For Australian fans: Rating Michael Clarke

[War]

Other non-aus fans are free to contribute, although i reckon aus fans would give a better input.

Since 1990 i would say unanimously every AUS fan would say Steve Waugh and Ricky Ponting are the stand-out two aus batsmen of the last 20 years.

I saw almost every ball of Taylor 334 in 1998 Hayden's 380 in 2003 and after watching pretty much every-ball of Clarke's 329, it made me sit back and think how would this innings make people rate Clarke as a batsmen going forward or amongst AUS batsmen who played in the last 20 years.

I personally still would put junior Waugh, Hayden, Boon, Slater, Martyn ahead of him and while he didn't get a chance to play test cricket - i think Stuart Law was a better batsman than pup.

Thoughts??..

 

[puddleduck]

As long as it's spinners or the pitch is slow Clarke's as good a bat as there is. The moment the ball is nipping around though he looks completely exposed!

 

[lancashire666]

Stuart Law was a wonderful batsman. If he had played in any other era when Australia didn't have 2 million quality batsman he would of scored thousands of test runs.
As it was, he scored thousands for Lancashire instead, not quite as glamorous

 

[War]

As long as it's spinners or the pitch is slow Clarke's as good a bat as there is. The moment the ball is nipping around though he looks completely exposed!

Well he certainly has had his problems against the moving ball in his career, that goes without saying. 2005 ashes as a youngster, 2010/11 ashes immediately comes to mind.

But a couple of hundreds in the 2009, Brisbane 2009, SCG 2010 and his recent hundred in south africa, shows he can score runs in such conditions - he just needs to do it more more often and consistently, which i think he certainly can.

 

[puddleduck]

It does seem (pun intended) like he is improving against seam, although the very next innings in SA they were rolled over for 47 and he fulfilled his usual role. That of helping to expediate any potential collapses

Clarke's a bit of a weird one, because where a lot of top batsmen have black marks against their name (for example touring India) he already had success there early in his career. Unlike a lot of Aussie batsmen, his weaknesses were against the quicker bowlers or when there's some movement. He also struggles when the bounce isn't consistent. Another Aussie who very much leaves on length and gets found out when that doesn't see the ball clearing the stumps. Could make a montage of Clarke padding up/leaving the wrong ball

Still, I asked the question whether captaincy would inspire Clarke to take his game to another level, and thus far he's produced some very good knocks in the last year to sit alongside his breakthrough innings as a less mature and less skilled batsmen. The best part of his 300 was the patience he showed, and a renewed physical strength that meant he didn't really seem to tire.

 

[1iram1]

Stuart Law was a wonderful batsman. If he had played in any other era when Australia didn't have 2 million quality batsman he would of scored thousands of test runs.
As it was, he scored thousands for Lancashire instead, not quite as glamorous

He would fit into Bangladesh's line-up anyday. We need him to play instead of coaching us.

 

[Hooper]

I'm guessing this is a rating purely as a batsman.

He isn't up there yet in my books, does he even avg. 50 yet? I'd rate a lot of people above Pup. Sure is triple hundred was a great innings but you can't forget blokes who have played 100 Tests for this country and consistently scored runs for years! Langer and Hayden are above him easily. Damien Martyn probably on par. Both Waugh brothers were better. I'd even say Gilchrist was a better batsman... I'd rate Hussey higher then Clarke also, way more reliable.

Not even considering all the other middle order batsman Australia had in the Golden years who couldn't get a regular gig; Di Venuto, Law, Love, Jaques, Hodge.

Them 5 batsman alone are all in the same league as Clarke. Clarke has no competition right now, Australia don't really have a world class middle order batsman waiting in the wings to be honest.

 

[Cricketdude]

@hooper, you are rating those players on their whole careers, while Clarke is only in his 20s(28, i think?). Once his career is over he will be averaging at least 50 imo as long as he doesn't finish his career like Ponting...

 

[Hooper]

@hooper, you are rating those players on their whole careers, while Clarke is only in his 20s(28, i think?). Once his career is over he will be averaging at least 50 imo as long as he doesn't finish his career like Ponting...

Finish his career like Ponting? Ponting aint even finished lol.

Hes just smashed a hundred in his last innings, and iirc a few half centuries before that. So if hes finished, hes finished well!

(I would of said, finished like Matthew Hayden )

Yeah, I know Clarke's career aint over but we are doing a rating of him as a batsman now.. We can't predict the future so I'm basing my opinion on what I've seen of him - and all the other players.

But as you said he isn't even 30 yet, so hes got quite a few years left to improve his consistency. If he keeps going like he is now though then I'd still rate players like Langer, Hayden, Gilly etc above him.

