Number 4

[dan warna]

Re: Michael Clarke is our worse no 4 test batsman in the history of Australian test cricket

yeah and dizzy got a double century...

M.waugh was a good ordinary player, nothing more, he had style and elegance but was lacking where his brother stood up when it counted far more often.

S. Waugh is an all time great.
m. waugh was a talented middle order batsman who averaged in the low 40s and didn't perform when it counted more often than not.

how many centuries from 128 test matches

 

[BONG RIPS MKII]

Re: Michael Clarke is our worse no 4 test batsman in the history of Australian test cricket

never liked mark waugh, seemed lazy to me

if he had his brothers toughness he would have been second only to bradman

still a better batsman than pup though (better bowler too)

 

[dumb]

Re: Michael Clarke is our worse no 4 test batsman in the history of Australian test cricket

think he's been pretty good, got his average to around 50. he has at various times held the middle order together, i think that's fair enough to say. yet, on their own they may not be such a problem, but together bad form and a bad back is close to unforgivable. north may be going like shit but at least you can be sure he's not going to have problems bending over to pick up a ball.

 

[potatomasher]

Re: Michael Clarke is our worse no 4 test batsman in the history of Australian test cricket

Strange that this turned into a thread about ripping into Mark Waugh, but while we're on it, some cricketers just seem lazy. The way Mark Waugh played he looked like he had all of the time in the world, with the bat, ball and in the slips. It was just his style. Just because you don't have eyes as wide as most doors like Mike Hussey does when the bowler is coming in doesn't necessarily mean you aren't having a dip.

He was alright, and to say that he could've been second to Bradman is underrating his character, and overrating his ability.

On Clarke, he's earnt his spot, walk-up start to the Test team, I hate him, but I'd have to pick him. With a bad back though, he's being a selfish prick and should fess up. There are a lot of batsmen who could be doing a better job than an injured Clarke, he just needs to suck it up and hope the selectors don't forget about him in his time off. They shouldn't, but they shouldn't have dropped Hilfy and they went ahead and did that anyway, so who knows.

 

[scomac]

Re: Michael Clarke is our worse no 4 test batsman in the history of Australian test cricket

Get a NSW cap and recieve a baggy green seems apt here. This guy is supposedly the next test captain.
The most incredibly selfish bloke to ever pull on the pads,should have declared himself unfit for the better of the team and then there was the monumentous choice to open in a 20 20 game, needs a reality check has constantly been spoon fed,back to the domestics with you.

 

[outofthegloom]

Re: Michael Clarke is our worse no 4 test batsman in the history of Australian test cricket

never liked mark waugh, seemed lazy to me

if he had his brothers toughness he would have been second only to bradman

still a better batsman than pup though (better bowler too)

Yes, and if Steve had Mark's talent, then Steve would've been second only to Bradman.

 

[Bomber Bears]

Re: Michael Clarke is our worse no 4 test batsman in the history of Australian test cricket

Clarkes out of form and unfit unfortunately. Was playing himself into excellent form before stuffing his back for NSW.

I said before he moved and after he moved, shouldnt have been moved from number 5. He was comfortable and very effective there.
From Ashes 06/07 until the end of the NZ series, batting at number 5, averaged 60 over about 38 tests with 12 centuries. He was our best bat across this period.
He hit 450 runs at 60 odd in england as well, completely contrary to OP's post about him failing there. Failed in the Oval test.
When you factor in his matches since moving to four the average over that period drops to 53.7, essentially he's struggled to adjust. Dont know how long the back has been hurting him but it doesnt look pretty does it.

When fit he's our best batsmen, and an automatic selection. Hopefully he gets fit soon because we need his runs for this series.

 

[dan warna]

Re: Michael Clarke is our worse no 4 test batsman in the history of Australian test cricket

Punter is still our best bat
Hussey was probably second till his form lapse, but it seems he's tapped that vein again!
Katich and pup probably share the 3 and 4 bat. Katich more critical because he opens.
Watto is handy
North is in the side for what?

 

[SebastianVettel]

Re: Michael Clarke is our worse no 4 test batsman in the history of Australian test cricket

Watson is our best batsman by the length of Flemington Straight. Pretty much the only guy you can rely on to get runs consistently.

 

[Noobz0r]

Re: Michael Clarke is our worse no 4 test batsman in the history of Australian test cricket

A fit Michael Clarke is far from our biggest problem.

 

[Bomber Bears]

Re: Michael Clarke is our worse no 4 test batsman in the history of Australian test cricket

Bullshit Punter is our best bat. Hasnt made a ton in 8 tests, and stands at one century in about 15 tests, in which he was dropped first ball.

As far as standing in the game, yeah he's been our best, but he doesnt have th runs on the board the past 4 years so compared with Clarke, Katich and Watson.

