who do you love more, Hamish Amla or Michael Clarke?

[uvelocity]

#kneeslapper

[8ankitj]

Must give to Clarke because he is playing lone hands more often. Amla is playing in very strong batting line up so is not pushed to the wall like Clarke is.

[kyear2]

It's only now that Clarke hasn't had Hussey with him and Ponting before, though Punter was going throigh a bit of a rough patch.

[burr]

Clarke needs to move up the order. He seems a perfect number 4. Ugh Watson. Ugh.

Amla is classy - love watching him bat.

[8ankitj]

Originally Posted by kyear2

It's only now that Clarke hasn't had Hussey with him and Ponting before, though Punter was going throigh a bit of a rough patch.

He played lone hands even when they were around. The hundred in that Cape Town test for example

[Spark]

One of Clarke's strengths is that he doesn't so much as do lone hands as he creates a salvaging partnership - which is obviously even more useful.

[akilana]

Originally Posted by 8ankitj

He played lone hands even when they were around. The hundred in that Cape Town test for example

So did Amla in India, the 3rd test in England etc. But his point is Clarke had good batsmen around him for most part of his career until recently.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Spark

One of Clarke's strengths is that he doesn't so much as do lone hands as he creates a salvaging partnership - which is obviously even more useful.

It's a bit of a strange thing to give him credit for though. Are you suggesting that lower middle order players actually find it significantly easier to bat with Clarke than they would do to bat with batsmen of a similar quality (lets say Amla for the sake of the thread comparison) and are therefore more likely to score runs themselves just because he's at the other end? Because otherwise you're just giving Clarke credit for Hussey being a good batsman.

[Spark]

Yep. I mean Hussey is obviously very similar and a gun in himself, but it'd be useful to see how many of our big partnerships haven't involved Clarke. I doubt it'd be many.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Spark

Yep. I mean Hussey is obviously very similar and a gun in himself, but it'd be useful to see how many of our big partnerships haven't involved Clarke. I doubt it'd be many.

I think that's just because he's one of only two of our batsmen who have scored any many recently, and not because he's intrinsically easier to bat with.

I mean obviously better batsmen are usually intrinsically easier to bat with; they give you confidence, typically rotate the strike better, analyse the bowling better and give you better tips etc - but do you actually think Clarke is significantly easier to bat with than other world class batsmen? Do you think Hussey would've been less likely to build a partnership with Amla, Kallis, Sanga or whoever else of that ilk? Because otherwise you're just giving Clarke credit for Hussey being good.

[benchmark00]

He's saying he doesn't get out when a partnership is beginning to form, and turns it in to a big one.

[SJS]

Vey interesting question indeed. It exposes one's biases - certainly does mine.

I never liked Clarke but I know in my heart it was for non-cricketing reasons. I just found him too "arrogant" (not the exact word I am looking for) when he made his mark in the strong Aussie side. The unbelievable six (or was it seven) wicket haul he had against India with his innocuous bowling made me resent this Johnny-come-lately even more. But, as I admitted at the outset, my reasons were always non-cricketing. He continues to affect me negatively for some strange reason I cant exactly pin-point. It is the whole package of Clarke the person that I perceive that does not please me but cricketwise one has to admit he is a high class batsman and amongst the best.

Amla had different issues. He was NOT the fabulous batsman he is today when he first made his mark in the South African team. Again my reasons for being a bit biased against him were non-cricketing. I am a committed atheist and all external, obvious symbols of religion rile me. Yes,yes I am being very unreasonable but come on guys at least give me credit for being honest about it :o)

I found his long flowing beard and the way it is specifically shaved only at the upper lip and completely unshorn otherwise a bit disconcerting (again not the best word to describe what I am trying to say)

Again Amla with one of the most remarkable improvements in his batting that one has seen from an established international cricketer. has slowly eroded my personal bias and it is an absolute delight today to watch him bat. He is my choice for the best batsman in the world today. On top of that he also comes across as such a nice bloke.

Since I cant say that last bit about Clarke with conviction I vote for Hashim.:o)

[Jono]

SJS dislikes players for weirder reasons than PEWS

[honestbharani]

Originally Posted by 8ankitj

Must give to Clarke because he is playing lone hands more often. Amla is playing in very strong batting line up so is not pushed to the wall like Clarke is.

It is an interesting theory to extend to let's say a Miandad Vs Viv or Greg Chappell Vs Viv and other such comparisons though

[L Trumper]

Originally Posted by honestbharani

It is an interesting theory to extend to let's say a Miandad Vs Viv or Greg Chappell Vs Viv and other such comparisons though

But Viv roughly had 20% better strike rate. Besides, all of Aus, Pak, WI had pretty strong batting line ups during their time.