View Full Version : Michael Clarke is now elite
davey_magik
1 Jun 2008, 19:27
Averaging over 70 since he came back into the team. Has performed against each nation he has played against.
I wasn't his biggest fan coming into this summer but he's done extremely well and should definitely captain the side one day :thumbsu: .
Discuss.
Averaging over 70 since he came back into the team. Has performed against each nation he has played against.
I wasn't his biggest fan coming into this summer but he's done extremely well and should definitely captain the side one day :thumbsu: .
Discuss.
Well he's done better against the Windies this time than during his first series against them though it was a bonus to play against that one-dimensional attack on a flat track. I think Lee and Johnson went a long way to showing how tons against the Windies when they're in this laconic frame of mind can be a bit devalued.
Gunnar Longshanks
1 Jun 2008, 20:22
I don't see how his latest innings is the tipping point.
Clarke is a gun, but I don't think scoring a tonne against the West Indies on a road is the moment where his quality has been revealed.
Cousin Jed
1 Jun 2008, 20:28
Who said it was?
Surely though an elite player should be averaging at least 50. Clarke is not. And he is part of a middle order in the best team in the world who rarely has to come in and bail his team out.
Gunnar Longshanks
1 Jun 2008, 21:21
Who said it was?Well, "Clarke is now elite", as though it's a recent development.
Cousin Jed
1 Jun 2008, 21:23
I think the Averaging over 70 since he came back into the team
Was the "tipping point"
has only scored 100's when someone else in the team already has in the innings, which shows he can bat on flat tracks..and that about it.
Gunnar Longshanks
1 Jun 2008, 21:25
I think the "averaging over 70 since he came back into the team" was the "tipping point"Yeah - and his hundred against the Windies pushed that recent average above 70.
DeadlyAkkuret
1 Jun 2008, 21:27
has only scored 100's when someone else in the team already has in the innings, which shows he can bat on flat tracks..and that about it.
Fair chance of that happening when you play for Australia.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
2 Jun 2008, 03:16
What a joke of a thead, the only elite test batsmen currently in teh Australian team is Ricky Ponting.
Id rate them in this order.
Ricky Ponting (over 30 hundres, over 10 000 runs, well and truly eleite)
Hussey (Very good batsmen, very reliable, a bundle of energy)
Symonds/Clarke (Good batsmen who are still trying to cement their reputations in test cricket)
Katich/Haddin/Jacques - Katich is a unattractive player in a steve waugh mould, more concerned how how much rather then how. Haddin and Jacques are still very wet behind the ears.
Gunnar Longshanks
2 Jun 2008, 06:33
What a joke of a thead, the only elite test batsmen currently in teh Australian team is Ricky Ponting.
Id rate them in this order.
Ricky Ponting (over 30 hundres, over 10 000 runs, well and truly eleite)
Hussey (Very good batsmen, very reliable, a bundle of energy)
Symonds/Clarke (Good batsmen who are still trying to cement their reputations in test cricket)
Katich/Haddin/Jacques - Katich is a unattractive player in a steve waugh mould, more concerned how how much rather then how. Haddin and Jacques are still very wet behind the ears.Hang on - how do you define elite?
How many elite batsmen do you reckon there are in world cricket?
Two? Five? Ten?
I reckon there's a fair case for Hussey to included in that bracket.
awesome_assassin
2 Jun 2008, 08:22
I think we have 3 elite bats in our side, when Hayden is fit
Ponting
Hayden
Hussey
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
2 Jun 2008, 09:46
Hang on - how do you define elite?
How many elite batsmen do you reckon there are in world cricket?
Two? Five? Ten?
I reckon there's a fair case for Hussey to included in that bracket.
How do we define Elite?
Well Mr Longshanks, i cant give you a set definitions as such but i can give you some criteria which go to deciding if a batsmen is elite.
For example, a batsmen needs to have been scoring runs consistently, over many years against many countries. Do you agree with that?
Secondly, the batsmen needs to have scored runs when his team has really needed it not when his team was 300 - 5, Do you agree with that?
