Michael Clarke Discussion thread

[Uppercut]

Clarke is one of the best ODI batsmen currently playing the game, that fact is indisputable.

Just thought I'd quote this for its comical direness in case anyone has just been skimming over his posts.

 

[Prince EWS]

Just thought I'd quote this for its comical direness in case anyone has just been skimming over his posts.

I reckon a lot of people might have him on ignore - quite cruel to those people...

 

[Streetwise]

A team winning as the term suggests depends on team members, not any one player. No player in himself makes a team, so thus to judge how good a player is - and yes that's every bit as much what watching cricket is about as seeing who wins games - you must assess him on his own merits independent of those of his team-mates. Cricket isn't of course about any batsman attempting to achieve any set specified average or strike-rate, but the better a batsman's average and strike-rate the better his contribution to his team and thus the better batsman he is.

That's as maybe, I don't claim to be an expert there - as I say I've not taken intimiate account of all of Australia's recent ODIs. I have however taken enough note to realise that there's at least 2-3 batsmen better than Clarke in his own team, and plenty better in other sides.

Have a look at Clarke's batting partnerships in his last 13 odd games.

19
25*
46
17
54
197
57
65
18
79
9
143
60
53*
133
79
14
47
102
24
28
85
55
80
0

This is the type of batting that keeps Australia at the position of number one ODI team.
Say what you like about Clarke but the fact is he is one of the top ODI batsmen in the world and would walk into any other team bar India in India, outside of India they would die to have him.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I just think that the timing of this thread is a bit silly. Clarke's last two innings have put Australia into a really good position. Its obvious watching that Australia, after their early battles with the batting powerplay, would rather be 3/230 at 40 overs rather than 5/250, to allow them to launch better. And Clarke's innings' have let them do that..

 

[Streetwise]

Just thought I'd quote this for its comical direness in case anyone has just been skimming over his posts.

To each his own.

 

[Streetwise]

I reckon a lot of people might have him on ignore - quite cruel to those people...

Do you just make personal snide remarks or is this how moderators work on this site.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I just think that the timing of this thread is a bit silly. Clarke's last two innings have put Australia into a really good position. Its obvious watching that Australia, after their early battles with the batting powerplay, would rather be 3/230 at 40 overs rather than 5/250, to allow them to launch better. And Clarke's innings' have let them do that..

More or less my thoughts. Can't see how anyone could seriously advocate dropping him from the ODI team at this point in time, he's had a very good series so far.

 

[Nate]

Decided to do it now to see if people have actually been watching his batting/forgotten about Clarke vs sides that aren't dreadful.

EDIT: imo

 

[inbox24]

It's not like we're short ODI batsmen anyway. Any one of Ferguson, Hodge or Hussey could come into the team if Clarke were to be dropped.

 

[Noble One]

Would back Clarke to bat better than a bloke with no knee (Ferguson).

 

[Julian87]

Would back Clarke to bat better than a bloke with no knee (Ferguson).

And David Hussey who struggled when playing international cricket.

 

[pasag]

And David Hussey who struggled when playing international cricket.

His last ODI went alright

 

[Furball]

More or less my thoughts. Can't see how anyone could seriously advocate dropping him from the ODI team at this point in time, he's had a very good series so far.

Right now I wouldn't drop him, there's not exactly loads of experienced middle order bats battering down the door, but at the same time his place shouldn't be taken for granted.

 

[Redbacks]

The purpose of playing cricket is for the team to win, all the batsman has to do is achieve that, it matters not what his score or strike rate is. Cricket is about the team winning, not players trying to achieve batting averages or strike rates.

True, but the arguement is about whether another player could come in and do an even better job. If you go to a financial adviser and he is making you 10% and then another adviser comes along who can make 20% for the same risk (not Madoff ) will you stick with the guy makng 10% just because he is winning profits?

