Michael Clarke should not have been picked for T20 World Cup side

[marty344]

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?

 

[Boris]

Re: Michael Clarke should not have been picked for T20 World Cup side

Clarke has been very mature about it. I have never really liked him, but he knows he isn't for the spot and there is no point in him pushing something that isn't there.

At the end of the final he said something like "... and I know my spot will come under scrutiny when we get home."

I think, with the exception of that elusive final, he captained very well, which is a good sign for things to come.

He most probably won't be around this side for too much longer I don't think.

You do have to remember this is the first series that Australia has taken seriously. Before that it was pretty much a hit around for the Test/ODI players, nothing more. Ponting is quoted as saying "It's very hard to take this game seriously" after scoring 80 off very few balls playing England for the first time (and getting absolutely dominated as they played just before the 05 Ashes with their Test squad).

Funnily enough though, Ponting was the best T20 batsman in the side throughout his time playing, just couldn't work out why they should play that form at all.

Clarke is a left over from that era of hit and giggle type playing. It will sort itself out sooner rather than later as this devil's form of the game takes over.

 

[Kram81]

Re: Michael Clarke should not have been picked for T20 World Cup side

Surely Cameron White would do just fine as captain? As marty said Clarke is a fantastic batsman but is totally unsuited to this sloggin format.

 

[Boris]

Re: Michael Clarke should not have been picked for T20 World Cup side

Surely Cameron White would do just fine as captain? As marty said Clarke is a fantastic batsman but is totally unsuited to this sloggin format.

Well he's going to have to. I don't think Clarke will be around too much longer, he himself doesn't have much faith he will keep playing by the looks of it.

 

[Kram81]

Re: Michael Clarke should not have been picked for T20 World Cup side

Funnily enough though, Ponting was the best T20 batsman in the side throughout his time playing, just couldn't work out why they should play that form at all.

He was?

 

[Boris]

Re: Michael Clarke should not have been picked for T20 World Cup side

He was?

Didn't go too well in the WCs, but the other games he had fun with.

In his 16 innings he scored a 98* (55), 47 (26), 76 (53) and 38 (31) as his four best scores, the rest were 20s or in the case of the WCs, out straight away.

He performed best in those muck around matches where he just went out and hit like crazy. Wasn't bad at it either.

 

[Ljp86]

Re: Michael Clarke should not have been picked for T20 World Cup side

Clarke must go, not suited to this format one bit. Ponting realised this and gave it up, mainly because he wanted to play the proper forms of the game and not this one but I think he also accepted that he wasn't really suited to Twenty20 cricket.

Clarke must do the same also. His captaincy is superb in my opinion but his batting just isn't good enough for T20 cricket. His slow batting coupled with David Hussey is probably what cost Australia the game.

 

[Beeswax]

Re: Michael Clarke should not have been picked for T20 World Cup side

Clarke must go, not suited to this format one bit. Ponting realised this and gave it up, mainly because he wanted to play the proper forms of the game and not this one but I think he also accepted that he wasn't really suited to Twenty20 cricket.

Clarke must do the same also. His captaincy is superb in my opinion but his batting just isn't good enough for T20 cricket. His slow batting coupled with David Hussey is probably what cost Australia the game.

Yep, I agree with that. It was embarrassing with the pair of them scratching around like old hens. It was a final for christ's sake. You might as well hit out or get out.

At least with Dussey though, you know that he CAN hit out, Clarke can't. I find it very odd that Punter stopped playing as he felt he wasn't suited to the format so the NSP (bless their ugly hides) went and replaced him with someone even less suitable.

And enough with the 'isn't Clarke wonderful for realising that he isn't suited to it' malarkey.

It would have helped if he'd realised that before he sent himself in at 3 in the final and choked our innings down the toilet.

Considering in the first round, he'd sent everyone but the gardener's dog in before him to bat in the very first match, all this vaunted 'honesty' is a bit hypocritical for my liking.

 

[hrt_rulz01]

Re: Michael Clarke should not have been picked for T20 World Cup side

Surely Cameron White would do just fine as captain? As marty said Clarke is a fantastic batsman but is totally unsuited to this sloggin format.

Exactly... Clarkey isn't a T20 type player. He's one of the best fielders in the game, but his batting style doesn't suit. But who knows... maybe he'll improve.

 

[OhMyGodTheChips]

Re: Michael Clarke should not have been picked for T20 World Cup side

Exactly... Clarkey isn't a T20 type player. He's one of the best fielders in the game, but his batting style doesn't suit. But who knows... maybe he'll improve.

