Clarke's Captaincy

Remove this Banner Ad

Nel Mangle said:
Clarke is just more attack minded that some other captains. If you got Harris + Johnson on a bouncy wicket ,chances are you're gonna win. You could put 'Coco the clown' in charge and still win in that situation. Then Clarke goes to India, England and UAE where he doesnt have those conditions and looks average at best. He never out-captained Cook in England or Dhoni in India. Both those captains are regularly derided as being clowns.
Click to expand...

Cook never had an original thought. Flower did everything
 
Nel Mangle said:
I guess I will have to go back to my original post when I said..



Surely Clarke had enough firepower in his squad to outclass Cook on the England tour? but on that tour he didnt captain well IMO.
as the thread starter said, Clarke was made to look good by what Johnson did . In the 3-0 series win for England the only time we were ever under pressure was at Old Trafford on the last day before the rain came in. yet we go down under and get blown away on the bouncy pitches and never compete.
Click to expand...
Lol 15 run win not under pressure. Ok mate. :drunk:
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Fat Tony! said:
Michael Clarke is a poor captain in my opinion. He was made to look like a genius last summer by Mitchell Johnson. He lacks patience in the field and makes overly aggressive declarations.
Click to expand...
Nel Mangle said:
Harris and Johnson give any captain a good chance of success . I always thought Clarke was over-rated by many ,but I wouldnt go as far as calling him poor.
Click to expand...
So captains are more likely to be successful with quality, performing players in their side?

Knock me over with a feather......
 
1990crow said:
Clarke is a great captain. He had an under performing squad this series, not his fault. Mind you his batting for the series let a little to be desired, but completely irrelevant when evaluating his captaincy.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

In the past two test matches, he's had spinners who haven't troubled the opposition batsmen and batsmen who haven't got the application, technique, discipline and pride to knuckle down and do their job (with a couple of exceptions).

All this on wickets far more suited to the opposition.

I'm not sure what the bloke is supposed to do, at least while captaining on the field.
 
The_Reaper said:
You can't select a team on the basis of what happens if the keeper gets injured but that really did underline the ridiculous choice of selecting Maxwell to bat at 3 at the expense of Doolan and Hughes.
Click to expand...

No, you can't make selections based on your keeper "potentially" getting injured. But once Haddin was injured, the fact that Maxwell kept wickets was possibly a statement that said his bowling wasn't rated. Of course, it might have just been that Warner had been doing a poor job (dropped a catch, missed a stumping), and also that as an opener, he needed some relief before going out to bat. But the conspiracy theory is much more fun :)
 
michael clarke has been a good captain. only played 105 tests. pointing and s waugh got 168. few years in him yet i'd like to think he'd (and haddin) carry on till next aussie soil ashes. the problem over the last year or so is we can't keep our senior playing group on the field. harris, johnston, haddin, watson and clarke have not all been consistently healthy. clarke was hopeless in UAE but more often than not he has more than performed. his is in a slump but if there was no such thing as a slump on the other hand there would be no such thing as form.

the pakis played beautifully and they should be proud of the win. for a nation that cant even play cricket on home soil to have that kind of success and win with such class is just what the team need. i think its a shame we are trying to blame someone for losing. we were out played. simple

my only fault of clarke is i don't think he gets steve smith the ball enough. also his comments about smith not ready for 3 before abu dhabi test then maxwell gets played there were confusing.

my team for india would be warner, rogers/hughes, smith, clarke, marsh, watson, haddin, johnson, harris, siddle, lyon.
 
Doodlesweaver said:
Clarke butts head with everyone at some point. I don't care about that, you just want him scoring runs as he's the only one who can score big tons out of the experienced players. When he doesn't the team's batting turns to shit.
Click to expand...
pretty sure boof lost his spot in the team for clarkes debut way back, theyd have interesting history
 
The biggest criticism of Clarke from the Pakistan series in UAE is that he made 57 runs in 4 innings.