Clarke has been good, but when we face top opposition he can't just hit balls to fielders all the time. I think he is being more judged on the RSA series rather than current form. THe story of his career really, he has overcome the criticism in the test arena making it likely he may well do so in ODIs once he masters his new game to suit. Certianly pressure should be applied to provide stimulus for improvement.

 

[Streetwise]

True, but the arguement is about whether another player could come in and do an even better job. If you go to a financial adviser and he is making you 10% and then another adviser comes along who can make 20% for the same risk (not Madoff ) will you stick with the guy makng 10% just because he is winning profits?

Clarke has been good, but when we face top opposition he can't just hit balls to fielders all the time. I think he is being more judged on the RSA series rather than current form. THe story of his career really, he has overcome the criticism in the test arena making it likely he may well do so in ODIs once he masters his new game to suit. Certianly pressure should be applied to provide stimulus for improvement.

Trading real profit for potential profit never works like it should.

But without knowing exactaly what role Clarke has in the team makes it difficult to judge how much profit he is delivering and how much change there would be by replacing him. If you did drop and replace him only for the new player to be told to play the same role as Clarke would dosent make sense. When Clarke was promoted to the opening role he did score at a faster rate which to me indicates that his job at the moment is to guide the team. It is more than obvious that other batsmen in the team thrive when batting with Clarke as shown by the extraordinary amount of high scoring partnerships he has be involved in.

Watson, Ponting and White seem to be the batsmen that have been given a license to thrill while Marsh, Clarke and Hussey have the job of making sure that Austrlaia reach a respectable total and use all 50 overs. Clarke is not failing he is playing the team game and Australia owe some of their success to him.

 

[Richard]

Have a look at Clarke's batting partnerships in his last 13 odd games.

19
25*
46
17
54
197
57
65
18
79
9
143
60
53*
133
79
14
47
102
24
28
85
55
80
0

This is the type of batting that keeps Australia at the position of number one ODI team.

Partnerships hint at what they are - it depends every bit as much on the other batsman as Clarke and thus partnerships are not in themselves a reliable means of judging a batsman's worth.

Say what you like about Clarke but the fact is he is one of the top ODI batsmen in the world and would walk into any other team bar India in India, outside of India they would die to have him.

That someone would walk into any side does not make them one of the top ODI batsmen around - there is only exceptionally rarely no vacancy \ weak-link in any given side. If Clarke isn't ODI-standard it's only by a smidgen; of course most sides would be made stronger by his presence if he replaced the weakest batsman. There are nonetheless many batsmen better than him presently.

 

[Sir Alex]

The following is the list of all batsmen who have scored 1000+ runs in ODIs since the last World Cup. I have formulated an additional column which is Superavg or simply put strike rate multiplied by batting average which I believe gives a better picture than either just the avg or just the SR. Arranged in the descending order of super averages.

