Clarke up the order?

Okay, a very quick bit of analysis.


I have just gone through Aus last eight innings against SA and India (ignored SL for obvious reasons) on avenge the 2nd wicket has gone in the 14th over, and the 3rd in the 21st over.

So effectively Clarke is being protected for 7 overs.

To me, he's seen the terrible shitness of his upper order, so he should shoulder the burden. Though, I can't really imagine what Aussie batting line-up I'd pick.

He's batting with the tail whether he goes in at 1 or 7... would seem sensible for him to come in at 3 then it might reduce the frequency of them being f*ck-all-for-4 before his innings has got going.

In terms of filling the other slots, they probably need a few instinctive picks, whether it be the fast-tracked youngster or the previously unheralded current form player from domestic cricket. Both of these types of selection have come off for England in recent years. Though I'd be happy for them to bring this load of dross over this summer!

How Phil Hughes gets in is beyond me. He's shown nothing in terms of genuine improvement.

Clarkey looks right to be taken up the order all right, with that well-moisturised complexion and coy smirk.

tbh, I'm not sure batting much higher would help Australian totals. They need to pick decent batsmen, and their batsmen need to apply themselves.

Like the Poms, for example

Anyway, Clarkey's not really to blame if his colleagues (not even chosen by him) say Yes boss, yes boss, and then go out and play like poptarts on special offer.

Just someone with a bit of grit. Or someone with technical excellence. Heck, you could stick in a geriatric circus clown with fishy BO and a persecution complex and they'd have to be better than PJ Hughes ATM.

More useless stats. I have just gone through Clarke's 4 big knocks of 2012 and checked when he came on

329 8.5 overs
259 9.3 overs
230 12.6 overs
21o 25.5 overs

So how exactly is batting at 5 helping?

In fact it appears the earlier he come in, the more he scores.

Clarke goes in at 3-50 (even 3-100) and fails (which might happen sometime) and Australia is now relying on its last two proper batsman to push the score over 200 (which they barely managed today, despite Clarke not failing). At 2-50 (or 2-10) more options to rebuild the innings without him are available.

Furthermore, a less experienced player might benefit hugely from the experience of spending a couple of hours batting with him. At least so goes the theory - Ed Cowan's ton batting with Clarke in Brisbane was a good knock but he hasn't exactly shown what he learnt from it since.

I suspect a lot of it's force of habit, or not wanting to be seen banding to media or critical will, but he does need to make the move. Mindf you, anybody who tries to tell you his reluctance is down to a lack of 'guts' or 'balls' or whatever is either trolling or wanking.

So Fred, does this make you the 3rd drunk?

Watson
Warner
Cowan
* Clarke
Khawaja
Henriques
+ Wade
Starc
Pattinson
Lyon
Doherty

Naaa....Watson out on his pink shell-like. He doesn't have a clue what he wants to do besides staying in the team. All last week he was making noises about bowling again, about 10 minutes after he finished telling everybody who might be listening that he had accepted he was now a batsman only. Unfortunately it seems we are lumbered with either Watson or Hughes (or both) because the alternatives just aren't there.

Maybe Katich was retired too early?

Maybe - but he wasn't exactly cut off in his prime. And would he have lasted till now? There's two years since in which he might have retired of his own accord, and he was already showing signs of decline.

Fred Nerk wrote:Maybe - but he wasn't exactly cut off in his prime. And would he have lasted till now? There's two years since in which he might have retired of his own accord, and he was already showing signs of decline.

Yeah, but have the replacements been any better?

Katich said he was left out because of Clarke.

Chappelli loves Clarke more than most and thinks he should bat at #3 as do several other former players who have spoken about the issue on radio in recent times. Just seems the logical thing. If he does go in and steady the innings maybe the guy at the other end is less likely to go out and we get a solid partnership higher up the order. The bowlers get more tired and frustrated and so those batting down the order might find it easier.

If Clarke was still surrounded by top batsmen coming in at #5 wouldn't be an issue but when he is so clearly the best and in the form of his life it does appear a little odd. Steve Waugh was also reluctant to embrace the move but at least he had decent batsmen above him.

A team's best batsman traditionally bats at 4. It is (or perhaps should be) the fulcrum of a team's innings.

