• 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 .

age_master

Hall of Fame Member
23 is very young in terms of Aussie cricketers

and his ODI career stats dont tell the whole story... hes more often than not batting at 6 or 7, slogging in the later overs, not worrying about his average (like some others) and having a swing.
 

Mr. P

International Vice-Captain
Richard said:
Since then he's averaged 29.13 when you remove Zimbabwe games (perfectly legitimate, given that Zimbabwe have not been ODI standard from WC2003 onwards).
Still to convince as far as I'm concerned.
8-) 8-) :@ :dry:

C'mon mate. Really, I expect better from you. We can cover this from every angle, but you cannot leave those games out.
 

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Richard said:
Clarke is 23 with 4 seasons under his belt - he's not that young.
He's also not been at all convincing in his ODI career to date - he had a fantastic start (average of 208 after 4 innings).
Since then he's averaged 29.13 when you remove Zimbabwe games (perfectly legitimate, given that Zimbabwe have not been ODI standard from WC2003 onwards).
Still to convince as far as I'm concerned.
he seems to be going along ok to date.................another solid performance yesterday. Interestingly he and Symonds are the top performers currently when it comes to building a partnership in the middle of the innings - they average 65, which goes some way to explaining the Aussies recent successes I guess (up until yesterday! haha).
 

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
marc71178 said:
Yes, and incidentally, by batting so low down, he gets a lot of not outs...
So did Bevan, they're often 30-40 not outs though, which make a significant contribution to the team.
 

Linda

International Vice-Captain
Whats that got to do with anything? I thought we were discussing Clarke's potential in the Australian team.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Mr. P said:
8-) 8-) :@ :dry:

C'mon mate. Really, I expect better from you. We can cover this from every angle, but you cannot leave those games out.
Oh, I wouldn't dream of saying "leave them out", but it's not been unknown for players to start well and fall away.
Thus far, Clarke has done that. Maybe there have been excuses ("he had to slog") but nonetheless, the fact that the average isn't as high as some would like means he is a little overrated.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Son Of Coco said:
So did Bevan, they're often 30-40 not outs though, which make a significant contribution to the team.
And Bevan has also proved more than capable of coming in at three or four and blazing 70 off 60 balls - something most people appear not to recognise about him, preferring to generalise that he's only capable of playing the way they've seen him play.
Bevan is, of course, also capable of coming in at three and scoring 145* off 120, too. He's a genius the like of which the one-day game has never seen before and Australia were insane to drop him in preferance of Clarke.
 

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Richard said:
And Bevan has also proved more than capable of coming in at three or four and blazing 70 off 60 balls - something most people appear not to recognise about him, preferring to generalise that he's only capable of playing the way they've seen him play.
Bevan is, of course, also capable of coming in at three and scoring 145* off 120, too. He's a genius the like of which the one-day game has never seen before and Australia were insane to drop him in preferance of Clarke.
Of course he was, and that's why Australia kept him at 6 for years, because having him come in at 3 and blaze 145 off 120 balls wouldn't have been to anyone's benefit.

Clarke may well be able to do the same, we'll never know until we see him there. He is certainly good at pacing an innings and, along with Symonds, could form a valuable partnership in the middle order.
 

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Richard said:
Clarke is 23 with 4 seasons under his belt - he's not that young.
He's also not been at all convincing in his ODI career to date - he had a fantastic start (average of 208 after 4 innings).
Since then he's averaged 29.13 when you remove Zimbabwe games (perfectly legitimate, given that Zimbabwe have not been ODI standard from WC2003 onwards).
Still to convince as far as I'm concerned.
If you're basing the fact that his average dropped on averaging 208 for the first 4 innings Richard then i guess he was always going to be a failure.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Son Of Coco said:
Of course he was, and that's why Australia kept him at 6 for years, because having him come in at 3 and blaze 145 off 120 balls wouldn't have been to anyone's benefit.

Yes, and that's why SRT opens for India even though he's clearly better utilised averaging ten less in the middle order.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Son Of Coco said:
Of course he was, and that's why Australia kept him at 6 for years, because having him come in at 3 and blaze 145 off 120 balls wouldn't have been to anyone's benefit.
the australian selectors got it wrong its as simple as that....if you ask me bevan should have been moved around according to the situation, usually i would have him batting up the order when they batted first and have him batting down the order when they were chasing....
 
Last edited:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Mingster said:
Another example of Richard being a crazy git - 23 is not young? Oh my.
And I've said that where?
It's young, it's just not as young as he looks - he looks about as old as me.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Son Of Coco said:
If you're basing the fact that his average dropped on averaging 208 for the first 4 innings Richard then i guess he was always going to be a failure.
That's exactly the same as "Lee could hardly go on averaging 16 for ever", another one I've heard plenty of times.
If he'd averaged 35 from then onwards, that'd be more than excellent, but he hasn't - he's averaged pretty poor, so after a phenominal start he's dropped off quite badly.
 

Top