• 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.

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

title

  • amla

    Votes: 35 56.5%
  • clarke

    Votes: 23 37.1%
  • Eoin Morgan

    Votes: 4 6.5%

  • Total voters
    62

Spark

Global Moderator
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

International 12th Man
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

Global Moderator
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

Global Moderator
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

Global Moderator
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

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

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
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)
 
Last edited:

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
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

State Regular
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.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
I am not so sure about teams from that era given it was before my time of watching cricket.. But did Javed really have that many good batsmen around him? And how would AB fit into these discussions?
 

L Trumper

State Regular
I am not so sure about teams from that era given it was before my time of watching cricket.. But did Javed really have that many good batsmen around him? And how would AB fit into these discussions?
Pak middle order was strong at that time. AB yes! there was a time in mid 80s till 89 Ashes he was the only good batsman in AUS side. Obviously not being an attacking batsman meant that he was generally a tad under rated. But I am pretty sure Border was considered the one of the best batsman in the world from 83-84 onwards.
 

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Pak middle order was strong at that time. AB yes! there was a time in mid 80s till 89 Ashes he was the only good batsman in AUS side. Obviously not being an attacking batsman meant that he was generally a tad under rated. But I am pretty sure Border was considered the one of the best batsman in the world from 83-84 onwards.
Border couldnt affort to take risks because he was surrounded by rubbish for a large portion of his career

However, he was supremely talented and could turn it on whenever he wanted

No better example can be found than in the first test of the '89 Ashes when he was leading supposedly the worst ever Australian team to England

Coming to the wicket after the loss of 2 early wickets, he counter-attacked and even though he only made 60-odd, that was the Ashes won for Oz as they went on to score 600 and the English never recovered
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Personally feel Clarke's amazing run of form is just coinciding with 3/4 batsmen of questionable quality at the top of Australia's batting order, followed by their second best batsmen in Hussey coming in at 6. Don't really feel compelled to rate him a great deal higher on the basis of being a lone hand and all that.

Still think he's the best batsmen in the world as of now though, but that's just on the weight of his runs and who he's scored them against, and not that much on the scoreboard situations.
 
Last edited:

Top