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.
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.
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.
sd
Guest
and still our no.8 avz 45 with the bat .
prashanth
Guest
in present australian team the one nd only world class batsmen is clarke nd he is also a legend in the modern era of cricket.....i think he would open the batting
Gav
Guest
Clarke is a world class batsman, what side can afford to leave a world class batsman out of their team? He may not be a power hitter, but he is an aggressive batsman, if he is not hitting boundaries, he is turning the strike over or collecting 2-3s by hitting gaps. If fit (and I have no doubt he is given what CA has put him through), he is an automatic pick. With Smith, he is the engine room of the side now.
Clark
Guest
The problem is that Australia's best opening stand in the cup is only 50 odd. So a consolidating player like Smith or Clarke is essential
Vas Venkatramani
Roar Guru
Hey TB, I think the flaws surrounding Finch's game is something very similar to what Watson may endure, which may partly explain his recent struggles at 3. That's why I wouldn't return him to the opening slot. When he was an opener, it was still when there was one ball and there was a mandatory ball change after 34 overs. Now, it's two new balls, and in Australian conditions, it will swing more and not scuff up so quickly. I often think that we spend so much time criticising players for their lack of ability, and not enough about their ability to adapt to changing circumstances, which is what the two new balls have done. No one saw it, but I have a feeling putting Watson in the middle order may prove a masterstroke in the knockouts. It gives him the freedom to regularly face an older ball, and not have to worry about technique, but simply hitting the ball. His knock against SL was very impressive in this regard.
The Bush
Roar Guru
In some ways Clarke wouldn't make the worst opener. We have Finch and Warner there under this belief that these two are going to get us off to some flying 100 run stand off the first 15 overs, a la the old style of ODI games. In reality they haven't put together a partnership of note all World Cup. Interesting Vas that you don't see any merit in promoting Watson to opener. There were continued references to his superior record there at time of his dropping, with many arguing that his drop in form coincided with his "demotion" to first drop.
Vas Venkatramani
Roar Guru
One thing critics of Clarke complained about was his low scoring rate. In his three bats against New Zealand, Sri Lanka and Scotland, he is striking about 100. That translates to 300 every time, and 300 should and will always be a defendable total pending a good bowling performance. I wish we could have Bailey in there, but the fact is that he did the double entendre and timed his poor form poorly. Smith was going to be a mainstay in the middle order following his Test exploits, while Australia may have by dumb luck happened across the best use of Shane Watson in the team. The only way Bailey gets in I think is for Aaron Finch, who continually looks a tad vulnerable to the two new balls. If that were to occur, I'd see Haddin promoted to opener and Bailey slotting in at 5, with Watson at 6. As for the games, Australia's game against Pakistan has a definite look of danger about it. Underestimate Pakistan at your peril. The one thing Australia must do is score big against their bowlers, and not let their spinners tie up an end. The likes of Starc, Johnson and Cummins should overpower the Pakistan batsmen, so the way Australia bats is key.
sd
Guest
spot on ! clarke and smith are key before faulkner marcia . well bbc predictions ! i agreed Who will lift the trophy? Former England batsman Geoffrey Boycott: "I'm sticking with Australia as my tip to win it. New Zealand and South Africa could also be in the final. South Africa have talent - De Villiers is the best batsman in the world." Agnew: "I'm still picking Australia, because they have the resources and the belief that they will go on to win it. An Australia v New Zealand final would be a reflection of the two teams that have played the best cricket so far and I hope New Zealand get there because they have been an outstanding team and hosts."
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
I agree Alec, Australia have such immense striking power in their top 8 that there is ample room for a steadier, more old-school batsman like Clarke. Right now in ODIs it's all about just cruising along at a solid run rate for the first 30-35 overs while losing as few wickets as possible before unleashing hell in the final 15-20 (when teams like Australia can easily pile on 200). Particularly if Australia lose a couple of early wickets, Clarke is exactly the type of player you want to help steer them to 2 or 3 down for 190 after 35 overs before the likes of Maxwell, Watson, Faulkner and Haddin go ballistic.
Alex L
Roar Rookie
If Clarke was swapped out it would be for Bailey not for another power hitter.