Michael Clarke Announces Comeback

[Gob]

Yeah spot on. Senile made a **** post re Clarke but you can't call him a **** poster based on that.

 

[Redbacks]

I wonder if his body will hold up? It think if he only plays in the BBL he will definitely be fine but a return for NSW in the Shield may not be possible. Not being skipper should allow him to focus more on his own body/recovery etc. I guess.

 

[cnerd123]

Senile Sentry is anything but a newbie these days

Have just read the Ind/Aus thread and discovered he is a renowned troll apparently.

Best to ignore his attempts at manipulating stats all together then.

 

[MrPrez]

If he is one of the "greats" of his generation, then his generation must have been a really underwhelming bunch of cricketers.

Make no mistake, I like Clarke as a batsman but in this era, 8000 runs @ 49 odd is good, not "great". Why I say a few good years? Check his career stats. He averaged above 50 in test cricket in only 5 calendar years of his career (which spanned 12 years). And he was largely just a home track bully. His home average of 62 stands in stark contrast to his away from home average of just 39.5. He made good runs on flat Aussie wickets against some substandard bowling attacks, and while he toured he was mediocre to good, as demonstrated by his career stats. His highest 'away from home' (barring NZ) average is a mere 42.8 (in SL).

His ODI numbers are too not that great, although his fans would like to tom-tom his career average of over 45. Which is largely negated by a substandard strike rate of 78 (ie a run rate of 4.7 per over) in this era and inflated by a plethora of not outs (a fifth of all his ODI innings).

One area where he stepped out really was as a tactician. I admire him a lot for that, although his tactics were largely foolhardy outside Australia - the best (or worst) of them being a first day declaration at 239 and ended up having egg on his face seeing his team getting decimated by an innings and a ton of runs.

So yeah, Clarke is no way in the league of 'greats'.

Since you wanted a post critique:

AB De Villiers, arguably the best Test batsman in the world throughout the past 5-10 years, has 8000 runs at 50. He has averaged over 50 in six of his twelve years of test cricket.

Hashim Amla, who is also undoubtedly a great of his generation, has averaged 51 for his 7.4k runs. He also averaged 50+ in six of his twelve years of test cricket.

Yes, Clarke averages 62 at home. I wouldn't place him above either of the batsmen mentioned above him, but there are very few batsmen of his generation besides them that could be argued to have had a better career than him (presuming you don't try to lump him into the Tendulkar/Kallis/Ponting/Lara/Sanga/Dravid generation, which was potentially the most stacked generation of batsmen in Test cricket history). It's worth clarifying at this point that TheJediBrah claimed him to be 'one of the greats of his generation.' If you see him as most do - as sharing a 'generation' with AB and Hashim rather than scrambling to shift him into the Lara/Tendulkar/Ponting era, he pretty clearly is a top 5 Test batsman of his generation, which is a synonym for 'great of his generation.'

Regarding ODIs, I think most would agree that his average of 45 isn't the be-all and end-all. SRT averaged similarly but you will never find someone saying they were at the same ODI level.

That said, a SR of 78 isn't the worst. Jacques Kallis struck at 73, Angelo Matthews strikes at 85, Graeme Smith struck at 80. JP goes at 84, while Mohammed Hafeez goes at 75. All in all, 78 is on the slow side, but certainly not unforgivable.

He was a good ODI player. Not nearly as good as your Tendulkars and De Villiers, but good nonetheless. His ODI numbers actually are good. His role was never to be a big hitter - Aus have routinely had enough of those already. He performed his role very well in ODIs.

 

[MrPrez]

Have just read the Ind/Aus thread and discovered he is a renowned troll apparently.

Best to ignore his attempts at manipulating stats all together then.

Oops.

 

[Dan]

Also worthwhile noting that Clarke stepped it up a gear in ODIs later in his career. Mid-career he was overwhelmingly a dire 50 (80) maker, and he copped a lot of justifiable criticism for it at the time.

Which, incidentally, is around the time he was playing most of his career T20s. Given how he improved in ODIs later on, I wouldn't be surprised if he was an exponentially better T20 player in 2013 (should he have played some) than in 2010.

 

[Senile Sentry]

Since you wanted a post critique:

AB De Villiers, arguably the best Test batsman in the world throughout the past 5-10 years, has 8000 runs at 50. He has averaged over 50 in six of his twelve years of test cricket.

Hashim Amla, who is also undoubtedly a great of his generation, has averaged 51 for his 7.4k runs. He also averaged 50+ in six of his twelve years of test cricket.

Yes, Clarke averages 62 at home. I wouldn't place him above either of the batsmen mentioned above him, but there are very few batsmen of his generation besides them that could be argued to have had a better career than him (presuming you don't try to lump him into the Tendulkar/Kallis/Ponting/Lara/Sanga/Dravid generation, which was potentially the most stacked generation of batsmen in Test cricket history). It's worth clarifying at this point that TheJediBrah claimed him to be 'one of the greats of his generation.' If you see him as most do - as sharing a 'generation' with AB and Hashim rather than scrambling to shift him into the Lara/Tendulkar/Ponting era, he pretty clearly is a top 5 Test batsman of his generation, which is a synonym for 'great of his generation.'