His fielding has dropped off as well. Hardly hits a run-out any more.

 

[Beeswax]

Re: Michael Clarke should not have been picked for T20 World Cup side

His fielding has dropped off as well. Hardly hits a run-out any more.

Yep, I don't think of him when I think of our really quality fielders. He can't stand in slips to the quicks, he dropped a lot of catches in there when they were trying him out, but he's ok for the spin bowlers and he doesn't do run-outs too much now.

In the 20/20, Smith, Warner, both Husseys and White are all ahead of him.

In ODI's, same plus probably Punter.

Overall, Mike Hussey is probably our safest pair of hands just now.

And outfielding, young Steve Smith is a livewire.

 

[gbatman]

Re: Michael Clarke should not have been picked for T20 World Cup side

Clarke is not a 20/20 cricketer and should not be playing. Make White Captain and be done with it.

 

[Beeswax]

Re: Michael Clarke should not have been picked for T20 World Cup side

Clarke is not a 20/20 cricketer and should not be playing. Make White Captain and be done with it.

What is starting to really annoy me is that I feel like the whole team is there to be a guinea pig for Clarkey, and they'll keep stuffing around with the team until he finally finds a spot where he can 'contribute'. Never mind if someone else would be far better.

They put him up to open where he did a bit better than usual, but 30 isn't really anything to shout about... unless it's him scoring it. They still didn't hoist White or Hussey up the order, instead Hopes came in. WTF is that about?

I find it really rude that far better players for this format like Shaun Marsh aren't even in the squad now. I'm not sure about Marsh in ODI's, but I am for 20/20s.

When and how did this happen? When did Michael Clarke become more important than a format or a team for Australia?

 

[Boris]

Re: Michael Clarke should not have been picked for T20 World Cup side

What is starting to really annoy me is that I feel like the whole team is there to be a guinea pig for Clarkey, and they'll keep stuffing around with the team until he finally finds a spot where he can 'contribute'. Never mind if someone else would be far better.

They put him up to open where he did a bit better than usual, but 30 isn't really anything to shout about... unless it's him scoring it. They still didn't hoist White or Hussey up the order, instead Hopes came in. WTF is that about?

I find it really rude that far better players for this format like Shaun Marsh aren't even in the squad now. I'm not sure about Marsh in ODI's, but I am for 20/20s.

When and how did this happen? When did Michael Clarke become more important than a format or a team for Australia?

Clarke did alright that game, scored quickly, but it seems like a one off more than anything.

Hopes won the award for Queensland's best T20 player last season, batting around 3 most of the time, so that must put him around the best 11 in Australia. He can play T20s and is very good at it, IMO both he and Marsh should both be in or very close to it. Hopes only plays when he's on tour and there's one or two pointless T20s, this time just covering.

And it looks like Clarke is around for a little while to come. I would expect to see him captaining the next series as well, which is after the Ashes, am I right?

 

[Beeswax]

Re: Michael Clarke should not have been picked for T20 World Cup side

Clarke did alright that game, scored quickly, but it seems like a one off more than anything.

Hopes won the award for Queensland's best T20 player last season, batting around 3 most of the time, so that must put him around the best 11 in Australia. He can play T20s and is very good at it, IMO both he and Marsh should both be in or very close to it. Hopes only plays when he's on tour and there's one or two pointless T20s, this time just covering.

And it looks like Clarke is around for a little while to come. I would expect to see him captaining the next series as well, which is after the Ashes, am I right?

Oh, he isn't going anywhere. I think it is already proven that his captaincy of the twenty/20 is not in anyway dependent on his suitability for the format. He can probably score that sort of innings about once every 9/10 matches and be rubbish for the rest and it won't affect his position in the team.

I just can't work out how it got to this point. I'm not even a fan of him in ODI's and somehow he has come to be seen as the be-all and end-all of Aus cricket. I suppose it goes to show how far our standards have dropped in the last few years.

He'll probably still be captaining the twenty/20 team when he is captaining Aus in all other formats. He'll want the match payments.

 

[Beeswax]

Re: Michael Clarke should not have been picked for T20 World Cup side

Oh, he isn't going anywhere. I think it is already proven that his captaincy of the twenty/20 is not in anyway dependent on his suitability for the format. He can probably score that sort of innings about once every 9/10 matches and be rubbish for the rest and it won't affect his position in the team.

I just can't work out how it got to this point. I'm not even a fan of him in ODI's and somehow he has come to be seen as the be-all and end-all of Aus cricket. I suppose it goes to show how far our standards have dropped in the last few years.

