Australia Test squad - 2014

[Super Hans]

I called him a wuss because he is, for 85% of his career he has hid at number 5 and 6. Now sure people can say 'well it is his best position'....but if he is our best bat he bats at 3, especially when he is sending out lambs to be slaughtered like Quiney, Hughes, Doolan, etc. Not as if we have a Rahul Dravid at number 3 in our Shield ranks to put at number 3.

I never said he wasn't a good bat, I said he wasn't a great bat. Great bats want the pressure, and perform in the toughest position, Clarke seems to want to be 'comfortable'. I'm sorry but whilst he is good, he isn't great in my eyes. His captaincy is okay, but it is terrible in the sub continent- yet to even draw a match in the sub continent. He is too aggressive as a captain over there.

Playing in his best position is being a wuss? For 70% of his career arguably our best ****ing number three ever was in that position. Nah, he should take Quiney/Doolan out of their preferred position as well as batting himself of his own natural position just to show he 'wants the pressure'. Plus his shown he is poor at number three, do you want him batting at three averaging 30's? Because you're obviously not happy with his career average of 61.83 when batting at five.

Don't know about you, but I'd prefer a bloke who plays knocks like this..





over someone who moves batsman and himself out of their natural positions just to show he 'wants the pressure'.

Did Kallis bat at three? Lara? I'm sure you have valid excuses for why they're not 'wusses'.

Look at Clarke's record. 8,297 runs at 50.59. You can argue either way, but he is a great for me.

His captaincy is great. People are quick to point out his record in Asia, and it is poor. But they fail to acknowledge him winning leading a team that won the ashes 5 - 0, because 'Mitch Johnson carried him'. Pffffft. Johnson was on another planet, but how about some credit for the field placings and using him in short spells? People only focus on the negatives, twelve months ago he took a team that were a bunch of misfits (people were labeling them this after the ashes in England) to a 5 - 0 win over England and a 2 - 1 series win over the best team in the world on their own turf.. And I'm sure as hell his aggressive approach was praised in those series.

 

[SterlingArcher]

I disagree, I think people focus on the positives far too much when it comes to cricket.


But as for Clarke, regardless of whether he's good or great, he's miles and miles and miles ahead of any potential replacement. If Clarke goes to 3 then we need to find a number 5 anyway, and we are still looking for a number 6 and a decent keeper/batsman to replace Haddin soon.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Playing in his best position is being a wuss? For 70% of his career arguably our best ******* number three ever was in that position. Nah, he should take Quiney/Doolan out of their preferred position as well as batting himself of his own natural position just to show he 'wants the pressure'. Plus his shown he is poor at number three, do you want him batting at three averaging 30's? Because you're obviously not happy with his career average of 61.83 when batting at five.

Don't know about you, but I'd prefer a bloke who plays knocks like this..

over someone who moves batsman and himself out of their natural positions just to show he 'wants the pressure'.

Did Kallis bat at three? Lara? I'm sure you have valid excuses for why they're not 'wusses'.

Look at Clarke's record. 8,297 runs at 50.59. You can argue either way, but he is a great for me.

His captaincy is great. People are quick to point out his record in Asia, and it is poor. But they fail to acknowledge him winning leading a team that won the ashes 5 - 0, because 'Mitch Johnson carried him'. Pffffft. Johnson was on another planet, but how about some credit for the field placings and using him in short spells? People only focus on the negatives, twelve months ago he took a team that were a bunch of misfits (people were labeling them this after the ashes in England) to a 5 - 0 win over England and a 2 - 1 series win over the best team in the world on their own turf.. And I'm sure as hell his aggressive approach was praised in those series.

How about the other 30%...as soon as Ponting retired...was Clarke offering to bat 3? Nope. Any other great leader would have period. Exactly he is poor in the top 3 and average at 4, which is why he isn't great. He is a good bat, he isn't a great bat though. That is my point. I have never said he is a poor bat, he is a very very good bat. Both Lara and Kallis at least batted in the top 4 for 90% of their career, and Kallis had a good number 3 ahead of him, Clarke has the might of Alex Doolan!

His captaincy is typical home captaincy. It works at home, but it is useless away. He is way too aggressive, and he has only won 1 series in 4 away from home and again that was a series with Mitch belting them. Where was his captaincy in England, India or Pakitan (UAE). Too aggressive overseas. He isn't a bad captain, needs to find a middle ground though, but so does the whole team. This idea of going at 4- 4.2 runs an over doesn't work in the sub continent.

