The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Rapier among sledgehammers: Why Australia need Michael Clarke

17th March, 2015
Advertisement
Michael Clarke (AFP PHOTO / MOHAMMAD FAROOQ)
Expert
17th March, 2015
10
1783 Reads

Australia’s thrashing of England at the MCG a few weeks ago was notable not only for the powerful nature of Aaron Finch’s hundred but the efficient performance of George Bailey in the middle order.

A composed half-century, compiled at a decent enough lick to set the stage for Glenn Maxwell’s late innings fireworks, was a commendable effort and especially so given that it was made by a dead man walking in a selectorial sense.

Once Michael Clarke’s hamstring was sufficiently robust (probably not the best term to use given that he always appears a quick single from another couple of months on the physiotherapist’s bench) to allow a return to the fray, Bailey was the obvious candidate to be replaced.

And while the Tasmanian had done little wrong – in fact he hadn’t done anything out of sync at all – I would pick Clarke every time.

For starters he’s the captain and if he’s in the squad then he should be playing. Secondly, which supersedes the previous point, he’s a superior batsman to Bailey.

I’ve read the various comments describing Clarke as a one-day batsman belonging in a former era, and how his method has no place in a line-up that is dripping with power and audacity.

Well there are two words to counter this argument – Kumar Sangakkara.

A rapier can be utilised effectively among the sledgehammers, as the Sri Lanka great has been so majestically demonstrating, and to condemn a man on the altar of strike rate often does them a disservice.

Advertisement

In batting terms, Clarke is no David Warner, he’s no Finch or Maxwell and, this might be considered sacrilege, he’s not even a Shane Watson.
What he is, though, is a fine player who provides a necessary dose of calm-headedness among the rough and tumble that constitutes modern-age 50-over batting.

Although it has been done on a surprising number of occasions, a team can’t simply motor towards totals in the region of 400 time after time. There has to be an element of check and balance, which is where Clarke, and Steve Smith to some extent, play their part.

Lose a couple of early wickets and there is a brake ready to be applied as opposed to an ‘attack at all costs’ mentality that will win its share but not consistently enough.

And should two of the top three clatter along, a license to play with a bit more abandon is awarded due to the depth that follows in the middle and lower-middle order.

That is both sensible and pragmatic, and suits the style of player Australia possess.

On the other point, Clarke has been lauded for his captaincy abilities often enough and that, surely, they make him worth a place in the XI.

We’re not talking Mike Brearley here – a top-level captain of barely international standard with bat in hand – but a world-class batsman who is in charge.

Advertisement

I don’t buy the argument some place store in that, with the fielding restrictions as they are, it’s more of a case of how the bowlers perform or the batsman don’t. You only had to see how skilfully Mashrafe Mortaza manipulated his charges in the clash with England to appreciate the necessity for a good leader.

There are plenty of occasions when captaincy has a negligible effect and it can often be overstated in terms of importance, but that is hardly a given.

The reverse in Auckland aside, Australia have done little to suggest a fifth World Cup isn’t a strong possibility, and even though knockout sport can laugh in the face of the formbook, they should have too much in the tank for Pakistan.

One final point about Clarke, and this is of some relevance after all the opprobrium that was doing the rounds in the lead up to, and during the start of, the tournament; the hosts aren’t any weaker for their captain’s inclusion.

In fact, Australia are a better team with Clarke in it.

close