The only real positives from the series were that Warner batted well and Marsh didn't look out of place at test level as a batting all rounder. Smith looked solid, but didn't go on with any of his innings.

Bringing in Maxwell to bat at 3 was just laughable.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Belnakor said:
I'd have it

Tubby > Ponting > Clarke > Waugh

Ponting gets so much heat for the end of his career when he had a shit bowling attack and a brittle batting order.

this is a guy who managed to keep a team with guys like Hayden and Warne in it. Someone without his character would have ended up how Cook is now.
Click to expand...

Ponting was easily the worst of the 4. Waugh was very ordinary tactically on-field but could get the best out of his players.

Tubby was outstanding. Clarke got a bag of shit and took them back to no.1. Been a great captain similar to Tubby and Ian Chappell. He's unlikely to win in the sub-continent as we don't have the players, especially the spinners.

Sub-continent has found us out for 40 years. The only time it hasn't is when we had a world class spinning superstar hence sub-continent sides we afraid to gives us dry, dusty turniers. Meant both our quicks and batsmen performed alot better. Even then we only beat India once, would've been twice if Waugh didn't have a brain fart and make India follow-on in dirty, rotten humid conditions. Cost us 2 Tests. Bowlers died in the conditions and were still stuffed 3 days later when they had to front up in back to back Tests.
 
Last edited:
Jimthegreat said:
Ponting was easily the worst of the 4. Waugh was very ordinary tactically on-field but could get the best out of his players.

Tubby was outstanding. Clarke got a bag of shit and took them back to no.1. Been a great captain similar to Tubby and Ian Chappell. He's unlikely to win in the sub-continent as we don't have the players, especially the spinners.
Click to expand...

Ponting won back to back world cups, swept a very strong English team 5-0 and kept us at no.1 for considerably longer than we should have.

Waugh is horribly overrated. Put in attacking fields and had an amazing line up. That was it.

You say Waugh got the best out of players, you forget guys like Symonds who was basically saved by Ponting.
 
It was a but before my time, but what was Gilchrist's captaincy like when we won in India in 04? The series where Martyn killed it?
 
Belnakor said:
Ponting won back to back world cups, swept a very strong English team 5-0 and kept us at no.1 for considerably longer than we should have.

Waugh is horribly overrated. Put in attacking fields and had an amazing line up. That was it.

You say Waugh got the best out of players, you forget guys like Symonds who was basically saved by Ponting.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure there was no place for Symonds when Steve Waugh was captain. Who was he supposed to replace?

I also don't see why Symonds improving is a tick for Ponting but the array of players improving under Waugh isn't a tick for him too.
 
Jimthegreat said:
Ponting was easily the worst of the 4. Waugh was very ordinary tactically on-field but could get the best out of his players.

Tubby was outstanding. Clarke got a bag of shit and took them back to no.1. Been a great captain similar to Tubby and Ian Chappell. He's unlikely to win in the sub-continent as we don't have the players, especially the spinners.

Sub-continent has found us out for 40 years. The only time it hasn't is when we had a world class spinning superstar hence sub-continent sides we afraid to gives us dry, dusty turniers. Meant both our quicks and batsmen performed alot better. Even then we only beat India once, would've been twice if Waugh didn't have a brain fart and make India follow-on in dirty, rotten humid conditions. Cost us 2 Tests. Bowlers died in the conditions and were still stuffed 3 days later when they had to front up in back to back Tests.
Click to expand...

Warne didn't play when Aussies skippered by Gilchrist won over there, I'm sure.
 
for me Clarke is still the best choice but if he is going to step down then i would want Warner to lead the side.

He has the energy and leadership qs in him. I believe he can do it
 
I think Clarkes captaincy has been okay since getting the job, but his efforts in Pakistan were poor.

He was all over the shop with his fielders and showed no patience. It's even been suggested on here that the field placing's were in protest to not getting his own way with the side. If that's the case than that is just about the worst thing he could do. Needs a good summer with the bat or the media will start wanting his head IMO.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Clarke's Captaincy

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top