It's sad, he was unstoppable from probably 01-07, but his best is past him, and while he seems to remain a stubborn player he wont make the age adjustment that the likes of Tendulker have. He still tries to dominate from the outset, whereas he should be taking his time and playing himself in

 

[Fastback]

Re: Michael Clarke is our worse no 4 test batsman in the history of Australian test cricket

Damn you are full of shit.

If a guy who averages close to 50, has 14 hundreds and a highest ever world ranking of #2, is just a good ordinary player then cricket must be in better shape than I thought.

Wow, he has a purple patch and reaches no. 2 in a meaningless player rankings system. Swan is currently the 2nd best bowler in the world at the moment according to ICC .

The thing is he is technically very good but has lost the plot in limited overs cricket which seems to have carried over to test cricket. Good players with his level of experience and age should be getting better, not worse.

Clarke is averaging 39 in his last 25 test digs.

 

[BORK]

Re: Michael Clarke is our worse no 4 test batsman in the history of Australian test cricket

The problem with Clarke is he has had only 1 dominant century in his career where no one else scored near in the same innings. His 138 against South Africa in Sydney.

He is not a number 4 and is way too much of a downhill skier to be an inspirational leader.

His career average is where it is because he has been fantastic at cashing in on low pressure situations and flat wickets.

Clarke's batting average in team totals of 500 plus would probably be unrivalled in the current side but his average in team total innings of under 300 when we needed him most would probably fall behind nearly everyone up to Haddin apart from North. Will check on that.

 

[Donnie Darko]

Re: Michael Clarke is our worse no 4 test batsman in the history of Australian test cricket

Clarke is playing hurt. I have noticed he gets alot of hate because of his image. Him and Johnson arent typical allan border/steve waugh type ockers so they get hate. Thats abit sad..

I have read clarkes twitter and he seems OK.
Not like he is portrayed around here.. Brett lee also used to get hate for his image even though he would run through brick walls for the team .

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Re: Michael Clarke is our worse no 4 test batsman in the history of Australian test cricket

Wow, he has a purple patch and reaches no. 2 in a meaningless player rankings system. Swan is currently the 2nd best bowler in the world at the moment according to ICC .

The thing is he is technically very good but has lost the plot in limited overs cricket which seems to have carried over to test cricket. Good players with his level of experience and age should be getting better, not worse.

Clarke is averaging 39 in his last 25 test digs.

Got to admit, the number of weird people who appear on those lists, I keep expecting them to morph right away from reality and have dead people on it like Bradman.

 

[Bucking Beads]

Re: Michael Clarke is our worse no 4 test batsman in the history of Australian test cricket

If Clarke is playing hurt it is pathetic by the medical staff and Clarke. I personally think Clarke is better suited to 5 but was moved up to 4 to help the struggling Hussey and it has backfired. Clarke is a good enough player to turn it around I just hope he does it soon so our batting gets stronger.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Re: Michael Clarke is our worse no 4 test batsman in the history of Australian test cricket

Clarke is playing hurt. I have noticed he gets alot of hate because of his image. Him and Johnson arent typical allan border/steve waugh type ockers so they get hate. Thats abit sad..

I have read clarkes twitter and he seems OK.
Not like he is portrayed around here.. Brett lee also used to get hate for his image even though he would run through brick walls for the team .

I don't give a damn about his image or who he is going out with. He appears anodyne, but that doesn't make him different to many other sports people.

I dislike the way he seems to do what he wants when he wants because he is the anointed one like him declaring himself fit when he obviously isn't.

He is apparently the vital cog in our ODI outfit but can't even hit boundaries when he is set. Cricinfo ran a stats analysis on players who have the highest percentage of dot balls in their ODI innings. Guess who came out close to the top? So much for his running between wickets and turning over the strike malarkey.

Giving him the 20/20 captaincy was the last straw. What an 'up yours' to other players in Aus cricket who would be better than him batting at 3 in that squad.

 

[dan warna]

Re: Michael Clarke is our worse no 4 test batsman in the history of Australian test cricket

Clarke is playing hurt. I have noticed he gets alot of hate because of his image. Him and Johnson arent typical allan border/steve waugh type ockers so they get hate. Thats abit sad..

I have read clarkes twitter and he seems OK.
Not like he is portrayed around here.. Brett lee also used to get hate for his image even though he would run through brick walls for the team .

Thats just selfishly collecting a paycheque when he can't bat or field or bowl due to playing lame.

NOrmally he's an adequate batsman who is a good fielder and can throw down a few overs.

the analysis on the other thread of his performance under pressure is pretty damning as a downhill skier.

Sorry was that North we were talking about?

Brett Lee is a great ODI bowler, and an adequate to ordinary and often carried test bowler.

