• 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

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
Honestly, I think this is a huge mistake by CA if they've pushed him or tapped him on the shoulder (or however you want to put it).

We're, in all likelihood, losing Rogers after the next Test too. Haddin's cooked, Smith's going to get the captaincy at a far-from-ideal time, and Watson's seemingly persona non grata these days. So, uhh, that gives you Warner and Smith with any real experience in the batting order, while Marsh is the third-most experienced.

And, let's face it, with question marks over Marsh and Voges throughout the series, and an absence of guys smashing the door down in the Shield, another year out of Clarke -- even if he only averages 30 -- would be really valuable IMO (even if its just for the benefits of his captaincy).

They've been reactionary in the face of a really **** performance and haven't put any thought into succession planning at all. And now we've got a mass exodus of the only guys with real Test experience.

1. Warner
2. Marsh/Burns
3. Smith *
4. Marsh/Burns
5. Voges
6. Marsh
7. Nevill +

That's light, especially considering Voges is old and not all that likely to hold his place, and Shaun Marsh is still Shaun Marsh.

Haddin out after the India series, Rogers out after the Ashes, Clarke after the home summer (or whatever our post-WI tour is) would have been a better way to fade between the teams IMO.
 
Last edited:

91Jmay

International Coach
Watson is a dependably mediocre batsmen. I can't believe I am saying it but at home with less movement he'd do a job for 12 months.
 

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
I mean, at the moment I'm leaning for Burns and Ferguson in the middle order with Cowan opening. And CalFerg is basically SMarsh 2.0.
 

Flem274*

123/5
build the transitionstraya on pretty 30s and 40s and pray smith and/or warner ton up for dat 300 or more total
 

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Debuted domestically or Internationally? Can't be true if you mean first time they played for Australia.
Yeah domestically, started watching in late 98 and Clarke debuted in FC in 99. Soon all the '90s cricketers will die out completely. My high school cricket team coach said our school played Clarke's school back in the day, described him as extremely talented but very ****y.
 

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
Yeah domestically, started watching in late 98 and Clarke debuted in FC in 99. Soon all the '90s cricketers will die out completely. My high school cricket team coach said our school played Clarke's school back in the day, described him as extremely talented but very ****y.
It doesn't really matter but Harris debuted and retired within that period.
 

The Battlers Prince

International Vice-Captain
You been watching T20 recently?

Every second or third ball is short. They even bowl slower ball bouncers now.

The yorker bowlers (Malinga type) have become more rare than the bouncer bowlers.
True I don't watch as much T20 as FC and tests, I would say though that the available areas to bowl are limited a great deal.
I guess though Clarkeh's record in T20 is cod ordinary. Especially how close the boundaries are now
 

Black_Warrior

Cricketer Of The Year
Before the test he said he wanted to continue. So this is definitely a tap on the shoulder. This is a bad decision from CA. He is still the best batsman in the country and you don't really have a replacement. With Ponting, at least Australia 'felt' they had some sort of a replacement.
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
If my maths is right Clarke needs to make 122 runs in his last innings to average 50
 

Cabinet96

Hall of Fame Member
What in the bluest of blue ****s does Bell's form in 2009 have to do with late 2012? Those posts were made in November/December 2012. Back then, Clarke was the best bat in the world, AB was second or third (he was ranked #1 in the ICC so clearly was close).

Bell was a very good bat for a period. But you just had to watch AB by end of 2012, and then look at the rankings, to know he was better then (and was only improving).
The 2012 where he failed in England. Failed in the first two tests of the Aus series too, then downhill skied at Perth. These posts might have been before then anyway.
 

Niall

International Coach
The 2012 where he failed in England. Failed in the first two tests of the Aus series too, then downhill skied at Perth. These posts might have been before then anyway.
He didn't fail in the second test to be fair, if he hadn't hung around so long (33 of 220 from him) with Faf who was on debut for that mammoth partnership they would without doubt have lost that test.

It was a magnificent knock.
 
Last edited:

Fuller Pilch

Hall of Fame Member
He didn't fail in the second test to be fair, if he hadn't hung around so long (33 of 220 from him) with Faf who was on debut for that mammoth partnership they would without doubt have lost that test.

It was a magnificent knock.
Can anyone think of a better sub-50 innings?
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
I don't get the logic about 'as there aren't other good batsmen, select some one who is average currently'. It's better to select some one who might improve or learn from the exposure instead of Clarke. Clarke did clarify that he was not tapped on the should by CA, not that I am too concerned either way.
 

Top