If we are talking about something like Clarke's moral responsibilities as captain and best batsman, he should no doubt bat at 4, or even (like Ponting) at the traditionally more cavalier, attacking/counter-attacking, strokemaking 3.

My point was though that the team's performances and scores shouldn't be allowed to (and often even can't) depend on one man. Not that much gain in Clarke even opening the innings, if the rest of the mob aren't skilled/inspired/gutsy enough to stay around and better still, score a few runs while they are there.

Perhaps the Ashes will change this, but at the moment, it looks as if Oz have a few too many floggers and whackers at the top. Perhaps okay (or perhaps not) on fast, true pitches, where they can let fly with relative impunity - but will tend to get found out in any other sorts of conditions.

In our view the likes of Cowan were not likely to succeed regardless of the conditions. The trouble with this team though is that it lacks balance. There are just too many players who do a bit of everything but none of it particularly well. Maxwell has been selected on the basis of T20 performances. Too many mediocre players are now wearing the cap that was once so coveted.

Red wrote:In our view the likes of Cowan were not likely to succeed regardless of the conditions. The trouble with this team though is that it lacks balance. There are just too many players who do a bit of everything but none of it particularly well. Maxwell has been selected on the basis of T20 performances. Too many mediocre players are now wearing the cap that was once so coveted.

But they are all allrounders.

The biggest disappointment, to me, is Watson. In my eyes, he's got the most talent at the top of the order. Personally, I think both Hughes and Warner are hacks. Hacky hacks. Wouldn't even sniffed at an Australian team 10 years ago. That's not their fault, but what is their fault is their loose tosserism.

I hesitate to pass any comment at all on the Katich v Clarke allegedly significant event, but for all Katich's whining about being shafted, yet again, it was none other than Clarke heading home from the Windies back in the Lara B days that gave Simon his luckiest break as a Test cricketer.

Chappelli these days is just another bar-thumper, who strongly believe every man has a right to his opinion, and every woman and child likewise has a right to HIS opinion also. The 'diminishing returns' tide went out on him and this issue, and many others, many years ago. But even if he strictly applied the letter of the law (which is exactly what he thinks his opinion is) to his own teams, he would have batted behind his younger brother - which just would never do.

I'm last on the Clarke-to-4 bandwagon because while Ponting and Hussey were still around it didn't matter. But now that they aren't, and the keeper's batting at 6, we're exposed. It has to happen sooner or later - may as well be sooner. Putting Clarke in Watson's spot would be no bad thing either.

The fact that Maxwell was picked on his t20 form is a systemic problem caused by the laughable programming of the season - basically he was one of a handful of blopkes outside the team that had been playing any kind of cricket at all, in the weeks before a tour squad was to be named. Surely that mustn't happen again.

I have only just joined the bandwagon. The situation has changed with the demise of Ponting and Hussey and the team has to change with it.

Brass Monkey wrote:The biggest disappointment, to me, is Watson. In my eyes, he's got the most talent at the top of the order. Personally, I think both Hughes and Warner are hacks. Hacky hacks. Wouldn't even sniffed at an Australian team 10 years ago. That's not their fault, but what is their fault is their loose tosserism.

The 10 years ago reference is generous, there are world class batsmen who wouldn't have got in that side! Try any Aussie side since the mid-late 80s.

Brass Monkey wrote:The biggest disappointment, to me, is Watson. In my eyes, he's got the most talent at the top of the order. Personally, I think both Hughes and Warner are hacks. Hacky hacks. Wouldn't even sniffed at an Australian team 10 years ago. That's not their fault, but what is their fault is their loose tosserism.

Hughes really is shit. Admittedly I haven't watched him play in the recent past. But I did when he started out and this test and the last. He looks even more shit now than he did then. Should have been out to Ishant. Ishant FFS.

It seems to me things are wrong with the Australian cricket at a level far deeper than " this guy is rubbish, that one is awful".

Anthony_Gonzales wrote:It seems to me things are wrong with the Australian cricket at a level far deeper than " this guy is rubbish, that one is awful".

Well, the fact these "rubbish" and "awful" players are in Test contention hints at that!

There was a pretty capable "lost generation" of Australian batsmen stuck behind the likes of Ponting, Hayden, Langer, the Waughs etc. who played a handful of Tests or none at all, while in many cases pissing on English county cricket in the late 90s and early 00s. I wonder what they are thinking looking at this?