Vernon Philander vs Michael Clarke

[PlayerComparisons]

.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Clarke edges it due to his batting.

 

[Himannv]

Woakes is better than both.

 

[Jumno]

Woakes a better all rounder than both

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Clarke had more range to his game. Occasionally, he can take cheap wickets.

 

[Jumno]

Clarke had his batting, a dynamic player and also he could take wickets, bowl.

 

[capt_Luffy]

If we seriously are comparing secondary skills, then batsman Philander is way more valuable than bowler Clarke....

 

[Jumno]

I still feel Clarke was more useful if we are comparing on primary skill.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Aren't we comparing everything that makes the cricketer a cricketer?

 

[capt_Luffy]

We are. I just think that the focus should be on the primary skill, with secondary skill, fielding, captaincy, etc. attacking sort of bonus points....

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

We are. I just think that the focus should be on the primary skill, with secondary skill, fielding, captaincy, etc. attacking sort of bonus points....

Thickness of a$$ also should be factored in.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Thickness of a$$ also should be factored in.

I mean, why Not!??

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

I mean, why Not!??

It's okay, sure

 

[howitzer]

I think Clarke is underappreciated here, he could take the pitch out of the equation on his good days. A serious batsman.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Averaging 22 as a bowler from SA seems more impressive than averaging 49 as a batsman from Aus IMO. Clarke did have the higher ceiling tho