There’s no doubt that Michael Clarke will continue to plunder flagging, tired attacks for thousands more runs, should he continue to hide down the batting order.
But as captain of the Australian test team – and in the wake of Ricky Ponting’s retirement – it is now time for Clarke to acknowledge that rather than thrust yet another young, inexperienced batsman into the number 3 position, he should take it upon himself to make the first-drop slot his own.
From personal experience, batting in the middle order is a privilege. The top order has usually taken enough shine off the ball and put enough runs on the board for you to go in and play your natural game.
Generally, by the time you make your way to the crease, you’ll have had made your way through several Sydney Morning Herald liftouts, analysed the opposition’s bowling attack and shaken off the previous night’s hangover with a coffee and bacon & egg roll.
An hour or two of light-hearted conversation/banter/low-level grade cricket misogyny with your team-mates in the pavilion will have also done much to ease your pre-match nerves.
Of course, there are many instances when the top order will fail – and you, as a result, will be forced to play an strange, unsettling surrogate top-order role – but in most cases the middle order batsman is unencumbered by the typical pressures that face an opener or number 3 batsman.
Middle-order batsmen– and by that I mean those who come in at 4, 5 and 6 – are often the victims of passive disrespect because of where they sit in the batting order. If there is a pecking order, it is certainly linear: the openers and the number 3 clearly deserve the most respect, for they are the front line.
Numbers 4 and 5 – generally speaking – are the stroke-makers; they are so valuable to the team that they must be mollycoddled by their team-mates, protected at all costs against the frightening new rock, dare it swing so vehemently as to render them dismissed.
Number three batsmen have traditionally been seen as dour, grafting types. Rahul Dravid – or “The Wall,” as he is known – springs instantly to mind. But Ricky Ponting changed the way number three batsmen were perceived. They have the ability to dictate a game; to take the challenge directly to the opposition and put them on the defensive. As a result, he sets the tone for his batsmen to follow.
Clarke is well-equipped to meet this challenge. He has been in, dare I say, “scintillating form,” and there is no better time for him to step up to the first-drop position than right now. He has shown an ability to play the new ball – by virtue of facing the second new ball on various occasions over the past 18 months, given his longevity at the crease – and has a new-found maturity and calmness at the crease which many commentators have attributed – ironically or otherwise – to his new-found ”stability off the field.”
But if he doesn’t heed this challenge, and instead continues to plunder countless centuries against second- and third-change bowlers, then let the pithy, childish “protecting his average” taunts begin.
Geno
Guest
Hughes and Warner, really?
Andy_Roo
Roar Guru
Watson is starting to make Andrew Symonds look good. If we must have an all-rounder then keep him until Maxwell is ready to step up, he looks the best prospect
Andy_Roo
Roar Guru
+1
pope paul v11
Guest
He was only allowed 9 overs per innings against SA at Perth. That is ludicrous and it looked it between capt and bowler. And he's not as good a bat as Cowan,Warner, Hughes, Khawaja so at least let him have a good go with the ball. So at Perth they should have given a proper batsman a go and left him out.
Andy_Roo
Roar Guru
I don't think Tendulkar was hiding behind Dravid, it's just that Dravid was the perfect no.3. At one point in his career (about 2003/04) i would argue that Dravid was actually better than tendulkar.
Andy_Roo
Roar Guru
If you read into Warners comments that he and Cowan are both in a good 'headspace' about their positions i think this means the selectors have decided that they are going to be given a long, long opportunity to cement their opening partnership. So Hughes is no 3 and also by shielding him a bit by picking Quiney to replace Watson the selectors are also saying that he will be given a long long opportunity as well. I think Clarke should move up to no 4 adn Watson to no 6 The pieces of the puzzle are slowly falling into place.
Jamie
Guest
Greg Chappell also batted at 4 for a big chunk of his career..
