Print

[ProCricketer1982]

Shouldn't he be batting higher than 5 though? Your best batsmen should be 3 or 4 in a side? While it's difficult to argue with is recent average, as captain he should shoulder more responsibility, especially given the relative inexperience in the current top 3.

What do people think about that statement 'Your Best batsmen should be 3 or 4' ??

My personal opinion is you look at each player as a player and match them to THEIR best position. If you do that you get the best out of people. Just because 'he's' the best player doesn't mean he'd be the best at 3 or 4 as they are different positions ot what are generally required at 5.

I'd personally say 4/5 are the most important positions as these should get the bulk of any teams runs. Openers are over rated as their job is generally just to get the side going. Not bat for hour and hours (in low level 40/45/50 over cricket). 3 is an important position but I do think 4 and 5 are your main men as they should be batting for 30+ overs per game. 6 and 7 are pretty important as well in the last 10 to 15 overs of a match.

[Number4]

Shouldn't he be batting higher than 5 though? Your best batsmen should be 3 or 4 in a side? While it's difficult to argue with is recent average, as captain he should shoulder more responsibility, especially given the relative inexperience in the current top 3.

With an average of 66 as captain I'd say he is shouldering enough responsibility..

[Number4]

What do people think about that statement 'Your Best batsmen should be 3 or 4' ??

My personal opinion is you look at each player as a player and match them to THEIR best position. If you do that you get the best out of people. Just because 'he's' the best player doesn't mean he'd be the best at 3 or 4 as they are different positions ot what are generally required at 5.

I'd personally say 4/5 are the most important positions as these should get the bulk of any teams runs. Openers are over rated as their job is generally just to get the side going. Not bat for hour and hours (in low level 40/45/50 over cricket). 3 is an important position but I do think 4 and 5 are your main men as they should be batting for 30+ overs per game. 6 and 7 are pretty important as well in the last 10 to 15 overs of a match.

Most ridiculous statement I have seen on here

[The_Bird]

I wouldn't say it's proof considering he averaged 144 against SA in the last series and they certainly aren't average. You make it sound like he can only score runs against average bowlers which I am sure you never meant it like that.

In saying that the bowling attack is below par.

I'd say he would be up the next to Amla as the no1 batsman in the world at the moment

Pretty sure I called him a classy run machine.....

Apologies think we got our wires crossed I meant that any class batsman will take this average attack apart. It also highlights that the other Australian batsman bar the Portuguese Freddie Mercury didnt cash in.

I think it would be pretty stupid of me to say Clarke isn't a class act, I personally think he is better than Amla.

[Wedge2408]

Pretty sure I called him a classy run machine.....

Apologies think we got our wires crossed I meant that any class batsman will take this average attack apart. It also highlights that the other Australian batsman bar the Portuguese Freddie Mercury didnt cash in.

I think it would be pretty stupid of me to say Clarke isn't a class act, I personally think he is better than Amla.

Portuguese Freddie Mercury = Hilarious

Totally agree that Clarke should be rated ahead of Amla at the moment, if only slightly.

[Binsy]

With an average of 66 as captain I'd say he is shouldering enough responsibility..

Not disputing that. He's carrying Australian batting at the moment and with Hussey's retirement will continue to do so. But it would not be more beneficial to young batsmen coming through (Khawaja and Hughes are examples) to learn international cricket a 5 when the ball isn't as new and Clarke, as senior pro and captain, should push himself up. If you look at England's recent success stories, Strauss and Bell (and currently Root) have learnt their game at number 6 and then progressed up the order.

Can't argue too much with an average of 66, but it could be higher still if he batted at 3 and gave himself more time?

[Number4]

Just my opinion but I wouldn't move him at all.. He does a great job there, he captains the team superbly... Why change something that may or may not work

[The_Bird]

I think it would be pretty stupid of me to say Clarke isn't a class act, I personally think he is better than Amla.

I think Amla might've heard me.... He appears to be cruising to another ton!

[Number4]

I think Amla might've heard me.... He appears to be cruising to another ton!

I really enjoy watching Amla bat

[The_Bird]

On the Clarke batting higher thing, Strauss, Bell, Vaughan, Trott were all accused of scoring easy runs and then had to prove themselves higher up the order. Clarke is consistently scoring very difficult match saving runs so moving him now would be wrong in my opinion.

[ProCricketer1982]

Most ridiculous statement I have seen on here

Go on then, explain why your two openers are absolutely vital in LOW LEVEL cricket (I'm not disputing pro level stuff). Also remember to exclude the presence of overseas types who distort teams.

From my experience when I exclude the paid and overseas players most of the openers are either hitters who just go out and 'have a go' or they are blockers how if you work out quickly where they can and can't nudge runs you can block up and make them waste balls (so hurting the rest of their team). However, for some reason a lot of people seem to think openers have to bat for 20+ overs and almost have no care on their strike rates etc. If they get an average of 40 ish but with a SR of 50 to 60 then they are lauded as awesome. The fact that they will lose you more games than win you doing that as the rest have to hit out more which means it becomes more a lottery. Just an opinion but interested to hear why you think openers are vital.

Remember it's just normal low level cricket I'm talking about. Not test or pro matches as that's completely different as they have the ability to accelerate etc. Even Cook and trott can accelerate

[tim2000s]

Go on then, explain why your two openers are absolutely vital in LOW LEVEL cricket (I'm not disputing pro level stuff). Also remember to exclude the presence of overseas types who distort teams.

From my experience when I exclude the paid and overseas players most of the openers are either hitters who just go out and 'have a go' or they are blockers how if you work out quickly where they can and can't nudge runs you can block up and make them waste balls (so hurting the rest of their team). However, for some reason a lot of people seem to think openers have to bat for 20+ overs and almost have no care on their strike rates etc. If they get an average of 40 ish but with a SR of 50 to 60 then they are lauded as awesome. The fact that they will lose you more games than win you doing that as the rest have to hit out more which means it becomes more a lottery. Just an opinion but interested to hear why you think openers are vital.

Remember it's just normal low level cricket I'm talking about. Not test or pro matches as that's completely different as they have the ability to accelerate etc. Even Cook and trott can accelerate

Perhaps worth starting a topic elsewhere on whether Opener is a critical position in amateur cricket, rather than block this thread up with it...

[ProCricketer1982]

Perhaps worth starting a topic elsewhere on whether Opener is a critical position in amateur cricket, rather than block this thread up with it...

Fair one. Apologies.

[Number4]

No matter what level of cricket your 2 openers are there to do a job.

They are there to protect 3,4 & 5 from the new ball, take the shine off and negate the swing so 3,4 & 5 can come out and score as freely as possible.

And we were actually were talking about moving Clarke up the order when you made that crazy statement.

What level do you play and what position do you bat?

[petehosk]

To be fair, Clarke has to bat under a lot of pressure!
Time and time again, most of the top order are failing, leaving the responsibility of having to get runs on his shoulders! Respect to the guy! He seems to keep delivering. Ok...he should have been out on 39 or whenever that was. But he's certainly made them pay for not having DRS 

The one thing I have noticed about Cook, Amla, Clarke and others who have been on excellent form over the last year or two, is the amount of concentration they seem to possess!