In the early to mid-nineties, when power plays were first introduced to one day cricket, opening batsmen Sanath Jayasuriya took Sri Lanka to victory in the 1996 World Cup by his dashing, hitting-over-the-top-of-the-infield style in the first power play.
This changed the way ODIs were played. Before this, a slow and steady build up to a score of 220 to 250 was par.
Jayasuriya’s style has been the norm for international teams since, with the likes of Adam Gilchrist and Sachin Tendulkar opening the batting in ODIs.
Since the introduction of the new rules of two new balls, batting power play changes, and fewer fieldsmen outside the circle, the ODI game has changed again considerably.
Now Australia plans to be around one or two wickets down for 180 to 200 at the 35th over and start of the batting power play. One of the top three batsmen is expected to score a hundred by the 35th over at a strike rate of about a run a ball.
Then, with wickets in hand, the big hitters come in and aim for around 150 runs in the last 15 overs in a T20-style slog fest. With most of the fielders in the circle and the two new balls staying harder for longer this is achievable.
Yet teams are still being selected with the old rules in mind – hard-hitting opening batsmen hitting over the top in the first 10-over power play, but the two new balls are now swinging for the first six or so overs and a more steady approach is now required during this period to preserve wickets for the onslaught in the last 15 overs.
So why are we still selecting the big hitting David Warner and Aaron Finch to open? And why is Michael Clarke left to come in around the 35th over when the big hitting starts.
Why is he in the side at all?
Surely we need batsmen to open in a more traditional, Test-type opening role to see off the two new swinging balls. OK Warner is our Test opener, so he can stay ODI opener, but I would move Shane Watson back to opener and cement Steve Smith at three for the next decade.
Clarke at four is the worry. Twice in this World Cup Clarke has promoted Glenn Maxwell in front of himself when the run rate needed to be lifted, which means even he acknowledges that he does not have the firepower in the last 15 overs to score at 10 an over. The only time Clarke should be at four is if there have been a couple of early wickets and he is needed to steady the ship.
If everything goes to plan and Australia are only one or two down for 200 at the 35th over, then he is not needed at all – all the big hitters are yet to come, especially if you move Watson back to opener and put Finch at five.
We would have been better off sticking with George Bailey as captain as he is more adaptable batting at four. He could steady the ship if we lose a couple of early wickets, but is also capable of scoring at 10 an over if needed in the batting power play. If you compare Michael Clarke’s ODI and T20 strike rates with Bailey’s you will see my point. Clarke’s career strike rates are 78 and 103 respectively, compared to Bailey’s 86 and 140.
Clarke is a great Test batsman, but he is just not capable of the power hitting now required of middle-order ODI batsmen. If Clarke wants to keep playing ODI cricket he needs to put himself in the top three where a slow and steady run-a-ball 100 is OK.
My XI for the final
David Warner
Shane Watson
Steve Smith
George Bailey
Aaron Finch
Glenn Maxwell
James Faulkner
Brad Haddin
Mitchell Johnson
Mitchell Starc
Josh Hazlewood
Steven Kellett
Guest
Great to see him go out on top. Perfect timing to go out on a high.
AlanKC
Guest
Well I guess we're both happy today: Me because Clarke topscored at better than a run a ball and you because =he's retired from ODIs. Win win really!
Gumboot
Roar Rookie
"on ya bike" springs to mind. According to his wife, he's not too shabby at sex either but you'd have to ask her apparently?
Gumboot
Roar Rookie
Ponting rings a bell
Jo M
Guest
I would suggest there are quite a few in the dressing room that would go over the trenches for Clarke.
Steven Kellett
Guest
Yes I cannot argue about his ability as a tactician. Bailey is not as an astute tactician but he is a better leader. George is the type of bloke you would go over the trenches for.
Raugeee
Guest
Some fun stats from cricinfo: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/856397.html
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
McCullum won't retire. He's just started to hit his peak in the last couple of years after being pretty erratic most of his career. This is probably Vettori's final fling in ODI's though.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I think Clarke and Warner would have been a very good opening partnership, but you don't want to go into the final and decide to change everything up. Keep the team as it's been the last 2 matches.
Don Freo
Guest
Maybe the Kiwis can counter with the retirements of Vettori and McCullum announced at the toss of the coin.
Kimbeth
Roar Rookie
I can't believe you didn't mention Doherty in that list either. He is well rested and would surely RIP through the kiwis with that massive turn he gets...
Kimbeth
Roar Rookie
Just as well Clarke read your article and has retired from ODIs. You must however be very disappointed that he has denied the ever improving world class batsmen Bailey the opportunity to lead his country for the final. I mean let's face it, Clarke's captaincy has been poor leading Australia to the final against mediocre teams like India in the semi final.
Renegade
Guest
Tell me about it EJ, My confidence levels have just gone through the roof now mate..... talk about lifting the team just that little bit more for that 110% effort, as you stated - the stage is set for the boys to now deliver!
Adsa
Guest
Steven You don't mention Clarkes excellent Captaincy, in the last game his rotation of bowlers was superb to break through India's batsman.
eagleJack
Roar Guru
What better way to finish his ODI career than with a win tomorrow Rene! Stage is certainly set for the boys to deliver. Their focus will have just shifted up a notch.
Renegade
Roar Guru
Steven, You got what you wanted.... Clarke has just announced that tomorrow will be his last ODI. Game over = Australia simply will not lose now.... expect the performance of the tournament.
slurpy
Roar Rookie
I would rather have Clarke at 4 and slide around the order as to what best suits the team in any given innings than someone else who will just come in because that is there number in the line up. Clarke has been our premier batsman in both ODI and Tests for a long time, just because Steve Smith has taken that mantle off him for now doesn't mean it's time to move him on.
sheek
Roar Guru
BTW, Clarke held himself back in the game against Afghanistan, I think it was, when he needed time in the middle, & was pilloried for not batting himself. He's damned if he does & damned if he doesn't. However, we must be lacking faith in Clarke's cricket acumen if we don't think he will tinker with the batting order on the day if it requires changing to meet the circumstances.
sheek
Roar Guru
Steven, I'm with Brett here, & also Bigbaz above. And others also. Thank goodness you're not the convener of selectors. You want to change the team that has taken us to the final & completely toy with it? Drop the captain & shake the batting around?? I'm a fan of Bailey, but unfortunately, someone had to be squeezed out, & he was it. Clarke is STILL the best captain in Australia. His management of the bowling & fielding in the semi-final was first class, it could not be faulted. He got out cheaply trying to ensure the run rate didn't lose momentum, which it momentarily had. This happens. I don't know if it was Clarke or Lehmann, or in concert, who moved Smith up the order, Watson down the order & swapped Johnson & Starc in the bowling order. All the changes have worked 100%. This team is at its absolute peak, & it's a credit to the management that the team is settled & firing when it needs to. In all honesty, if NZ is to beat Australia tomorrow, most of its players will need to perform a PB. They have a mighty mountain to climb against the Aussies.
Steven Kellett
Guest
There is plenty of depth if things do not go to plan which we found out against India when Faulkner and Johnson added 36 runs off 26 balls and we bat right down to Starc who is no mug. My argument is the beauty of my team is there is no need to change the order if we get off to a good or bad start. Bailey can adapt as he can play a steady the ship role if we lose early wickets or he can accelerate the run rate if he comes in later. Clarke cannot score at more than a run a ball that he is why he quit T20 cricket.