He'll probably still be captaining the twenty/20 team when he is captaining Aus in all other formats. He'll want the match payments.

I don't mind Hopes, but it is the other factors that piss me off. I would have thought that Hopes could do a late order hitting job in twenty/20s very well as he can give it some humpty.

What I am suspicious of is that they don't want Cam White coming in early and looking the goods as it would make Clarke look even more ridiculous than he usually does.

 

[Boris]

Re: Michael Clarke should not have been picked for T20 World Cup side

Oh, he isn't going anywhere. I think it is already proven that his captaincy of the twenty/20 is not in anyway dependent on his suitability for the format. He can probably score that sort of innings about once every 9/10 matches and be rubbish for the rest and it won't affect his position in the team.

I just can't work out how it got to this point. I'm not even a fan of him in ODI's and somehow he has come to be seen as the be-all and end-all of Aus cricket. I suppose it goes to show how far our standards have dropped in the last few years.

He'll probably still be captaining the twenty/20 team when he is captaining Aus in all other formats. He'll want the match payments.

I don't mind Hopes, but it is the other factors that piss me off. I would have thought that Hopes could do a late order hitting job in twenty/20s very well as he can give it some humpty.

What I am suspicious of is that they don't want Cam White coming in early and looking the goods as it would make Clarke look even more ridiculous than he usually does.

Yeah I think White is much more suited up the order. I like him, but I from what I've seen of him he hasn't impressed me in this format either, he's been quite clunky and only really getting a good innings every once and a while, the rest he goes into hacking mode and hits across the line to everything, seemingly always to the deep mid wicket fieldsman that is always there every innings of his.

If I were Clarke, I would retire from T20Is. It is bringing down his reputation across the board, his batting in ODIs has come under more question than it otherwise would have with this issue giving further evidence to those against him. His captaincy has been good, and his fielding ever brilliant, but there is only so far that will get you. In Tests you can hold onto a player for their captaincy, in T20s you cannot.

If this were one of the two other formats I would be very much in support of you, but because it's T20 I'm hesitant to take a serious approach to it. I'm with Ponting when it comes to T20s, they're "just hard to take seriously."

 

[Beeswax]

Re: Michael Clarke should not have been picked for T20 World Cup side

Yeah I think White is much more suited up the order. I like him, but I from what I've seen of him he hasn't impressed me in this format either, he's been quite clunky and only really getting a good innings every once and a while, the rest he goes into hacking mode and hits across the line to everything, seemingly always to the deep mid wicket fieldsman that is always there every innings of his.

If I were Clarke, I would retire from T20Is. It is bringing down his reputation across the board, his batting in ODIs has come under more question than it otherwise would have with this issue giving further evidence to those against him. His captaincy has been good, and his fielding ever brilliant, but there is only so far that will get you. In Tests you can hold onto a player for their captaincy, in T20s you cannot.

If this were one of the two other formats I would be very much in support of you, but because it's T20 I'm hesitant to take a serious approach to it. I'm with Ponting when it comes to T20s, they're "just hard to take seriously."

White is in transitional place. He can still play the rocket innings but not as often as what he really wants is a place in the test team. Due to this, he has started changing the way he bats and hits much more straight (some innings that's all he seems to do) than he used to and is inclined to play himself in more. I notice this in ODi's as well. Because of this, his natural cross bat hoiking ability is deserting him at times and unfortunately, I think he is barking up the wrong tree as I can't see the Aussie selectors picking him for test cricket at present. Calling up Khawaja was a bit of a giveaway that others are on the ladder ahead of him.

I want the Aussies to field the best side for the format whenever they take the field and it quite offends me that Clarke seems to have the selectors/mgt by the short and curlies these days. It makes all of them look the poorer.

 

[Boris]

Re: Michael Clarke should not have been picked for T20 World Cup side

It all just seems a trial run for the future really. See how Clarke can handle captaincy. From the looks of things he will be a good replacement when Ponting goes, and that's all they should need to know. Time for Clarke to take the responsibility on himself.

What angers me more is that while Clarke is playing this format there is a much, much increased chance of him injuring himself. He seems quite injury prone for a batsman, and what would really annoy me is if he injures himself in a T20 before a major ODI or especially Test series. He has proved a quite irreplaceable bat in Tests, so frolicking around in a format that he shouldn't be playing that is also hard on the body is not something he should be doing.

 

[Beeswax]

Re: Michael Clarke should not have been picked for T20 World Cup side

Watching the Champions League, it annoys me that there is obviously plenty of players, even beyond the obvious candidates like Shaun Marsh, in the state comp who are more suited to the format.