Streetwise
Banned
No Watsons name will not be on the teamsheet next game.
-
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
- Thread starter sledger
- Start date
pasag
RTDAS
Smart arse
andyc
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Not sure whether to go Tests only or Tests and ODIs. I think he definitely has been improving recently like Jack said with his rotation of the strike, but he still seems loathe to hit boundaries. I'd definitely have him in the ODI squad for the timebeing, but whether he should be a first choice pick or not is another question. Given that he adds a lot to the team in terms of fielding (hits the stumps more regularly than any other Aussie fielder) and bowling, on any given day I could say something different. If I woke up tomorrow and he'd retired from ODIs I wouldn't really mind, but he still does contribute.
It's just annoying for mine because there was such a huge push from the media and the public to give Simon Katich the sack when he was batting 'too slowly' in one dayers, and yet the vice-captain can plod along at an SR of 70 and no one says a word.
Obviously the bloke has no place whatsoever in the T20I team, but ****ed if the selectors will admit it.
It's just annoying for mine because there was such a huge push from the media and the public to give Simon Katich the sack when he was batting 'too slowly' in one dayers, and yet the vice-captain can plod along at an SR of 70 and no one says a word.
Obviously the bloke has no place whatsoever in the T20I team, but ****ed if the selectors will admit it.
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
My favoured option if I'm honest. Can't stand the guy.
Streetwise
Banned
And the arguement for dropping Clarke is so solid and well thought out.
Nate
You'll Never Walk Alone
It's definately got a firmer basis, imo. I can't stand the mentality of "We won, so let's not change a thing." I'm all about putting the best side on the park, so when harder times arise, the right players are there to meet it. Prevention is better than a cure, or whatnot.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Ind33d. Australia could beat almost any team (you know, apart from the other 7 serious ODI sides) with ten men and a substitute fielder or even nine and two sub fielders. Doesn't mean it'd not be poor selection to pick some random club cricketer or two random club cricketers alongside the other best ten\nine players.
Always aim for the best side you can get, IMO. If you think you can improve it, change it - stuff what the results have been. They'll be better still if the selection you go for works-out.
Streetwise
Banned
Clarke is able to push the scoring along when needed and can pace himself as the situation requires. If he was costing us games then I could see the point but when required he comes through and thats all that matters.
Streetwise
Banned
If you are suggesting Clarke is comparable to a random club cricketer then you really dont know much about cricket.
Nate
You'll Never Walk Alone
I agree with Richard ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
I simply and plainly disagree with your first statement. And on your second, the quality (or rather lack thereof) of our opposition has been a heavy factor imo.
The situation as it stands, imo, is that Clarke, albeit making runs, is making them extremely slowly, and has been doing so for years. This puts pressure on the side that need not be there, when we have other players that could perform his role as a middle-order ODI batsman more successfully. Although we may still be winning a lot of games while Clarke is doing this, I feel there will be a big game, or a few, where it is a key difference between winning and losing, and could have been prevented.
EDIT: As for Clarke in 20/20 Cricket - wow. He doesn't want to play in the IPL, and his style lays contradictory to the format. Make him captain. (N)
Last edited:
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Chanderpaul strikes at 71 in ODI cricket. So who's the better ODI player?
Streetwise
Banned
Believe what you want, I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just putting my point of view across.
In Clarke's last 25 ODI games he has had
8 100+run partnerships
11 50+run partnerships.
Scored one hundred and ten fifties.
These are the things that win matches.
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I'm not a massive fan of Chanderpaul as an ODI bat either. The innings he played in the final ODI in England last year was nothing short of a disgrace.
However, batting for the West Indies is a lot different to batting for Australia, so a direct comparison on strike rates is a bit harsh on him.
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
There's a very good argument that Chanderpaul is one of the best(, most reluctant) ODI openers in the world though.
Stats Guru isn't working for me right now (nor the BBC website, on an unrelated note) so I can't produce the stats, but his performance at the top has been phenomenal for the most part. Particularly in the last couple of years.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
You really don't know much about a) me or b) how to read a post if you infer that. No, I am simply making the point that "they won so the team doesn't need to be changed" is a poor mentality. If you think you can better the team, change it; if you do not think you can better the team, do not change it. I couldn't care less about team results - what matters is whether you think the players playing are the best available.