Oracle
Guest
FTB (Flat Track Bully)
Oracle
Guest
The bloke in the gun surely must be Tarzan Watson. (As Jack Dyer used to say, built like Tarzan, plays like Jane) Never ever gets a big score against strong bowling sides, he will make cheap runs against a pop-gun Sri Lankan attack, and all will look terrific until he struggles in India, and gets exposed yet again against the moving ball in England. Barring injury , of course, but 9 overs an innings doesn't cut it as an all-rounder. He wasn't picked in the second Test as a batsman only, and failed when the heat was on in Perth,........................again. Clarke to 4, only means he comes in two overs earlier than when he was batting at 5
Arthur Fonzarelli
Guest
Especially if one of the 3 is MJ Clarke
John Berry Hobbs
Guest
It is a big problem for Australia at the moment, and as the best batsman in the side, I think the onus is on Clarke (or perhaps the NSP?!) to take this on. Give players like Khawaja an opportunity down the order, when they return. The "not weakening a strength" argument does not pass muster. Being 3/50 consistently in England will not end well.
Neuen
Roar Rookie
Question is how does he handle the new ball?
Arthur Fonzarelli
Guest
Warner Hughes Khawaja Watson Clarke Hussey This would be my line up for the the first Ashes test. Clarke is scoring a squillion at 5, why weaken a strength to strengthen a weakness ? Not sold on Cowan for the long term. Hughes / Warner has potential to be a great opening pair. Khawaja has the technique and temperament to bat at 3. Watson at 4 could be the Aussie Jacques Kallis.
dasilva
Roar Guru
Clarke may or may not fail at 3 However If Clarke is most comfortable at batting at 4/5 then he bats at 4/5 You don't want to mess around with a formula that works especially when Australian cricket team is completely reliant on Clarke to fire to win matches.
dasilva
Guest
In the 90's they were only 3 batsman that consistently average over 50 Sachin Tendulkar, Brian Lara and Steve Waugh This was an era where there were great fast bowlers and spin bowlers such as walsh, ambrose, donald, polock, younis, akram and he played on some pretty tough pitches. Steve Waugh was certainly inferior batsman to the other two but he was head and shoulder above every other batsman in the world at that time and he played crucial knocks to bring Australia to become number 1 in the world when they defeated the West indies. What happen in the 00's especially in the first half of that decade (pitches got slightly better around 2005 onwards). Suddenly tons of batsman are now averaging 50+ (the big 3 of the 90's were joined by Kallis, Dravid, Sangakarra, Jayawardene, Ponting, Chanderpaul, Hayden, Gilchrist (most of his career), Flower, Samaraweera etc).The great fast bowlers all retire and they were very few new fast bowlers to replace them . The pitch went flatter and flatter. Guys like Samaraweera are averaging 50+ and no one consider him to be an all time great.. What I'm saying is that averaging 50+ in the 90's when only about 3 batsman were doing that is a better achievement thatn averaging 50+ in the era where many batsman was doing that. Ricky Ponting was one of many batsman who cashed in during that era. Now to be fair I consider Ricky Ponting to be an all time great as well and just a little bit behind Waugh and he scored a fair amount of runs against good attacks on bowler friendly wickets as well (?England 2005 comes to mind) b Was Steve Waugh average inflated due to not outs. perhaps, and yes he did have a weakness batting in the 2nd innings. However his performance in the 1st innings when the team was under pressure is still good enough to be considered great and he succeeded against the best bowling attack in the world I can accept people thinking he isn't as good as ponting because I realised this is debateable but to say he was never a great batsman is just purely rubbish
Red Kev
Guest
*shakes fist* Damn you for beating me to the punch
Pope Paul VII
Guest
it's the quick and the Red Kev!
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Sorry Sanga got 55.
Red Kev
Guest
Speaking of bowling properly ... Chairman's XI match, Kumar Sangakkarra out for 55, lbw to Khawaja who has figures of 5 overs, 1 maiden 1-22. LMAO at the selector's talking up Quiney's bowling ability.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Would now like to report to NSP that U T Khawaja is officially a handy bowler. Sangakkara lbw b Khawaja 35.