For Australian fans: Rating Michael Clarke

[Papa_Smurf]

So Mr Robelina & sifter, based on those comments where now would you be willing to rate Clarke amongst top AUS batsmen since 1990?

Rate Ponting and Steve Waugh ahead of him atm.

 

[sifter132]

So Mr Robelina & sifter, based on those comments where now would you be willing to rate Clarke amongst top AUS batsmen since 1990?

He's cracked the top 5 I'd say. Smurf is right: Ponting and Steve Waugh are better. Hayden as well. I'd argue for Hussey as #4 on that list, but you could certainly make a case for Clarke over Hussey, and with a bit more in this streak Clarke will certainly get to #4 - who knows where he'll end up? Gilchrist as well must be mentioned. Add Langer and that would be your post 1990 top 7.

 

[War]

He's cracked the top 5 I'd say. Smurf is right: Ponting and Steve Waugh are better. Hayden as well. I'd argue for Hussey as #4 on that list, but you could certainly make a case for Clarke over Hussey, and with a bit more in this streak Clarke will certainly get to #4 - who knows where he'll end up? Gilchrist as well must be mentioned. Add Langer and that would be your post 1990 top 7.

Yea clearly Ponting, Waugh & Hayden still ahead, but i personally am finding it hard to rate Pup over Junior Waugh regardless of his current hot streak.

 

[Papa_Smurf]

am finding it hard to rate Pup over Junior Waugh regardless of his current hot streak.

I would have agreed a year back, but he has 2 150+ scores against the best attack in the world in the past year - both when his team were in a bit of a crisis.

 

[sifter132]

I love me some Jr Waugh - my favourite ever player! While his record sells him a bit short, it still shows the blunt fact that he didn't score as many runs as he should have. Not enough 50s comverted to 100s, and no BIG hundreds. Mark was a great partnership player though, and that's what made him such a good #4.

 

[War]

The thing with Mark Waugh and much players from the 90s who averaged in the lowish 40s - is that we gotta remember how difficult a batting era that was.

As accurate a factual criticism it is to say Junior didn't score enough of hundreds/big hundreds etc - has a lot to do with the fact that the quality of bowling he faced was top-class 80-90% of the time.

So unlike batsmen of the 2000s era who faced poor/average bowling most of the time & have averaged close to 50 - Junior was tested technically & mentally to the max & 41 reflected his hardcore true ability (which is why the fact that steve averaged close to 60 in the 90s shows how great he was) and if Waugh had played these days he averaged 50 too i'd wager.

Modern batsmen like Clarke etc as wonderfully as he is going now - but we all remember him getting dropped as a youngster due to technical woes. That never happened to Junior in the 90s - he always battled through, at a time when the competition for places from batsmen in domestic cricket was fierce.

So i think we have weigh up these factors when making a judgement.

 

[Papa_Smurf]

I agree with you War, which is why I'm highlighting Pup's exceptional performances against this attack only. I think this current SA attack is as strong as most of the attacks of the 90's.

 

[puddleduck]

People always slate bowling from different decades, but let's not forget that there were still quite a lot of series facing the likes of Devon Malcolm or Alan Mullaley... or heaven forbid... Peter Martin.

Obviously fast bowling was stronger all around, but smashing a fifty against a Windies attack that only had a 40 year Walsh in it, or a NZ attack with a million medium pacers in it wasn't exactly the pinnacle of test match batting either. Not to mention that back then about a 1/3 of a test match team stood a pretty good chance of shelling fairly easy chances :P

 

[Robelinda]

Mark Waugh was dropped though, in 1992. Was woeful in the 91/92 home season vs India, didnt last the series. Then got recalled for the SL tour where he made 4 ducks, yet didnt get dropped after that.

 

[War]

I agree with you War, which is why I'm highlighting Pup's exceptional performances against this attack only. I think this current SA attack is as strong as most of the attacks of the 90's.

Ye those attacks were most certainly very similar. But this new "clarke" is only 15 months and 12 tests old. I guess for me i need like this purple patch of batting vs such good attacks to keep going for like 2-3 years for me to convincingly rate him above junior Waugh & thus start rating him alongside S Waugh, Ponting, Hayden & Boon.

----------

People always slate bowling from different decades, but let's not forget that there were still quite a lot of series facing the likes of Devon Malcolm or Alan Mullaley... or heaven forbid... Peter Martin.