[B]SL	Player			Mat	Runs 	 Avg	 SR	Superavg[/B]
1	S Chanderpaul (WI) 	35	1477	 73.85 	 75.82 	 55.99 
2	V Sehwag (Asia/India) 	49	2039	 43.38 	 125.01  54.23 
3	CH Gayle (WI) 		37	1505	 50.16 	 95.92 	 48.11 
4	MS Dhoni (Asia/India) 	90	3330	 56.44 	 84.45 	 47.66 
5	SK Raina (India) 	51	1495	 45.30 	 97.39 	 44.12 
6	MEK Hussey (Aus) 	57	1910	 50.26 	 85.42 	 42.93 
7	SR Tendulkar (India) 	56	2547	 48.98 	 86.86 	 42.54 
8	TM Dilshan (SL) 	54	1871	 41.57 	 95.36 	 39.64 
9	SR Watson (Aus) 	34	1382	 46.06 	 85.83 	 39.53 
10	Mohammad Yousuf (As,Pk)	45	1706	 48.74 	 80.16 	 39.07 
11	GC Smith (SA) 		35	1487	 45.06 	 85.41 	 38.49 
12	AB de Villiers (Afr/SA) 52	1802	 43.95 	 87.22 	 38.33 
13	BB McCullum (NZ) 	49	1751	 39.79 	 93.18 	 37.08 
14	Yuvraj Singh (Asia/Ind)	84	2797	 39.95 	 92.70 	 37.03 
15	G Gambhir (India) 	77	2668	 41.04 	 86.65 	 35.56 
16	Salman Butt (Pak) 	41	1689	 44.44 	 79.48 	 35.32 
17	Misbah-ul-Haq (Pak) 	44	1218	 40.60 	 85.71 	 34.80 
18	JH Kallis (SA) 		38	1404	 43.87 	 76.93 	 33.75 
19	PD Collingwood (Eng) 	52	1512	 38.76 	 85.27 	 33.05 
20	RT Ponting (Aus) 	53	1956	 40.75 	 80.79 	 32.92 
21	HH Gibbs (SA) 		37	1362	 36.81 	 88.26 	 32.49 
22	BJ Haddin (Aus) 	35	1058	 37.78 	 85.46 	 32.29 
23	JP Duminy (SA) 		46	1149	 38.30 	 81.95 	 31.39 
24	Shoaib Malik (Pak) 	52	1581	 36.76 	 83.51 	 30.70 
25	H Masakadza (Zim) 	46	1618	 36.77 	 82.84 	 30.46 
26	Younis Khan (Pak) 	49	1768	 37.61 	 80.47 	 30.26 
27	KC Sangakkara (SL) 	67	2326	 37.51 	 77.01 	 28.89 
28	LRPL Taylor (NZ) 	49	1242	 35.48 	 81.28 	 28.84 
29	OA Shah (Eng) 		53	1540	 35.00 	 81.78 	 28.62 
30	IR Bell (Eng) 		35	1100	 35.48 	 77.84 	 27.62 
31	KP Pietersen (Eng) 	44	1153	 33.91 	 80.57 	 27.32 
32	MJ Clarke (Aus) 	54	1779	 38.67 	 69.71 	 26.96 
33	Shakib Al Hasan (Ban) 	50	1315	 31.30 	 83.22 	 26.05 
34	Kamran Akmal (Pak) 	49	1109	 29.18 	 88.50 	 25.82 
35	ST Jayasuriya (Asia/SL) 54	1423	 26.84 	 95.50 	 25.63 
36	DPMD Jayawardene (A/Sl)	70	1969	 30.76 	 80.43 	 24.74 
37	Tamim Iqbal (Ban) 	57	1773	 31.10 	 76.98 	 23.94 
38	WU Tharanga (Asia/SL) 	38	1104	 31.54 	 73.01 	 23.03 
39	S Matsikenyeri (Zim) 	42	1024	 26.94 	 83.11 	 22.39 
40	Mohammad Ashraful (Ban) 57	1437	 27.11 	 70.96 	 19.24 
41	Raqibul Hasan (Ban) 	40	1018	 29.94 	 61.95 	 18.55 
42	CK Kapugedera (SL) 	50	1021	 23.74 	 71.69 	 17.02

Chanderpaul leading that table was surprising! His SR might be on the lower side but he more than compensates for that with the runs scored. Clarke unsurprisingly is 32nd in that list with a superavg of 26.96 which puts him below Bell, Shah, Misbah, Butt etc.

 

[Sir Alex]

Partnerships hint at what they are - it depends every bit as much on the other batsman as Clarke and thus partnerships are not in themselves a reliable means of judging a batsman's worth.

That someone would walk into any side does not make them one of the top ODI batsmen around - there is only exceptionally rarely no vacancy \ weak-link in any given side. If Clarke isn't ODI-standard it's only by a smidgen; of course most sides would be made stronger by his presence if he replaced the weakest batsman. There are nonetheless many batsmen better than him presently.

I don't see Clarke walking into the Indian side home or away.

 

[Furball]

I don't see Clarke walking into the Indian side home or away.

That's because the current Indian lineup is stupidly good.

 

[Sir Alex]

Well, not good enough to be the No.1 side but I see your point.