Michael Clarke Discussion thread

[GIMH]

You are probably the worst poster on this forum.

Harsh on Streetwise

As an England fan, I have voted T20 only.

 

[Furball]

I am a big fan of Clarke, but it baffles me why he never goes the slog (I'm mainly talking about ODIs here).

Don't get me wrong, I know everybody has their role in the team, and Clarke's is very different to that of Watson, Hussey, White and Johnson. I certainly do not expect him to come out in every game and score 50 off 30 balls.

What concerns me is that he NEVER plays like this. Look at his ODI innings list;

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

You can see a couple of fast scoring knocks, including 2 in a row against the Netherlands and South Africa. The thing is, they are very few and far between, almost to the point of it being uncanny. This being said (to answer the original question) I believe he should play test and ODI cricket, but not Twenty20 until he proves he is competent in the format.

Once again, I think he is a great batsman and plays his role in the ODI side very well. I would just love to see him play one Afridi-esque innings involving a few sixes and a strike rate of 150 just to prove he can, because being as good of a batsman that he is it would be a surprise if he could not.

It's because he doesn't have the game for it.

Cam White has played a couple of innings where he's started slowly then been able to switch very successfully into "hitting mode".

However, Mike Hussey has maintained a career strike rate of near 90, and I don't think people would think of him as a big hitter. Hussey can hit a long ball, but his success comes from good placement and hard running - with Clarke's ability against spin and athleticism, there's no reason why he shouldn't be able to perform a similar role - he was pretty successful at it up until 2007.

 

[Top_Cat]

It's because he doesn't have the game for it.

Cam White has played a couple of innings where he's started slowly then been able to switch very successfully into "hitting mode".

However, Mike Hussey has maintained a career strike rate of near 90, and I don't think people would think of him as a big hitter. Hussey can hit a long ball, but his success comes from good placement and hard running - with Clarke's ability against spin and athleticism, there's no reason why he shouldn't be able to perform a similar role - he was pretty successful at it up until 2007.

Yeah, if anything Hussey's hitting long bombs far less often these days yet he's found a way to maintain his strikerate. Clarke's has headed steadily south.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Generally speaking Clarke is going down the same path as Pieterson. The only difference being Clarke hasn't really improved in the past 5 years whilst Pieterson has actually become worse.

Clarke seems very good at getting to the 40s, 50s and 60s but not stepping up to the mantle. You can see this in the fact that he averages above 40 in ODI but only has 4 centuries in nearly 170 matches.

 

[Point]

Snail Clarke

Michael Clarke has curbed his attacking instincts and become a snail of late. He rarely hits boundaries and he just tires out his own team by making them run constantly.

I really can't make sense of the selectors decision to play him in 20/20 much less as captain. He has no record there whatsoever. They might as well just play him as a specialist bowler.

 

[Streetwise]

Clarke

It must be upsetting for some people that M Clarke has such a good record as captain of the Australian 20/20I team, his batting ave as captain is above 50 which will upset even more people.

 

[Noble One]

Yes, at a strike-rate of 105.73.

What is the point of this thread? Go back one page for a more sensible discussion on Clarke's pros and cons as a Twenty20 bat.

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/45541-format-s-if-any-should-michael-clarke-playing-australia.html

 

[Son Of Coco]

He's a poor Twenty/20 player. He might get better, but at the moment there are better players in the format than him that deserve a go.

 

[Streetwise]

Yes, at a strike-rate of 105.73.

[/URL]

Thats a bit better or the same as Dhoni's strike rate in T20I's.

 

[Streetwise]

He's a poor Twenty/20 player. He might get better, but at the moment there are better players in the format than him that deserve a go.

Which players are better than Clarke that deserve a spot over him?.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Which players are better than Clarke that deserve a spot over him?.

Pick a name from domestic cricket where they've actually been playing a fair bit of Twenty/20.Clarke's a very good Test batsman, he might be decent at OD, but he's done nothing of note in Twenty20 to suggest he deserves to be there. The only reason he is is because he's vice captain of the Test team.

 

[Streetwise]

Pick a name from domestic cricket where they've actually been playing a fair bit of Twenty/20.Clarke's a very good Test batsman, he might be decent at OD, but he's done nothing of note in Twenty20 to suggest he deserves to be there. The only reason he is is because he's vice captain of the Test team.

So who are these players?.

 

[silentstriker]

Love Clarke. He subscribes to my style of sportsmanship.

 

[NZTailender]

So who are these players?.

IMHO: Hodge, Marsh, Voges, Carseldine, Finch, Hughes, Katich, Bailey, Harris, North, Jaques, Pomersbach, Christian & Ronchi.

 

[Streetwise]

IMHO: Hodge, Marsh, Voges, Carseldine, Finch, Hughes, Katich, Bailey, Harris, North, Jaques, Pomersbach, Christian & Ronchi.

So you would back North (strike rate 95) or even Marsh (average 17 S/R 110) to replace Clarke?

Did you think about this before posting.

 

[NZTailender]

So you would back North (strike rate 95) or even Marsh (average 17 S/R 110) to replace Clarke?

Not confidently, but given their comparative records North and Marsh deserve just as much of a shot as Clarke.

Did you think about this before posting.

No, I just listed the best players from memory then added in statistically the best from Cricinfo stats, and I think a few of them are better than Clarke (Hodge, Katich, Marsh, Voges) and the others could potentially be better.

 

[dikinee]

Clarke is, by head and shoulders, the best batsman of his generation (Aussie). He is also a very, very good captain with a wonderful cricket brain. Yes at the moment his batting tempo needs to intensify in the shortest form of the game but the thing about great players is when they have a problem in a certain area they will find a way to rectify it, usually sooner rather than later. He would no doubt benefit from playing a full season in the Big Bash but I cant see that as likely to happen any time soon. The Australian selectors will keep him in the team as long as he keeps scoring some runs because the last thing you need is your captain having to be worried about his place in the team. Never underestimate the value of stability within a team. Besides while he keeps winning as skipper there is no reason to even consider dropping him. I would just like to see him bowl a lot more in T20 as he is a very useful bowler in this format. Trust me, we havent seen anything even close to his "A" game yet.

 

[Johnners]

All recently used Michael Clarke threads have been merged and re-named, there's really no need for 3/4 threads about basically the same thing

 

[Richard]

Said it about Ganguly before now, but these days Michael Clarke has to be the player with most threads started about him in CW history. Maybe one day we might merge the lot of them.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

His Test batting is seriously overrated, not so much that he should be dropped but his far from one of the better batsman in world cricket. The thing about Michael Clarke is that he has never done anything great. He was on the verge of doing something great in the 2nd Test of the Ashes, when he scored that 100, but he got out soon after. Had Australia won that match or had lost by 10-20 runs, with Clarke making 180-200 then he could've been well on his way to being a Ponting, Chappell, Border, Waugh or Hayden. BUT as it is, he only got half the job done and will most likely never be seriously comparable to past Australian greats.