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

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

Beeswax;408387 said:
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.

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

Roy00;408602 said:

He has looked a very calm head out there. Everything just goes a captain's way sometimes.

But forget about twenty/20 for him... he should be above Phil Hughes in the NSP's thoughts (if they have any) for test cricket. Even from twenty/20 you can see that he has a decent technique and he has shown a real appetite for runs in the last 2 years at Sheffield Shield cricket.

Looking like Norman Gunston minus the toilet paper spots is a huge bonus as well.
 
Re: Michael Clarke should not have been picked for T20 World Cup side

i think the Aussie selection panel have been shown up to be a completely incompetent outfit over the past few years.

when the team picked itself they never really had to work. as soon as their expertise was required it has been found wanting.
 
Re: Michael Clarke should not have been picked for T20 World Cup side

Love the idea of forming a T20 side based on the upcoming players in our country, the young guns who can swing the willow, coupled with some senior experience.
If Clarke not playing T20 means he's able to focus more on Test & ODI, so be it.
 
i think clarke could stay in the T20 team but i think he should come in late in the order at about 7 or 8 so if they lose quick wickets at least they still have someone back there
 
The wickie could play that role or White or just about any of the players apart from the out and out sluggers.

There is no point in thinking of single purpose anchors in 20/20. They can't just be there for one role, that makes no sense.
 
Back
Top