 

[SterlingArcher]

In my eyes Clarke is the next version of Ricky Ponting and with absolutely NOTHING on the horizon in terms of gun bats, we actually need Clarke to hang on for as long as he can. Unfortunately his back condition will not heal and so the end is possibly a lot closer than many think. From here on in its a management thing. Smith will make a fine captain in time, but not yet.

Will definitely make a better captain than Warner.

Clarke has a spot just like Hayden/Gilchrist/Ponting did - basically as long as he wants imo. We won't have 5 batsman at any one time who are better than him until he's unable to move.

 

[Super Hans]

How about the other 30%...as soon as Ponting retired...was Clarke offering to bat 3? Nope. Any other great leader would have period. Exactly he is poor in the top 3 and average at 4, which is why he isn't great. He is a good bat, he isn't a great bat though. That is my point. I have never said he is a poor bat, he is a very very good bat. Both Lara and Kallis at least batted in the top 4 for 90% of their career, and Kallis had a good number 3 ahead of him, Clarke has the might of Alex Doolan!

His captaincy is typical home captaincy. It works at home, but it is useless away. He is way too aggressive, and he has only won 1 series in 4 away from home and again that was a series with Mitch belting them. Where was his captaincy in England, India or Pakitan (UAE). Too aggressive overseas. He isn't a bad captain, needs to find a middle ground though, but so does the whole team. This idea of going at 4- 4.2 runs an over doesn't work in the sub continent.

Yeah, any great leader would step up into a position they know they'll struggle in. Guess that's why Chanderpaul stayed at six when Sarwan dropped off the face of the earth. Is AB De Villiers opening the batting now? Surly he has stopped being a 'wuss' and stepped up in Smith absence? And he's opened the batting before, too! He must be scared..

What I don't understand, is when we win the ashes and in South Africa, you just say 'it was Mitch Johnson, he carried us' and it's no credit to Clarke at all (and he deserved it. He and Boof were masterminds in being aggressive and bowling short/in short burst). But you're more than happy to put the acid on Clarke's captaincy when we lose in India and UAE. Maybe if our batsman outside of Smith and Warner made some runs we would performed better. Clarke can't go out there and stop Haddin being a crab with the stick, or stop Doolan going on suicide runs. Can't catch for Siddle, either.

There's a balance between blaming captaincy and the teams performance.

 

[western royboy]

I called him a wuss because he is, for 85% of his career he has hid at number 5 and 6. Now sure people can say 'well it is his best position'....but if he is our best bat he bats at 3, especially when he is sending out lambs to be slaughtered like Quiney, Hughes, Doolan, etc. Not as if we have a Rahul Dravid at number 3 in our Shield ranks to put at number 3.

I never said he wasn't a good bat, I said he wasn't a great bat. Great bats want the pressure, and perform in the toughest position, Clarke seems to want to be 'comfortable'. I'm sorry but whilst he is good, he isn't great in my eyes. His captaincy is okay, but it is terrible in the sub continent- yet to even draw a match in the sub continent. He is too aggressive as a captain over there.

Clarke doesn't have the technique to bat at 3, he plays over a straightened front leg, that's why he gets bowled a lot. I've explained my reasoning ad nauseum on it. Much better at 5.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Clarke doesn't have the technique to bat at 3, he plays over a straightened front leg, that's why he gets bowled a lot. I've explained my reasoning ad nauseum on it. Much better at 5.

That is fine, but then he shouldn't be rated as the top of the top elite. He is a middle order bat who by in large has had it easy with the new ball long gone.

 

[Super Hans]

Anyone who doesn't think Clarke isn't in the top end of the elite has rocks in their head, the blokes averages 50 in over 100 tests.

De Villiers, Amla, Sangakarra, Chanderpaul are the only four batsman in world cricket I'd rate higher than Clarke at the moment.

 

[Zach Package]

Clarke doesn't have the technique to bat at 3, he plays over a straightened front leg, that's why he gets bowled a lot. I've explained my reasoning ad nauseum on it. Much better at 5.

He is a much better 4/5, but you could equally argue that that same technical flaw is the reason he gets done so frequently by left arm spinners straightening the ball from around the wicket

 

[frankrizzo]

Ponting scored a heck of a lot more runs when we needed it, Clarke isn't even close. In terms of gun bats I agree, but Jake Doran is the one that could be elite. That said, let me say this flat, he needs to do it at Shield level first. He is the best underage cricketer I have seen period, and I saw Clarke, etc growing through the ranks. I have said this before, if Clarke isn't fit, he should man up and either step down and retire. We can deal without him, South Africa have dealt with not G. Smith in their lineup.

