Michael Clarke should not have been picked for T20 World Cup side
I know it's easy to say that now the T20 World Cup is over and Australia lost, but i don't understand why he got picked for the T20 World Cup side to begin with. He may well be one of the best batsmen in the world but that's in the test and ODI forms of the game. T20 is a completely fifferent form of cricket. You can't just play like you would in test cricket or even ODI cricket and expect to be good in T20.
Clarke's form in the World Cup was diablolical. He averaged very low scores and in the final he ran out arguably there biggest strike batter in David Warner. Then he only went on to get 27.
It just really annoys me how players like Clarke get picked for sides, in this case the T20 World Cup side just because theyre the Vice Captain.
Now that we have 3 legitimate forms of the game, we need to have 3 DIFFERENT sides.
Even the great Ponting in my opinion wasnt that great a T20 player, he hardly set the T20 game alight. Yet he was in the T20 Australia side simply becuase he was the Austrlian captain, thats a fact.
Michael Clarke may well be one of the great Test and ODI players in the world but a T20 player he is not!
Its such hyporcicy. David Warner (at this point in his career) wouldnt be picked for the Australian test side, and maybe not the ODI side as well. So why the hell should Clarke although a good test and ODI player get automatically picked for the T20 side.
What does everyone else think?
I know it's easy to say that now the T20 World Cup is over and Australia lost, but i don't understand why he got picked for the T20 World Cup side to begin with. He may well be one of the best batsmen in the world but that's in the test and ODI forms of the game. T20 is a completely fifferent form of cricket. You can't just play like you would in test cricket or even ODI cricket and expect to be good in T20.
Clarke's form in the World Cup was diablolical. He averaged very low scores and in the final he ran out arguably there biggest strike batter in David Warner. Then he only went on to get 27.
It just really annoys me how players like Clarke get picked for sides, in this case the T20 World Cup side just because theyre the Vice Captain.
Now that we have 3 legitimate forms of the game, we need to have 3 DIFFERENT sides.
Even the great Ponting in my opinion wasnt that great a T20 player, he hardly set the T20 game alight. Yet he was in the T20 Australia side simply becuase he was the Austrlian captain, thats a fact.
Michael Clarke may well be one of the great Test and ODI players in the world but a T20 player he is not!
Its such hyporcicy. David Warner (at this point in his career) wouldnt be picked for the Australian test side, and maybe not the ODI side as well. So why the hell should Clarke although a good test and ODI player get automatically picked for the T20 side.
What does everyone else think?