• 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.

Michael Clarke Discussion thread

In which format(s), if any, should Michael Clarke be playing for Australia?


  • Total voters
    60
  • Poll closed .

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
very talented player.

No one person can ever be calssified as the 'Future of Australian Cricket' - Flintoff is English.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
He's extremely talented, and with more and more experience he'll become a very dangerous player.
 

Waughney

International Debutant
Clarke could very well be the future of Australian cricket, and there is no doubt that he is an amazing talent, but he still needs to improve to earn a spot in the current Australian side.
He is still very young but needs to get into the team and learn, maybe get dropped (like everyone in the Aussie team before him) and then come back better and stronger than ever.
 

age_master

Hall of Fame Member
he along with Shane watson lead the next generation (the under 25's) of Aussie cricket. certainly a great OD player already, maybe 1 more season before he plays test cricket - though he might get a chance in India through illness or injury, one never knows - great footwork vs the spinners.
 

Nate

You'll Never Walk Alone
not over-rated, he will improve, but he has already done very well for his age.
 

lord_of_darkness

Cricket Web XI Moderator
i dont think much of Watson.. although Clarke with improvement will be a great asset for Australia.. as the only think Australia do lack currently is a good all rounder.. get flintoff to come over?
 

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
lord_of_darkness said:
i dont think much of Watson.. although Clarke with improvement will be a great asset for Australia.. as the only think Australia do lack currently is a good all rounder.. get flintoff to come over?
Like I said on another thread, Watson's only 23 - Flintoff wasn't much when he was the same age, Watson may well develop into a handy all-rounder in the next few years.

I'm not sure us not having a good all-rounder is even an issue, the last 10 years or so have kind of proven that we don't really need one.
 

lord_of_darkness

Cricket Web XI Moderator
Like I said on another thread, Watson's only 23 - Flintoff wasn't much when he was the same age, Watson may well develop into a handy all-rounder in the next few years.

I'm not sure us not having a good all-rounder is even an issue, the last 10 years or so have kind of proven that we don't really need one.
Fair point.. but Australia might not end up persisting with Watson for that long given the amount of talent they could set back on.. Flintoff always looked like he had something .. he had aggression , was dedicated and im sure his off field ethics were really strong to learna and continue improving his game which the coach and the selection would have been sure to notice..

point 2 , having a class all rounder might just make Australia more invincible/stronger than it already is now.. now wouldnt you like to see that? someone who could do a kallis/flintoff..? someone who could do quite well with the bat and provide more than a good support as a 5/6th bowler normally would , could better Australias chances lots..
 

Eclipse

International Debutant
Dont underestmate Watson it looks now as though his bowling is not going to reach a very high standerd but his batting is world class..

At this stage he would be ahead of Clarke for a test spot because he has proven to be a much better batsman in FC cricket to date.
 

Waughney

International Debutant
I disagree, Clarke has already proven himslef at an international level, whereas Watson hasn't.
 

Jnr.

First Class Debutant
Clarke has proven himself at ODI level, not Test level.
Watson's First-Class batting average is about 10 more than Clarke's.
That said, Clarke is definitely very talented and can do well in the Test arena with more FC experience.
 

Mr. P

International Vice-Captain
Certainly a lot of potential. He was overhyped too early and had far to much pressure on him at such a young age. I personally think he will become a very good player, but he is a long way off the test side at the moment.

As for Watson, I don't think much of him, I would rather play Symonds...(sounds crazy eh?)
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
Mr. P said:
As for Watson, I don't think much of him, I would rather play Symonds...(sounds crazy eh?)
Sounds eminently sensible to me (at least for a try) - he's not exactly had a fair crack of the whip in the big game
 

Jnr.

First Class Debutant
To me, Watson seems like he would be a better Test player than he would be an ODI player (ie I think he is better suited to the longer form of the game).
 

lord_of_darkness

Cricket Web XI Moderator
Sounds eminently sensible to me (at least for a try) - he's not exactly had a fair crack of the whip in the big game
I think symonds would do quite well considering the form he has been having he does deserve a lot more opportunities.. but the australian board is probably looking to mould youth / future of australian cricket so they will continue to persist with watson..
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Son Of Coco said:
Like I said on another thread, Watson's only 23 - Flintoff wasn't much when he was the same age

He wasn't bowling properly then.

It's only in the last 2 years or so he's been bowling properly.
 

Top