Regarding ODIs, I think most would agree that his average of 45 isn't the be-all and end-all. SRT averaged similarly but you will never find someone saying they were at the same ODI level.

That said, a SR of 78 isn't the worst. Jacques Kallis struck at 73, Angelo Matthews strikes at 85, Graeme Smith struck at 80. JP goes at 84, while Mohammed Hafeez goes at 75. All in all, 78 is on the slow side, but certainly not unforgivable.

He was a good ODI player. Not nearly as good as your Tendulkars and De Villiers, but good nonetheless. His ODI numbers actually are good. His role was never to be a big hitter - Aus have routinely had enough of those already. He performed his role very well in ODIs.

Good post.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah spot on. Senile made a **** post re Clarke but you can't call him a **** poster based on that.

did anyone though?

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Yeah judge the post not the poster - loving how the jury suddenly comes out and start doing personal attacks and judgements.

I've literally never seen a post of yours until today.

 

[honestbharani]

He was one of the greats of his generation, lol "had a few good years".

His last couple of series were **** though and I doubt anyone really thinks he'll make an international comeback

Yeah he is a great player but its amazing how divisive the opinion about him seems to be. I do not know how he will play but it might just help him be better at it if he is solely playing T20s. And as bad as he seemed to be in T20s back when he did play, I am sure he has enough skillset to command a place in some sides around the world. Now whether it is worth the money he might demand is a totally different question. I remember CSK got Mike Hussey for 400K an year USD. Some team might sign up for that kind of bargain if he doesn't overprice himself.

 

[Jono]

Clarke's part of a generation that kind of missed the T20 boom though. 46 games spaced over a career of 12 years (T20 only came about in 2003) really isn't all that much when his focus would have been on Test and ODI cricket.

Yeah that generation, like Pietersen and Gayle, really missed the T20 boat

One of your best GIMP

 

[TheJediBrah]

Clarke's "generation" definitely didn't miss out on T20 but Clarke himself had other priorities and duties like winning World Cups and Test matches, something the likes of Gayle didn't have to worry about

 

[Athlai]

Clarke's "generation" of Australians were pretty skeptical of T20 and the Indian leagues as well. Wasn't really till 2011 and the BBL started when that mindset significantly seemed to change.

Definitely wasn't part of Clarke's natural game and he didn't seem to care all that much.

 

[adub]

Imagine him and Watto opening the batting together. Partnership for the ages there.

If Watto plays like he did in the last game it would definitely be.

 

[Jono]

Twatto who is Australian and part of Clarke's generation was playing IPL in the first year and was immediately a big name in the format.

It's okay for it to be a simple explanation, Clarke didn't try to be good at T20s and the creation of T20s also occurred at a time when he was actually changing his limited overs aggression (he had a 2 year patch where his scoring rate fell as Dan mentioned). This generational talk is making an excuse for him when he doesn't need one. He never concentrated on it for his own personal reasons. But let's not pretend other batsmen his age also missed the T20 phenomenon.

 

[91Jmay]

There is also a simpler explanation.

Clarke wasn't any good at T20s, so he didn't bother playing them anymore.

 

[Senile Sentry]

There is also a simpler explanation.

Clarke wasn't any good at T20s, so he didn't bother playing them anymore.

This. I just don't understand all this 'putting tests above that - this". From memory he did throw his hat during the IPL auctions but was purchased at the base price only. And he realized that he was not really that 'hot" among T20 circles and opted out the year after citing "test match load etc etc".

 

[TheJediBrah]

This. I just don't understand all this 'putting tests above that - this". From memory he did throw his hat during the IPL auctions but was purchased at the base price only. And he realized that he was not really that 'hot" among T20 circles and opted out the year after citing "test match load etc etc".

Clarke completely changes the way he played cricket to be better at Tests which undoubtedly influenced him not performing in the few T20s he did play, a long with not caring that much about them.

He's the kind of guy IMO who wouldn't put an iota of the effort into playing for "Pune Warriors" as he would for his country. Shane Watson would be an example of the opposite.

 

[Burner]

Oh, man. The point about his being bad in t20s because of him focusing on test cricket is total bollocks. When you are in India playing t20 for Pune Warriors, you are not focussed on test cricket. You are playing t20 cricket then. His performance being **** then is a result of him being **** in that format not because he is focusing on test cricket.

 

[91Jmay]

Yeah exactly. Some players are great at Tests and not at T20s, it is nothing to do with not trying hard it is just their games not suiting the format. Amla another one who is an ordinary (but better than Clarke) T20 player despite being a great Test/ODI player.