Additionally, the batsmen needs to be an attacking storkeplayer, who can play shots all around the wicket. For this reason i feel Steve Waugh in the latter yeras of his career wasnt a feared batsmen as much, sure in the 90's he held the team together and his batting was founded on the fact that when the team was 50 - 4, Steve Waugh would be the one for the crisis. And he was, this i feel was the rain reason why he was elite, he used to score the runs when was needed, i cite the Windies in 95/96 as one example, as well as the world cup in 99. Later on in his career he wasnt as feared as he didnt play the pull, teams could bog him down with the short stuff, sure, he didnt get out often to the short ball, but he didnt really score either.
Clarke has really been in the team around the same time as Hussey, Clarke has yet to really play match winning knocks when the team has really needed it, sure, the team hasnt really needed him to, but with 4 test centuries i think it is a stretch to class Clarke as elite. Hussey is on the brink of being classed elite, but still, Hayden is elite when playing. Generally to be elite you need to have.
1) Scored runs consistently over a PERIOD OF TIME. 5 years at least.
2) Scored runs when it has been needed.
3) Attacking shot maker who can counter-attack and score runs quickly. A player like Geoff Boycott wouldnt keep opposition captaisn up at night, often he'd put them to sleep in the field, captains didnt fear him as a batsmen, if he scored a ton hed take up half the match, it would be easier to save it then.
Classing batsmen elite after a showy innings is a bit rich dont he think 'shanks?
Gunnar Longshanks
2 Jun 2008, 19:42
Generally to be elite you need to have.
1) Scored runs consistently over a PERIOD OF TIME. 5 years at least.
2) Scored runs when it has been needed.
3) Attacking shot maker who can counter-attack and score runs quickly. A player like Geoff Boycott wouldnt keep opposition captaisn up at night, often he'd put them to sleep in the field, captains didnt fear him as a batsmen, if he scored a ton hed take up half the match, it would be easier to save it then.Surely Hayden and Hussey qualify.
Hayden has been the best performed opening bat in the world over the last ten years. Five consecutive years of 1000+ runs:
http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerYears.asp?PlayerID=1976
Admittedly Hussey has not been around as long, but I don't know that five years is the minimum.
DeadlyAkkuret
2 Jun 2008, 22:25
Clarke has 7 test centuries, and he did score 80+ against India when the rest of the team struggled. I don't think we won that test, but his innings still counts.
Not sure how anyone could say he hasn't cemented his reputation.
Black Thunder
3 Jun 2008, 02:44
Hayden is an elite batsman. Would make a lot of peoples best australian team at opener (although there is huge competition - Morris, Ponsford, Lawry, Simpson, Woodfull straight off the top of my head as the compeition)...
People would consider those 5 names elite and in turn Hayden should be too.
Ponting obviousbly is. Pure class. Best batsman Australia has had since DGB.
I don't think the rest of the top 7 could class themselves as elite in terms of being all time greats (Hussey getting close though) but in terms of modern day cricket... well they're all up there or pretty close too...
OzBomber
3 Jun 2008, 05:35
Surely though an elite player should be averaging at least 50. Clarke is not. And he is part of a middle order in the best team in the world who rarely has to come in and bail his team out.He's done it once with the ball. ;)
Michael Clarke's evolution, IMO, has been from the overhyped, overrated 'star' that we saw in 2005, to a batsman of definite Test-class. Certainly, he is less prone to flaying the ball in the air through the offside as he used to be. He has always been a very fine player of spin bowling, but I feel that his technique against swing bowling, while still not terrific, has improved - he exhibits more patience, for one thing.
However, he is not a great Test-class batsman and certainly not amongst the elite - not statistically and not in terms of technique, either. He also lacks that 'magic' tough that the elites (i.e - Tendulkar, Lara and Ponting) have. In other words, he lacks the ability to turn a would-be tight or impossible encounter into a ridiciously easy contest (Ponting in Sydney 2006, Tendulkar in Chennai 1998) or a euphoric win (Lara in Barbados 1999).
Clarke is not in the elite. This summer was the first summer he really made some good runs, before this summer he didnt do much to show he even deserved a spot in the 11. Ponting,Hussey and Hayden and the elites in the Aussie team whilst blokes like Kallis,Sangakarra and Pieterson are the elites in the world.
davey_magik
3 Jun 2008, 18:10
Clarke is not in the elite. This summer was the first summer he really made some good runs, before this summer he didnt do much to show he even deserved a spot in the 11. Ponting,Hussey and Hayden and the elites in the Aussie team whilst blokes like Kallis,Sangakarra and Pieterson are the elites in the world.
He did average over 70 in the 06/07 summer....
