Michael Clarke not good enough for ODIs

[vaibhav mehta]

You are criticizing the future Australian Captain..lol.
Trust me you don't have better replacement for Clarke at this moment.and you won't even find.
If you so arrogantly looking at strike rates then you must have to look at conditions he came in.

 

[formula1man]

Im again Sorry everyone and im sorry to Michael Clarke.

 

[mattfb]

We'll just agree to disagree now, i dont want to get into a fight.
I hope i haven't offended anyone coz i didnt intend to. i mean nothing bad to Michael Clarke. Its just that i was very upset with Hayden's forced retirment and just wanted to point out Clarke's ODi form isnt great either.

I dont hate Michael Clarke at all, i just dont enjoy watching him play, as he isnt very exciting. But he is an important part of our team, even though the stats dont say so, he is still important.
SO i say sorry if i said anything that made anyone upset as i wasnt intending to, i hope i havent upset anyone. SORRY

If it comes across like I'm upset and angry, then I must say that's not my intentions. I just argue strongly for what I believe.

 

[formula1man]

If it comes across like I'm upset and angry, then I must say that's not my intentions. I just argue strongly for what I believe.

ditto that.

so truse?

formula1man added 22 Minutes and 57 Seconds later...

so we forgive each other?

 

[vaibhav mehta]

Im again Sorry everyone and im sorry to Michael Clarke.

No actually my point was that stats always don't give you the whole picture.
Clarke has been sensational in past one year.I would have appreciated your efforts,if you would have brought stats neutrally.

 

[Leggie]

What baffles me is that he still has an average in the low 40's in ODI cricket...and a decent strike rate of 79. The stats suggest that he is worthy of being in the playing 11, But if someone gave me some stats of over the psat 2 years of him, Then I would think he was a player who averages 35 with a strike rate of 70.

 

[The Matt]

Disagree strongly with the suggestion in this thread. To me, Clarke remains an elite ODI batsman, and the struggles we've had this series reflect him either being absent, or playing under duress. You'd pick him for his batting alone, but his brilliance in the field, and useful spin bowling make him probably the first or second name on the team sheet when fit.

 

[Inbox24]

I think dropping him would be too harsh, would probably just demote him to number 5 where he flourishes. Whoever came up with the idea to bat him at 4 has definitely got it wrong. 4 should be for a momentum changing player like Symonds or David, whereas Clarke is more a middle overs accumulator in case of a collapse or something.

Symonds
Clarke
Hussey
Hussey

This would be ideal.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Shouldn't number 4 be for someone who can attack and defend? The most reliable batsman in the side?

 

[Sman-21]

symonds at 4 now thats scary Ok clarke u can score at a strikerate of 50 aslong as it stops symo from moving to 4

Symo cannot defend can only attack if he came in that early an we were in trouble he would be out in no time

 

[aussie1st]

No point in moving Symonds from the spot that made him. There is a reason why hes at 5, any higher and it becomes too high for him and lower he is coming in too late. Clarke at his peak can up the tempo or rescue after an early collapse. And having Clarke at 5 means our big hitting in the later overs is limited to Haddin and Dave.

 

[Inbox24]

Fair point, when we were at the peak of our ODI prowess (05/06 season), the middle order looked like this:

Martyn
Symonds
Clarke
Hussey

and this period was a huge time, when everyone bar Martyn (although he did have a few good knocks) was in form and playing brilliantly. Maybe it's time to go back to that, and it would just a direct swap with Hussey for Martyn.

Hussey
Symonds
Clarke
Hussey

 

[tassietiger]

Funny to hear people suggest Warner is a better player to have in the team. He has had one big slog in a twenty20 and failed both other times. If Australia are going at well over 6 an over, and Clarke settles it down with his low strike rate and brings it back to a 270-280 sort of score, I can live with that. As long as he's the one rescuing us when we lose quick wickets at the start of a match with a more mature knock, to make sure we have something defendable.

 

[Slowcoach]

Clarke is a boring batsman to watch, he rarely hits anything in the middle of the bat, and he has no hitting power.

Warner is just a typical club standard cross bat slogger, you need more than a cow shot to succeed at international level, it took South Africa one game to work out that if you don't bowl short to him he can't score.

Australia's dark green kit looks a lot better than the old wishy washy canary yellow. The old wishy washy canary yellow, as bad as it was, was a hell of a lot better than the 20/20 monstrosity, canary yellow muscle shirts with grey ballet tights as sleeves is dreadful, and even worse when you are a typically scrawny cricket player.

 

[Cricketman]

You need a batsman like Clarke in the team. That's what I think India are missing right now, just a solid batsman who has the ability to save us from a shocking start. *Cough* Badri.

But, you already have Hussey for that don't ya. Both of them. Yeah, Australia don't need Clarke.