The Michael Clarke appreciation thread

[Bobisback]

Michael Hussey would probably be my choice, TBH.

+1 for Muss.

 

[benchmark00]

Clarke > Hussey on a slow pitch.

tbf, Clarke > Hussey in most situations for mine.

 

[Bobisback]

Clarke > Hussey on a slow pitch.

tbf, Clarke > Hussey in most situations for mine.

in bed?

Didnt think so.

 

[benchmark00]

Could this post be the final straw on the camels back? Can only see Clarke being dropped after Murphy's sign of approval.

Will be receiving a knighthood within the next week as a result of my post.

 

[Bobisback]

Will be receiving a knighthood within the next week as a result of my post.

Having some homeless guy slap his member on both of your shoulders doesnt make you a knight.

 

[King Pietersen]

Clarke has improved in T20's tbf. His stats in the 6 games he's played in 2010 aren't that bad. 131 runs at 32.75 with a top score of 67 and a strike rate of 120.18. Still not brilliant, but not completely awful. Averages 45 with a strike rate of 111 as skipper too. I don't think he's as bad a T20 player as people make out, and with Warner, Watson, the Hussey's, White and Haddin around him he can get away with striking at 120. He's hardly Chris Tavare.

 

[Streetwise]

Clarke, imo, still has a role to play in t20. There's still a place for classical stroke play, so to speak, in t20, not just the slap and hope players.

At the moment, I don't think coming in at number three when the team has got off to a flying start is his best position, but who would you rather have in the Australian line up (from and Australian point of view) to be batting when they're 4/20 on a poor West Indian pitch trying to get the team to 120? I know I'd feel safer with Clarke there than almost anyone else.

He should be playing a floating role and play it by ear I think.

Being consistant is the best method of success in cricket. 6 Warners in the team and your score will be between 50 & 300, 6 Clarkes and your scores will be between 100 & 150. You need both Clarkes and Warners

 

[benchmark00]

 

[pasag]

Being consistant is the best method of success in cricket. 6 Warners in the team and your score will be between 50 & 300, 6 Clarkes and your scores will be between 100 & 150. You need both Clarkes and Warners

If by consistent you mean consistently low scores, than yes Clarke is consistent. Bloke's had a high score of 37 for the majority of his career.

All-round records | Twenty20 Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

You've fallen into the Warner trap, have a look at his record for an indication of true consistency.

 

[Bobisback]

Yeah, Warner is a gun. His 91 (iirc) in the IPL was awesome.

 

[benchmark00]

Their respective median score should be used as the measure of consistency, not high score.

cbf working it out ftr.

 

[Bobisback]

Michael Clarke has 347 T20i runs at the massive strike rate of 108.43 in 25 matches

David Warner has 478 T20i runs at the meagre strike rate of 154.69 in 14 matches.

I know which id prefer in my team.

 

[benchmark00]

Haha, who is arguing Clarke > Warner, ****?

 

[Bobisback]

6 Warners in the team and your score will be between 50 & 300, 6 Clarkes and your scores will be between 100 & 150. You need both Clarkes and Warners

This ****, you ****.

ffs.

 

[benchmark00]

This ****, you ****.

ffs.

Nah ****, read properly, ****.

He's saying you need both types of players, which tbf is somewhat true.

If he said 6 Clarkes in your team > 6 Warners you'd have a point, ****.

He's saying that a mixture of Clarke and Warners > 6 Warners.

 

[Streetwise]

And I don't remember that Ind/WI game very well, but it wouldn't surprise me if top-order wickets fell then also. I do remember Zaheer/Sharma bowling pus though, a much more likely source of costing India the game.

Perhaps if you dont remember a game you shouldent comment on it.

Dhoni played woefully and cricinfo did comment on it. "12.1
Bravo to Dhoni, OUT, And Dhoni falls after a painful little knock.".

The West Indies won by 8 balls

Yuvraj 67 SR155
Dhoni 11 SR 47
Pathan 31 SR 134

Simmons 44 SR 118
Bravo 66 SR 183
Chanderpaul 18 SR 200

I dont suppose you can see where the WI's gained the upper hand.

CIDTGYTS

 

[Bobisback]

Nah ****, read properly, ****.

He's saying you need both types of players, which tbf is somewhat true.

If he said 6 Clarkes in your team > 6 Warners you'd have a point, ****.

He's saying that a mixture of Clarke and Warners > 6 Warners.

But my point, ****, was that why would you want someone like Clarke in the mixture. You have Muss and Duss, both of which could stabilise the ship, but can also come in and do what they want.

6 Warners > 3 Clarkes and 3 Warners 9 times out of 10. Have tested it, ****.

 

[benchmark00]

Worst ****.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Enough with the over the top swearing, from both of you two thanks.

 

[pasag]

Sim it, imho.