Surely though an elite player should be averaging at least 50. Clarke is not. And he is part of a middle order in the best team in the world who rarely has to come in and bail his team out.
Would you call Chanderpaul elite? He certainly is, but he doesn't average 50.
Gunnar Longshanks
4 Jun 2008, 06:43
Ponting,Hussey and Hayden and the elites in the Aussie team whilst blokes like Kallis,Sangakarra and Pieterson are the elites in the world.Pietersen's record isn't much better than Clarke's.
Pietersen's record isn't much better than Clarke's.
KP is a freak and untouchable.
Given how flat the pitch was and how many tons were scored, Clarke's effort is nothing out of the ordinary in the context of the match. Chanderpaul has constantly bailed his team out over the past couple of years though.
cAsEy_18
4 Jun 2008, 18:42
Has anyone got the video or a video of clarke taking 6/9 over in India a few years back?
Gunnar Longshanks
4 Jun 2008, 19:14
KP is a freak and untouchable.
So how come he only averages 48?
Black Thunder
4 Jun 2008, 20:25
So how come he only averages 48?
Because that would make him the best English batsman of the past 15 or so years
it would leave him somewhere around the 5th or 6th best Australian below the likes of Hayden, Ponting, Hussey, and S Waugh.... should he have played for us of course... ;)
Black Thunder
4 Jun 2008, 20:28
Aus and England batting averages last 15 years (http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;q ualmin1=5;qualval1=outs;spanmax1=04+Jun+2008;spanmin1=04+Jun +1993;spanval1=span;team=1;team=2;template=results;type=batt ing)
makes grim reading for Pommies.
14 of the top 15 spots occupied by Aussies.
and the only pom in there is actually a south african :D
frankrizzo
4 Jun 2008, 22:16
KP is a freak and untouchable.
All the blokes bowling to him in the last year or so don't seem to agree with you . ;)
Pietersen's record isn't much better than Clarke's.
Pietersen has stood up on the big stage in the ashes. Last ashes he and runs agasint the best bowling attack in the world, he then made runs agasint us in the world cup. Clarke is yet to stand up on the big stage, that i can remeber anyway.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
5 Jun 2008, 03:49
In all fairness, Clarke did stand up in India 2004, at that stage, that was our biggest series since the Windies in 1995.
In all fairness, Clarke did stand up in India 2004, at that stage, that was our biggest series since the Windies in 1995.
Yeah fiar enough he did make runs in that series. But he also didnt excatly do much to impress in the 2 ashes series either and they were both hyped up, big crowd drawing series.
achancely
5 Jun 2008, 10:49
KP is a mediocre good batsman, nothing more. Has been well and truly worked out since his debut.
Wouldn't call Clarke elite yet. Will eventually be.
Yeah fiar enough he did make runs in that series. But he also didnt excatly do much to impress in the 2 ashes series either and they were both hyped up, big crowd drawing series.
IIRC, he did make runs in the 2006/07 Ashes (two centuries and one 50).
I do agree with those who say that he isn't 'elite', though.
wce4premiership
7 Jun 2008, 11:25
Aus and England batting averages last 15 years (http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;q ualmin1=5;qualval1=outs;spanmax1=04+Jun+2008;spanmin1=04+Jun +1993;spanval1=span;team=1;team=2;template=results;type=batt ing)
makes grim reading for Pommies.
14 of the top 15 spots occupied by Aussies.
and the only pom in there is actually a south african :Dhahahah thats brilliant.
Also can't believe some ppl didn't rate hayden as elite.
davey_magik
7 Jun 2008, 15:46
Yeah fiar enough he did make runs in that series. But he also didnt excatly do much to impress in the 2 ashes series either and they were both hyped up, big crowd drawing series.
Did you even follow cricket back then?
Clarke averaged 70+ in the 06/07 series. What more do you want?
OzBomber
8 Jun 2008, 00:05
Yeah fiar enough he did make runs in that series. But he also didnt excatly do much to impress in the 2 ashes series either and they were both hyped up, big crowd drawing series.
Eh... He made 2 tons and a couple of 50s in the last Ashes. What more do you want?
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
8 Jun 2008, 14:25
hahahah thats brilliant.
Also can't believe some ppl didn't rate hayden as elite.
Hayden isnt in the side at the moment, thats why he wasnt included as elite in the original list.