Michael Clarke Discussion thread

[sledger]

talented batsman and the future of australian cricket or overated?

 

[luckyeddie]

very talented player.

No one person can ever be calssified as the 'Future of Australian Cricket' - Flintoff is English.

 

[Jono]

He's extremely talented, and with more and more experience he'll become a very dangerous player.

 

[Waughney]

Clarke could very well be the future of Australian cricket, and there is no doubt that he is an amazing talent, but he still needs to improve to earn a spot in the current Australian side.
He is still very young but needs to get into the team and learn, maybe get dropped (like everyone in the Aussie team before him) and then come back better and stronger than ever.

 

[age_master]

he along with Shane watson lead the next generation (the under 25's) of Aussie cricket. certainly a great OD player already, maybe 1 more season before he plays test cricket - though he might get a chance in India through illness or injury, one never knows - great footwork vs the spinners.

 

[Waughney]

Yes, that's a real asset of his, amazing footwork.

 

[Nate]

not over-rated, he will improve, but he has already done very well for his age.

 

[lord_of_darkness]

i dont think much of Watson.. although Clarke with improvement will be a great asset for Australia.. as the only think Australia do lack currently is a good all rounder.. get flintoff to come over?

 

[Son Of Coco]

i dont think much of Watson.. although Clarke with improvement will be a great asset for Australia.. as the only think Australia do lack currently is a good all rounder.. get flintoff to come over?

Like I said on another thread, Watson's only 23 - Flintoff wasn't much when he was the same age, Watson may well develop into a handy all-rounder in the next few years.

I'm not sure us not having a good all-rounder is even an issue, the last 10 years or so have kind of proven that we don't really need one.

 

[lord_of_darkness]

Like I said on another thread, Watson's only 23 - Flintoff wasn't much when he was the same age, Watson may well develop into a handy all-rounder in the next few years.

I'm not sure us not having a good all-rounder is even an issue, the last 10 years or so have kind of proven that we don't really need one.

Fair point.. but Australia might not end up persisting with Watson for that long given the amount of talent they could set back on.. Flintoff always looked like he had something .. he had aggression , was dedicated and im sure his off field ethics were really strong to learna and continue improving his game which the coach and the selection would have been sure to notice..

point 2 , having a class all rounder might just make Australia more invincible/stronger than it already is now.. now wouldnt you like to see that? someone who could do a kallis/flintoff..? someone who could do quite well with the bat and provide more than a good support as a 5/6th bowler normally would , could better Australias chances lots..

 

[The Baconator]

I dunno if hes the future of australian cricket but he's sure got talent and potential

 

[Eclipse]

Dont underestmate Watson it looks now as though his bowling is not going to reach a very high standerd but his batting is world class..

At this stage he would be ahead of Clarke for a test spot because he has proven to be a much better batsman in FC cricket to date.

 

[Waughney]

I disagree, Clarke has already proven himslef at an international level, whereas Watson hasn't.

 

[Jnr.]

Clarke has proven himself at ODI level, not Test level.
Watson's First-Class batting average is about 10 more than Clarke's.
That said, Clarke is definitely very talented and can do well in the Test arena with more FC experience.

 

[a massive zebra]

Not yet worth his place in the Australian side but has a great future ahead of him.

 

[Mr. P]

Certainly a lot of potential. He was overhyped too early and had far to much pressure on him at such a young age. I personally think he will become a very good player, but he is a long way off the test side at the moment.

As for Watson, I don't think much of him, I would rather play Symonds...(sounds crazy eh?)

 

[luckyeddie]

As for Watson, I don't think much of him, I would rather play Symonds...(sounds crazy eh?)

Sounds eminently sensible to me (at least for a try) - he's not exactly had a fair crack of the whip in the big game

 

[Jnr.]

To me, Watson seems like he would be a better Test player than he would be an ODI player (ie I think he is better suited to the longer form of the game).

 

[lord_of_darkness]

Sounds eminently sensible to me (at least for a try) - he's not exactly had a fair crack of the whip in the big game

I think symonds would do quite well considering the form he has been having he does deserve a lot more opportunities.. but the australian board is probably looking to mould youth / future of australian cricket so they will continue to persist with watson..

 

[marc71178]

Like I said on another thread, Watson's only 23 - Flintoff wasn't much when he was the same age

He wasn't bowling properly then.

It's only in the last 2 years or so he's been bowling properly.