When Ricky Ponting retired from international T20s, I remember being suprisingly unconcerned, but now I realise how much we could use him at number 3 instead of Michael Clarke. Averaging 29 at 133 from 17 games, I believe Australia's T20 batting line up would be utterly devastating if our test and ODI captain were still playing. Further, I believe Michael Clarke was only retained during Cricket Australia's massive culling of the 'old' T20 team because he was vice-captain, coupled with the fact he carries a strong 'golden boy' image in Australia.
During the Australia v Sri Lanka super eights game, I noticed one of the commentators claiming the only 'untested, unproven' facet of the Aussie team was the young leg spinner, Steven Smith (who, by the way, went on to take 2-12 off 4 overs). I disagree. I believe our current number 3 is the biggest concern of the Australian team. Bar the fantastic 67 he scored against New Zealand in the tied match earlier this year, I really have not seen him play an innings which advances the team cause, and his statistics support my point. In 28 matches Clarke has managed 377 runs at an average of just over 22, but more importantly, a strike rate of 104.
This compares poorly with other number 3s around the world, such as KP (averaging 36 at a strike-rate of 140), Kumar Sangakkara (31 at 125) and Suresh Raina (25 at 133).
Now I have heard and agree with the argument that a number 3, even in T20, should be expert at steadying the ship if an early wicket or two is lost, but they also need to be able to play the more attacking role if the openers get off to a good start, or even the counter-attacking role to shift the momentum after a poor one. Clarke, evidently, cannot perform either of these roles. Ponting on the other hand, certainly can.
I love Michael Clarke. As a test and ODI middle order batsman for Australia I think he is the future, and possibly even the present. But as a T20 number 3, he does not have the brutality or the inventiveness required to make the cut. Yes he can chip in an over or two, yes he can field (my goodness he can field), but the fact is he is there as a batsman, and this is the role he is least adept at for the format. I am not sure who I would choose to replace him from the current pool of selectable players, but I can think of one man who I would love to see come out of 'retirement' and fill the gap. His surname starts with P, and ends in onting.
He's a better and more aggressive captain than Punter ever was.
ReplyDeleteIt is a real dilemmna as his willingness to shuffle the order for circumstances speaks well of his ego.
His form in this tournament has been poor, but that is one of the reasons why we have scored so many runs.
I agree regarding the captaincy as well as the willingness to shuffle down the order, but imagine the batting line up with Ricky or Brad Hodge for example at 3.
ReplyDeleteWith such a deep, strong batting order (with Steven Smith and Mitch Johnson at 8 and 9), it is a waste of balls for our number 3 to be scoring 22 off 23 in an average innings. As you said Lou, the fact he isn't scoring many is one reason our other batsman have gotten the chance to play a real T20 innings.
As an unashamed cricket traditionalist whose greatest thrill in the short history of T20 has been the honour of watching Warney roll the arm over for an indistinguishable Indian side, I feel the experience that Clarke gains from captaining the side far outweighs wasted balls and even a few T20 trophies. The confidence that Pup will have taking over the Test captaincy after this high pressure internship will show, I'm sure, with immediate success in the true and far more important form of the game.
ReplyDelete