Michael Clarke not good enough for ODIs

[jordox]

You obviously don't know what you're on about. During the glory days Clarke always batted 6:

Gilchrist
Hayden
Ponting
Martyn
Symonds
6. Clarke

And was consistent and scored quickly which is also supported by Jakster's stats.

Matt knows what he is on about.

Take a look at that team you posted.

Gilchrist, Hayden, Martyn and until recently Symonds are all gone. In the glory days, Australia were nearly unbeatable... See how times have changed? Their lineup at the moment isn't great.

Have you looked at the current line up? If you don't think Clarke belongs at 4, who does?

In the middle order, you've got:
Ferguson (great player, but still very inexperienced)
Watson (isn't as good as Clarke, i don't think he is a number 4 either)
Symonds (not a number 4)
D. Hussey (hasn't played well at all for Australia in ODI)
M. Hussey (plays better at the end of the innings than he does at the start in ODI)

That isn't strong at all. Now, I'm not a very big fan of Michael Clarke and I think he is grossly over rated, BUTClarke without a doubt belongs at 4 because he is one of the veteran players of the Australian cricket team now, is vice captain and has a ton of experience. He is starting to play well now also.

 

[mattfb]

You obviously don't know what you're on about. During the glory days Clarke always batted 6:

Gilchrist
Hayden
Ponting
Martyn
Symonds
6. Clarke

And was consistent and scored quickly which is also supported by Jakster's stats.

Jordox is right, 3 of those 6 batsmen are gone, and Clarke is much better playing at 3 or 4 when he can build his innings.

 

[Inbox24]

OK then. If the selectors pull their socks up, we can still have a top 7 which emulates the days of old with the same basic structure:

Haddin
Watson
Ponting
Clarke
Symonds
Hussey
Ferguson

With Haddin in the ultra aggressive player and Watson as the aggressive player and Clarke can play the Martyn role. That way Symonds can retain his number 5 position and still fit Ferguson in there. Then when people start retiring, we can stick Hughes up the top and move Haddin back down. The best thing about all this is that Marsh isn't in the calculations and rightly so.