sides where openers are fairly brittle and hence more often than not they come in fairly early in the innings and considering the "unpredictable" (read generally mediocre) batting lineup to follow, they indeed are forced to dig in and play the sheet anchor role. Clarke is fortunate in that regard because players on either side of him in the batting lineup are good consistent strikers of the ball and there is really no reason for him to purposefully play defensively. I don't rate Jayawardene as an ODI player and barring one ODI century in the World Cup of 2007, I have never seen him play any exceptional innings at all. I don't think he should be in the SL ODI team with that average and SR after so many matches although SL needs him because there aren't many who can replace him at the moment.

Clarke's still been a little too slow for this, really, but not as slow as his strike rate of 68 or whatever would have you believe. His problem has more been his propensity to just get out when he's well-set it's time to really go at the bowling in the late overs than what he's actually done in the middle overs IMO. If he was dropped I wouldn't really cry foul, but I honestly don't think there have been many situations where a different batsman would have given Australia a bigger score. I think it's been more a tactical thing than a physical thing with him.

I feel you are putting in painful amount of effort to justify Clarke's SR there. It is a statistical measure and that SR is perhaps the lowest for a top order batsman in more than a decade. Of course he is prone to getting out after wasting a lot of deliveries trying to settle in and that is exactly why I feel he is a strain on the other middle order/ lower order batsmen. I disagree with the notion that another Australian could do no better than him. I believe that Hussey should bat at no.4 regardless of his test struggles because he scores more at a much better rate and is more likely to go on and post a big one than Clarke. Guys like Callum Ferguson, White etc are all consistent and neat strikers of the ball and hence I don't think there is a need for a player like Clarke in the Aus lineup.

 

[andyc]

His ability against spin is useful in the subcontinent, but it is not as if Australia are struggling to find batsmen who can play spin, well atleast in ODIs.

That's been our biggest ODI weakness in recent times.

 

[Sir Alex]

That's been our biggest ODI weakness in recent times.

I am not sure that is a great weakness for Australia in the ODIs, if their recent performances in India were anything to go by. Of course in test matches it might be.

Another interesting stat that I noticed is like below :

Since WC 07, Australia have won 35 out of 54 ODIs that featured Clarke, with a batting avg of 35.47 and economy rate of 5.16 (W/L - 2.18). Without Clarke they have won 10 out of 16 ODIs with a batting avg of 36.73 and economy rate of 5.32 (W/L - 2.50). So Australia have not exactly struggled without him and in fact have done better both in terms of average and scoring rates.

 

[Uppercut]

Who really is banging down on the door to replace him, though?

Ferguson is injured and isn't a better player than Clarke anyway, whilst all the other domestic options have either been tried and failed at one day international level (Hussey, Hodge, etc.) or are a step back anyway (Bailey, Cosgrove, Voges).

I'd much rather Ferguson than Clarke.

But since he's injured, you do have a point. Thing is, if anyone who wasn't in the test team came into the side and performed the way Clarke has lately he'd have been dropped looong ago. This run of turgid scoring dates back a good two years. Whether he should be axed or not I'm not sure, but his retention looks almost completely down to favouritism from where I'm sat. No one else could have got away with playing so badly for so long.

 

[pasag]

Precam, we were absolutley woeful against spin for some time in ODIs. When spin came on we lost the plot, regardless of the skill of the spinner. It seems the team is over it now though and back to business as usual.

 

[Top_Cat]

Looks like Clarke's run in the team will continue for a while too. Ferguson did his ACL so even after 12 months, will take him a while to trust the knee again.

 

[pasag]

I'd much rather Ferguson than Clarke.

But since he's injured, you do have a point. Thing is, if anyone who wasn't in the test team came into the side and performed the way Clarke has lately he'd have been dropped looong ago. This run of turgid scoring dates back a good two years. Whether he should be axed or not I'm not sure, but his retention looks almost completely down to favouritism from where I'm sat. No one else could have got away with playing so badly for so long.

It has a little to do with that, but also that he still scores runs which disguises things a little.

 

[pasag]

Looks like Clarke's run in the team will continue for a while too. Ferguson did his ACL so even after 12 months, will take him a while to trust the knee again.

Clarke wont be dropped. No chance in hell. He'll play ODIs till he retires IMO.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I'd much rather Ferguson than Clarke.

But since he's injured, you do have a point. Thing is, if anyone who wasn't in the test team came into the side and performed the way Clarke has lately he'd have been dropped looong ago. This run of turgid scoring dates back a good two years. Whether he should be axed or not I'm not sure, but his retention looks almost completely down to favouritism from where I'm sat. No one else could have got away with playing so badly for so long.

Shaun Marsh? Bats in a pretty similar manner during the same period of the game.

 

[thierry henry]

Is there any way to statsguru for strike rate?

Clarke's career strike rate in ODIs still looks pretty acceptable at 77 (combined with the excellent average as well), so I take it it used to be in the 80s?

Any theories on how this has happened to his batting and why he seems to be powerless to change it?

 

[thierry henry]

Sorry, I'll stop asking stupid statsguru questions prior to figuring it out for myself.

I see he is striking at 68 over the last 2 years and 44 matches. His average is at 40 and he has passed 50 15 times with only 6 not-outs, which is pretty excellent really. I daresay his excellent consistency almost makes it seem worse, with one 50 (75) or 40 (60) and then out after another.

Quite a strange trend tbh.

 

[thierry henry]

Is there any suggestion the way he bats is deliberate or encouraged/sanctioned by the team?

