• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Michael Clarke Discussion thread

In which format(s), if any, should Michael Clarke be playing for Australia?

  • Total voters
    60
  • Poll closed .
vic_orthdox

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
Uppercut said:
Strikes at 75 tbf. Even that's not ideal, but Clarke's striking at 68.
Click to expand...
Knew you'd come back with a number.

Marsh is also always batting in a powerplay for basically the first 15 overs when the field is up, thus boundaries are made much easier. During the middle overs, there's very little difference between how Clarke bats and Marsh bats.
 
four_or_six

four_or_six

Cricketer Of The Year
Well I can't see why on earth you'd drop him from ODIs right now, unless he has a really bad rest of the home matches. All teams need someone who can rebuild after a couple of early wickets, or support the big hitters. Also, he's an excellent fielder and if his back holds up he can be handy for a few overs of spin. So unless I'm missing something about Voges, who is next in line, I can't see why you'd want Voges > Clarke right now.

Of course, T20s is a different story. But he's captain now, so there's nothing going to be done about it. I think Australia have about 5 T20s in the next couple of months, so it will be interesting at the end of that period to see how he has done.
 
Himannv

Himannv

Hall of Fame Member
Thats a pretty good chart. Considering the strike rate has hovered around between 85 and 90 for quite a while, I think tactics and player coaching are to blame for the drop in strike rate. A good player doesn't turn into a bad one overnight and I firmly believe that a player who scored his runs at 85-90 regularly can surely do it again.

As Noble One said in his post, the days where an ODI score of 270 being considered high are long over. Test matches are where he should focus and ply his trade.
 
Uppercut

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
vic_orthdox said:
Knew you'd come back with a number.

Marsh is also always batting in a powerplay for basically the first 15 overs when the field is up, thus boundaries are made much easier. During the middle overs, there's very little difference between how Clarke bats and Marsh bats.
Click to expand...
You can only do the job you're given though. I'm not a massive fan of Marsh's batting during the middle overs either, but his overall contribution is generally okay, whereas Clarke's isn't.
 
vic_orthdox

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
The thing is that his technique has changed a lot. He squares himself up a lot more and uses a bit more bottom hand than what he used to. Hence why he can't really hit the ball straight in the air as he used to, and has to go leg-side of the ball to try and spray it over the off-side.

I think its a side-effect of a general tightening of his game to ensure at his best for Test cricket, and thus I don't really think he should change it. But there's definitely a technical change in his game which I think has limited his strokeplay, and means that it's not just down to tactics for his strike rate to drop that much.
 
Himannv

Himannv

Hall of Fame Member
vic_orthdox said:
The thing is that his technique has changed a lot. He squares himself up a lot more and uses a bit more bottom hand than what he used to. Hence why he can't really hit the ball straight in the air as he used to, and has to go leg-side of the ball to try and spray it over the off-side.

I think its a side-effect of a general tightening of his game to ensure at his best for Test cricket, and thus I don't really think he should change it. But there's definitely a technical change in his game which I think has limited his strokeplay, and means that it's not just down to tactics for his strike rate to drop that much.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I think you're spot on about that. Either way, I think being a test specialist is the way forward for him as a player.
 
social

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Uppercut said:
You can only do the job you're given though. I'm not a massive fan of Marsh's batting during the middle overs either, but his overall contribution is generally okay, whereas Clarke's isn't.
Click to expand...
That's ridiculous!

Clarke is one of the best players in the world and Marsh is no better that promising
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Whether or not Clarke is currently droppable from ODIs is a fair question; the contention that he's one of the best ODI batsmen around currently is plain silly and smacks (not surprisingly coming from social I must say) of allowing Test match considerations too much weight in judging ODI ones.
 
S

Streetwise

Banned
Richard said:
Whether or not Clarke is currently droppable from ODIs is a fair question; the contention that he's one of the best ODI batsmen around currently is plain silly and smacks (not surprisingly coming from social I must say) of allowing Test match considerations too much weight in judging ODI ones.
Click to expand...

Clarke is one of the best ODI batsmen currently playing the game, that fact is indisputable. He only has to score enough runs for his team to win, regardless of the strike rate if his team scores more runs than the opposition that is all that matters.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
No, whether one's team wins makes precisely zero impact on how good a batsman is. Even in the ODI game no batsman (less still bowler) can make a strong impact on the result by himself - thus what matters is the individual's contribution in itself, not the team's result.
 
S

Streetwise

Banned
Richard said:
No, whether one's team wins makes precisely zero impact on how good a batsman is. Even in the ODI game no batsman (less still bowler) can make a strong impact on the result by himself - thus what matters is the individual's contribution in itself, not the team's result.
Click to expand...
The purpose of playing cricket is for the team to win, all the batsman has to do is achieve that, it matters not what his score or strike rate is. Cricket is about the team winning, not players trying to achieve batting averages or strike rates.

Clarke over his last 25 odd games has dominated as a batsman.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Streetwise said:
The purpose of playing cricket is for the team to win, all the batsman has to do is achieve that, it matters not what his score or strike rate is. Cricket is about the team winning, not players trying to achieve batting averages or strike rates.
Click to expand...
A team winning as the term suggests depends on team members, not any one player. No player in himself makes a team, so thus to judge how good a player is - and yes that's every bit as much what watching cricket is about as seeing who wins games - you must assess him on his own merits independent of those of his team-mates. Cricket isn't of course about any batsman attempting to achieve any set specified average or strike-rate, but the better a batsman's average and strike-rate the better his contribution to his team and thus the better batsman he is.
Clarke over his last 25 odd games has dominated as a batsman.
Click to expand...
That's as maybe, I don't claim to be an expert there - as I say I've not taken intimiate account of all of Australia's recent ODIs. I have however taken enough note to realise that there's at least 2-3 batsmen better than Clarke in his own team, and plenty better in other sides.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top