 

[BORK]

Re: Michael Clarke is our worse no 4 test batsman in the history of Australian test cricket

The problem with Clarke is he has had only 1 dominant century in his career where no one else scored near in the same innings. His 138 against South Africa in Sydney.

He is not a number 4 and is way too much of a downhill skier to be an inspirational leader.

His career average is where it is because he has been fantastic at cashing in on low pressure situations and flat wickets.

Clarke's batting average in team totals of 500 plus would probably be unrivalled in the current side but his average in team total innings of under 300 when we needed him most would probably fall behind nearly everyone up to Haddin apart from North. Will check on that.

Confirmed.. http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=780679

 

[Smokey_22]

Re: Michael Clarke is our worse no 4 test batsman in the history of Australian test cricket

I have been watching Michael Clarke's form since the 2005 test series against England and I have noticed that he scores his runs against poor to average bowling attacks and struggles against a top quality bowling attack.

Michael Clarke struggled against England in the UK in 2005 and 2009. At the minute, James Anderson and co have found his measure during this Ashes series. He has not scored any runs during the 1st two test matches at all.

He can score runs against India, South Africa, West Indies, Sri Lanka and New Zealand. But, he struggles against a top quality bowling attack who hunt in packs of 2 and dry up the runs with great line and length pressure bowling.

I am prepared to say that Michael Clarke is our worse number 4 test batsman in the history of Australian test cricket. I can say that Kim Hughes, Mark Waugh, Greg Chappell and Damien Martyn were better number 4 batsmen than Michael John Clarke. Hughes, Mark Waugh and Greg CHappell played against top quality bowling attacks (Waugh faced Ambrose, Walsh, Donald and co; Chappell and Hughes faced the brilliant WI pace quartet of the early 80s and Imran Khan). Kim Hughes scored a brilliant 100 against the West INdies at the MCG on Boxing Day in 1981 whilst Mark Waugh scored a brilliant 100 against the WEst Indies in Sydney in 1993 and the match winning ton in Jamica in 1995.

I am prepared to say that Michael Clarke should be dropped from the Australian side completely and he should never captain Australia. How can Michael Clarke captain Australia at test level when he has a bad back?

He should not have played in Brisbane. As they say, men are liars and women are schemers. He entered the Brisbane test match with a dodgy back and he should not have played at all. Hence, he played for himself and he did not put the team first.

GOV

Wheres your evidence?

Clarke wont be dropped. His form has been fair. Check the statistics. His form at number 4 doesnt look good, but how many innings has he had there? He was put there for a reason - Husseys lack of form and Clarke himself was averaging 68 or so at number 5 for his last year or so. Its Marcus North we should all be looking at.

 

[Fastback]

Re: Michael Clarke is our worse no 4 test batsman in the history of Australian test cricket

Wheres your evidence?

Clarke wont be dropped. His form has been fair. Check the statistics. His form at number 4 doesnt look good, but how many innings has he had there? He was put there for a reason - Husseys lack of form and Clarke himself was averaging 68 or so at number 5 for his last year or so. Its Marcus North we should all be looking at.

if you're good enough you score runs.
Coming in at no.4 vs no.5 is irrelevant.

 

[Bomber Bears]

Re: Michael Clarke is our worse no 4 test batsman in the history of Australian test cricket

Watson is our best batsman by the length of Flemington Straight. Pretty much the only guy you can rely on to get runs consistently.

Watson needs to convert starts. He's the anti-North which, dont get me wrong, is handy, but 12 half centuries and only two tons is a piss poor conversion rate. He's been very good the past 18 months or so and along with Katichand Clarke our best over that period (well not so much Clarke of the last 6 months) but he needs to take that step up if he wants to stay opening the batting

 

[benny_cousins]

Re: Michael Clarke is our worse no 4 test batsman in the history of Australian test cricket

Average of 18 in the last 6 matches.

 

[Bombers_Forever]

Re: Michael Clarke is our worse no 4 test batsman in the history of Australian test cricket

The fact North is failing in worst fashion than Clarke is the only thing saving te pretty boy from getting dropped........

 

[Wallaby]

Re: Michael Clarke is our worse no 4 test batsman in the history of Australian test cricket

Clarke worse than Kim Hughes? the guy who averaged 37 in test cricket?

Worse than Mark Waugh? Who averaged 41 in test cricket. Who played at the same time as Steve waugh (average 50), Dean Jones (average 46), Mark Taylor (44), David Boon (44).

That's the advantage old guys have - we only remember their successes - not their failures. And we only bring up the 'comparisons' when the new guuys have a failure. You probably don't remember when Mark Waugh was nicknamed 'Audi'.

Clarke has been bloody good over his career to now.