Obviously fast bowling was stronger all around, but smashing a fifty against a Windies attack that only had a 40 year Walsh in it, or a NZ attack with a million medium pacers in it wasn't exactly the pinnacle of test match batting either. Not to mention that back then about a 1/3 of a test match team stood a pretty good chance of shelling fairly easy chances :P

Well to be fair to Walsh at least, he was one of only 3 bowlers in test history who actually got better with age & was still world class @ age 3+ along with Hadlee & McGrath

I remember Walsh flummoxing Graham Thorpe in England 2000 with super slowe balls & owning Gary Kirsten in his final series in 2001. Hadlee was legendary still in final series, similarly too McGrath in Ashes 2006/07.

----------

Mark Waugh was dropped though, in 1992. Was woeful in the 91/92 home season vs India, didnt last the series. Then got recalled for the SL tour where he made 4 ducks, yet didnt get dropped after that.

Yea i recall that sri lanka & india series - but that was unusual series of failures for junior in a way. Based on what i've read about it (given it didn't see them live), he didn't seem to be technically exposed or anything.

The India 91/92 wasn't exactly world class - he just kept getting out & he failed strangely in sri lanka @ a time when Murali was still a novice. So after those blimps he was back to his best soon after when the windies arrived in the 92/93 home summer.

 

[sifter132]

Ye those attacks were most certainly very similar. But this new "clarke" is only 15 months and 12 tests old. I guess for me i need like this purple patch of batting vs such good attacks to keep going for like 2-3 years for me to convincingly rate him above junior Waugh & thus start rating him alongside S Waugh, Ponting, Hayden & Boon.

Yes, Clarke version 4.0 is obviously the best version, but Clarke 2.0 was pretty good too (06/07-09/10). He made 12 100s in that time, averaged about 60, and was money in the series vs the #1 team at the time: England tour of 2009.

Also must remember in comparisons to M.Waugh that Waugh had played a LOT of first class cricket before he debuted at 25 eg. playing for Essex. He'd made 25 first class 100s by the time he played Tests.

Bowling was better in Waugh's era yep, but Waugh's problem was not against the better bowlers - he averaged the same REGARDLESS of the bowling. eg. average of 42 vs Pakistan, 41 vs WI, 42 vs SA - the strong attacks of the 90s. Yet he averaged 33 vs India, 24 vs SL, 42 vs NZ the bottom of the barrel guys. It was his concentration and application that was his problem, not so much the bowling standards.

 

[War]

Yes, Clarke version 4.0 is obviously the best version, but Clarke 2.0 was pretty good too (06/07-09/10). He made 12 100s in that time, averaged about 60, and was money in the series vs the #1 team at the time: England tour of 2009.

Clarke 2.0 was good no doubt - but not of course good enough to warrant convo's on him now being ranked about the top aussie batsmen of the late 20 years like his form since captaincy has shown.



Also must remember in comparisons to M.Waugh that Waugh had played a LOT of first class cricket before he debuted at 25 eg. playing for Essex. He'd made 25 first class 100s by the time he played Tests.

Bowling was better in Waugh's era yep, but Waugh's problem was not against the better bowlers - he averaged the same REGARDLESS of the bowling. eg. average of 42 vs Pakistan, 41 vs WI, 42 vs SA - the strong attacks of the 90s. Yet he averaged 33 vs India, 24 vs SL, 42 vs NZ the bottom of the barrel guys. It was his concentration and application that was his problem, not so much the bowling standards.

Concentration was certainly an issue for junior. I used to always remember him referring to off-spinners a buffet bowlers & many times he tended to play them with less security compared to the very good fast-bowlers of the time.

So in a way he probably should have cashed in bigger vs some of the lesser team of the 90s, but as i recall some of the circumstances were not so straight forward.

But with regards to his record vs SRI & IND - those low averages has alot to do with the above & his coincidental blimp period vs ind 91/92 & in sri 92.

Vs Ind 91/92 was his only bad series of his test career. While i recall his play vs the spin vs in India 98 & 2001 was down to aforementioned lose play, rather than being inept vs spin. His 153 not out in Bangalore is one the best innings by a non-subcontinent batsman in asia that i've seen & if he played spin like that more often his record would have looked much better.

Two bad series in sri 92 & 99 (when all the aus batsmen except ponting struggled vs murali) didn't help his overall average vs them of course.

Overall though i'd still say if he debut in 2001 instead of 1991 - he would have averaged 50+ without a sweat & scored massive runs

 

[sifter132]

Yeah that's a decent sum-up. Junior was a bit like Sehwag in that way ie. Sehwag loves to attack spin, but because he's so confident again spinners he often gets out to them...Michael Clarke has had this problem to a lesser extent as well.

 

[Ahmad94]

I am not the biggest Australian fan, but I am happy he finally stepped in to his captains shoes. He has been in cricket for a long time, without great performance until this year with 4 200+ scores