 

[Sedition]

Clarke's almost 31. He's easily been our best batsmen over recent times, then throw the 329 on top of that. The only other guy I'd back to make centuries on a regular basis would be Katich in the last few years. If Clarke produces another good 5 or so years, then I'm sure he'll be listed amongst some of our best.

 

[Cricketdude]

Finish his career like Ponting? Ponting aint even finished lol.

Hes just smashed a hundred in his last innings, and iirc a few half centuries before that. So if hes finished, hes finished well!

But as you said he isn't even 30 yet, so hes got quite a few years left to improve his consistency. If he keeps going like he is now though then I'd still rate players like Langer, Hayden, Gilly etc above him.

Just looked up his age, turns out he is 30! He averages 48 in tests and 3 less in ODI's. That isn't bad. Once his career is over he will have averaged 50+ imo.

Before the Indian series Ponting had a worse average than Vettori in the past 3/4 years...That is pretty bad considering Vettori is a bowler and Ponting is one of our main batsmen. Ponting scored his first century in 2 years...Can't wait for his next century in 2014... :P

 

[mrtwisties]

I suspect that he lacks the raw physical tools of a truly great batsman, in the sense that he's probably a notch below them in hand-eye coordination and reaction time and whatnot. But he does seem to be getting a lot out of the considerable talent he does have - perhaps not quite as efficiently as Hussey (ie history's best ever mediocre Test batsman), but still, a lot. If the world was fair (which it's not), he'd probably keep grazing 50 every now and then but would just miss out on retiring with a "5" at the start of his average.

I'd pick him in my side over a lot of the more talented batsmen, though. He's got a good temperament now that he's all grown up.

 

[puddleduck]

He may average a touch under 50, but I'd rather have him in my team than say a batsmen averaging a run more but who couldn't field. I realise this is just as a batsmen we're talking about here, but his fielding and occassionally his bowling are both worth a few more runs to his average.

Also the above rarely applies to the Aussies, since fielding is considering being part of a team, not something you leave for the lesser talented kids to do in training while you take a 3 hour net...

 

[MUFC1987]

His average went from 45 to almost 49, just because of that 300*, shows what one innings can do really.

I've said this before, but he's a decent Test player, in that he'll average you mid-40s, pick up a few centuries and probably survive. He's not special though. To my memory, he hasn't had a really great year, where he averages 80 or so, like a lot of real top players do. So for me, he's nowhere near the talent of a Ponting at his peak.

However, he also doesn't have the mentality to make the most of the talent he does have, like Steve Waugh did for example. Clarke just seems too naturally aggressive at times, when he really shouldn't be. When the balls doing something, he should be sitting it out, rather than aiming that booming cover drive.

Decent batsman, no more for me.

 

[sifter132]

Well he certainly has had his problems against the moving ball in his career, that goes without saying. 2005 ashes as a youngster, 2010/11 ashes immediately comes to mind.

But a couple of hundreds in the 2009, Brisbane 2009, SCG 2010 and his recent hundred in south africa, shows he can score runs in such conditions - he just needs to do it more more often and consistently, which i think he certainly can.

Yeah, the old 'he can't play seam/swing' chestnut applies to pretty much EVERY batsman in world cricket. Guys who apparently can play seam and swing usually get their rep based on one or 2 big series - or even matchups vs ONE bowler eg. Graham Gooch vs Terry Alderman or Mike Atherton vs Glenn McGrath. Both those guys could bat and lasted a long time at the opening spot, but they just had troubles against one guy.

As for Clarke, he gets in trouble flashing hard outside off stump ,playing when he doesn't need to and when he's forcing his pull shot. Those aren't seam/swing related problems, they are discipline problems like Michael Slater used to have. That's who I'd equate Clarke with, he's about as good as Slats, Damien Martyn, that level of player. I reckon only Waugh and Ponting are clearly ahead of him for modern Aussies batsmen (Border too if you want to count him).

He may average a touch under 50, but I'd rather have him in my team than say a batsmen averaging a run more but who couldn't field. I realise this is just as a batsmen we're talking about here, but his fielding and occassionally his bowling are both worth a few more runs to his average.

Also the above rarely applies to the Aussies, since fielding is considering being part of a team, not something you leave for the lesser talented kids to do in training while you take a 3 hour net...

This is true, but the other reason Clarke's average is below 50 is because of his lack of big 100s. We saw his average go up by 3, based simply on his 329 and it's not like Clarke's a fresh face who's average should be fluctuating. It was the same with Mark Waugh, he never made any big hundreds and his low 40s average sold him a little bit short, because it's rare than big hundreds are actually useful when you play in a strong team like Waugh and Clarke have.