Given his run production, it seems pretty apparent he's just not taking many risks.

Surely if he knew his spot was under threat he would be playing more aggressively, and either scoring fast or getting out trying?

 

[Prince EWS]

Is there any suggestion the way he bats is deliberate or encouraged/sanctioned by the team?

Yeah, I said that before. I think it's at least partly tactical.

 

[Furball]

While I don't think he's been particularly good in ODIs of late, and while I can definitely see a good argument for giving him the axe, I don't think I'm quite prepared to do it yet.

The main (only) argument for dropping him is his strike rate; he's certainly been scoring enough runs. While that's a perfectly valid argument, I do think it's been blown slightly out of proportion. One must look at Clarke's role - he either comes in during the middle overs when the field is back and the aim of the game is to score at about 4.5rpo while conserving wickets for the late assault, or at the start of the innings after Australia have lost two quick ones when the aim of the game is to score at about 4rpo and rubuild the innings before upping the rate. I think #4 in ODIs for most teams has become a position for a good old-fashioned ODI batsman, who scores runs with awesome regularity but at a reduced pace - this batsman ensures the total that is set is competitive while still leaving the door open for a massive total if they late assault is effective. Look at some of the other ODI #4s - Yousuf, Chanderpaul, Kallis, Jayawardene - they all play that same role.

Clarke's still been a little too slow for this, really, but not as slow as his strike rate of 68 or whatever would have you believe. His problem has more been his propensity to just get out when he's well-set it's time to really go at the bowling in the late overs than what he's actually done in the middle overs IMO. If he was dropped I wouldn't really cry foul, but I honestly don't think there have been many situations where a different batsman would have given Australia a bigger score. I think it's been more a tactical thing than a physical thing with him.

He definitely shouldn't be in the T20 team though.

All well and good, but Clarke isn't able to launch a late assault. Getting 40 off 60 is no good if you can't turn that into a run a ball 80.

 

[Dan]

I don't see why striking at 68 in the middle overs is such a problem. We saw yesterday, Clarke scored 80 in the middle overs, rotating the strike and keeping wickets in hand, allowing Hussey to explode at the end there. If Clarke forced the pace too much, he would have been back in the sheds, Hussey would have been out there much earlier, along with Haddin, and they surely couldn't have scored 95 off the last 10 overs.

By the same token, should Shaun Marsh be dropped for not scoring above a run-a-ball?

In ODIs, you don't need to go at 8 an over all the way through, and you can make a good total up around 300 by batting patiently at 5 an over through the middle, Clarke more-or-less did that. It leaves wickets in hand for the 10 an over explosion at the end. Nothing wrong with that strategy, as Australia's wins this series have shown.



On the T20 front, Clarke shouldn't be playing. If it has to be takes so seriously, you want a specialist team for it. Plus it gives our real players a break.

 

[age_master]

Tests and ODIs. I dont think there is any real argument over his test place. In ODIs his scoring rate is critisised but for mine he plays a crucial role in building partnerships setting up solid scores for the team. Each batsmen has a role in the team and people playing those roles well mean that the team works well. He doesn't strike as highly as he used to because his role in the team is different. He is playing a similar role to that which Damien Martyn previously fulfilled.

He also plays a key role in the field where he saves heaps of runs and effects plenty of run outs which increases his value to the team. He is also a handy part time bowler, particularly on turning wickets.

 

[NUFAN]

This decade Michael Clarke is striking at 81.09 at an average of 54.33.

I don't get the reason for this thread right now. It's not like Clarke is batting bad like Ricky Ponting.

Sure, he had a period where his performances were not acceptable, but M.Clarke is doing pretty much all that could be asked of him.

 

[Craig]

This decade Michael Clarke is striking at 81.09 at an average of 54.33.

I don't get the reason for this thread right now. It's not like Clarke is batting bad like Ricky Ponting.

Sure, he had a period where his performances were not acceptable, but M.Clarke is doing pretty much all that could be asked of him.

Well Clarke has played three ODIs this year

 

[inbox24]

In his last ten ODIs, he is indeed averaging 48.00. But he's hitting them at a strike-rate of 68. Regardless, it's not even really about his stats, he looks bad. The pressure he puts on the side, both with his slow scoring and running between the wickets, is inexcusable.

Hmm just like Shaun Marsh...

Anyway, he shouldn't be playing T20 that's something we can all agree on and he should definitely be playing tests, so that just leaves ODIs.

I think give him another few games as in the last game he was still striking at 90. However if the poor strike rate continues to decline then let go back to domestic cricket for one dayers. What's strange is that when Clarke played with Gilly, Haydos, Symonds et al in that 05-06 period he was striking like a beast and now this.

The current theory for ODI batsmen is that no one's strike rate should dip below 80 even for a so called 'anchorman'.

 

[Noble One]

Hard to fault his batting in the ODI's this season, has batted in response to the situation and allowed Australia to build sufficient totals.

The main issue with Clarke is how he can kill the momentum of an innings with a relatively slow paced middle order crawl, despite the situation calling for a higher tempo innings. Some cricketers such as Ponting, White and Hussey can get away with the slow start as they all have an extra gear they can step up to find the boundary. Clarke really struggles to find his second gear. He can often leave the impression he is simply incapable of scoring anything better than a firm hit down the ground for a single. Whilst games are still played on wickets that don't demand 300+ scores, Clarke will prevail, but I am unsure how long he can keep pace with the modern game. ODI cricketers of Clarke's style are a dying breed now.