We badly needed runs from ponting his last few years and he failed in nearly every big series but we understand he was battling age injury and staying on not out of greed or stats but out of a desire to shepherd the next generation through.

It should be obvious from the amount he has been bowled through the gate the last 12 months(even more than usual) just how much clarke is being impacted by his stuffed back but in fairness to him like punter i don't believe he is playing on out of greed or stats he is doing what he feels is right for our test team in this transition period where our batting options are so thin.

I would like to see clarke forced out from the odi unit as it's clear now he simply can't make it through the 9 big test matches and the WC, if his back is as bad as it looks they have to make a choice and we have more odi options with the bat than test options by a long way.

Maybe my bias towards tests gets in the way with that thinking but i can't help that, if clarke is fit for something in what could be his last 12 months of cricket i would rather it's 5 tests in england.

 

[likedagrass]

Warner Clarke smith mich j Watson. the rest should be players who have preformed well in recent shield matches.

 

[Phone]

(the rest should actually be whoever you think the best players are)

 

[aussie1st]

How about Watson perform in Shield cricket too?

 

[Doodlesweaver]

How about Watson perform in Shield cricket too?

How about he play in Shield cricket?

 

[PaddyO]

Fully lol at a guy on an Internet forum calling a test cricketer a wuss.

Lol so hard at that.

bombersno1 - when you've faced Steyn with a new ball or an old ball, you come back and call Clarke a "wuss". Until then, **** up.

 

[toxic]

Fully lol at a guy on an Internet forum calling a test cricketer a wuss.

Lol so hard at that.

bombersno1 - when you've faced Steyn with a new ball or an old ball, you come back and call Clarke a "wuss". Until then, **** up.

Strange no one questioned vivs or clives courage when batting at 4 & 5
Nor borders?

Clarke is the best bat we have right now...

 

[Yoda_]

Guess Stephen Waugh was hiding himself at number 5 too?



Hope people can understand that Shane Watson is the best option for number 3 and Marsh can stay at number 6.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Maybe my bias towards tests gets in the way with that thinking but i can't help that, if clarke is fit for something in what could be his last 12 months of cricket i would rather it's 5 tests in england.

I suspect Clarke may retired for ODIs after the WC. And I think that would be right. While Tests are more important than the WC, its nice to win that too and Clarke has a key role to play there.
That may allow him to play on beyond the next twelve months. I sure hope so, because captaincy stocks are looking as thin as the batting ones. As much as Clarke's man-management off the field has been poor at times, and no longer being a selector probably helps a lot; his tactics are usually pretty good.

 

[bird_man]

Guess Stephen Waugh was hiding himself at number 5 too?



Hope people can understand that Shane Watson is the best option for number 3 and Marsh can stay at number 6.

I don't think Clarke should bat 3, but Steve Waugh did have a few decent batsmen around him so you can't really use that argument IMO. I think Smith should bat 3.

 

[The_Reaper]

Guess Stephen Waugh was hiding himself at number 5 too?



Hope people can understand that Shane Watson is the best option for number 3 and Marsh can stay at number 6.

Is Watto still the best option at 3 when we go to England next summer?

Or just an early lb candidate?

 

[bird_man]

Is Watto still the best option at 3 when we go to England next summer?

Or just an early lb candidate?

Agree, people have short memories....

I do have a feeling they will pick him there though.

 

[Yoda_]

Is Watto still the best option at 3 when we go to England next summer?

Or just an early lb candidate?

Stats suggest he's been our best no. 3 since Punter so might as well go with him unless someone comes along and stamps there mark on a position there (outside the current Australian batting line up)

 

[The_Reaper]

Stats suggest he's been our best no. 3 since Punter so might as well go with him unless someone comes along and stamps there mark on a position there (outside the current Australian batting line up)

And reality shows that he's a walking lbw

 

[Bradesmaen]

And reality shows that he's a walking lbw

So was Ponting..

 

[Underarm]

I don't think Clarke should bat 3, but Steve Waugh did have a few decent batsmen around him so you can't really use that argument IMO. I think Smith should bat 3.

But the argument is "your best batsmen comes in at 3", but there is plenty of examples when no. 4/5 trumps the no.3. Tendulkar, Lara, Border, Waugh.

It's not as simple as that. Clarke's moved to 4, which is as high as he should go. You play to the players strength, not to the myth that the best bats at 3.