stereotype
Club Cricketer
Michael Clarke, he plays spin so much better and he has a better range of shots and he is young and will only get better, Graeme Smith I find quite dull to watch and being in a better team means nothing, absolutely nothing.
Graeme Smith or Michael Clarke?
- Thread starter aussie_ben91
- Start date
Leicester Fox
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2006
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Yes it does. It means he will find himself in much harder situations to bat in, like now for example, where he is 300 runs behind with an increidbly uphill task whilst Michael Clarke comes in the majority of the time with runs on the board and a lot less pressure. Ian Bell can score runs for fun when there's no pressure. It's a hell of a lot easier.
aussie_ben91
School Cricketer
Clarke has scored runs when the teams been in trouble. Remember his 151 against India on debut?
The thing about Smith is that he doesn't seem to have improved or evolved himself to combat his weaknesses like other great batsman of the current era have. Hence why his average has been on the decline for the last 2-3 years and why he seems to struggle against class bowlers who can move the ball off the seam or through the air.
Unlike Smith, Clarke has shown signs of maturity and improvement that will furthermore put him in better sted to have more consistant success in the future then Smith.
The thing about Smith is that he doesn't seem to have improved or evolved himself to combat his weaknesses like other great batsman of the current era have. Hence why his average has been on the decline for the last 2-3 years and why he seems to struggle against class bowlers who can move the ball off the seam or through the air.
Unlike Smith, Clarke has shown signs of maturity and improvement that will furthermore put him in better sted to have more consistant success in the future then Smith.
Leicester Fox
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2006
- Online Cricket Games Owned
I'm not saying Clarke can't do it under pressure just that he hasn't had to do it a lot compared to Smith who never has a platform where he can bat without pressure so the stats are unfair on Smith when they would appear to be about the same level in tests. Although Smith has played twice as many games in tests so he will have an advantage.
mattfb
Chairman of Selectors
He converts just under half of his fiftys into hundreds and half of his career runs are from 50's or hundreds.
Chetan0304
Chairman of Selectors
Grame Smith for me again a great captain and Batsmen is a lot better that Michael
mattfb
Chairman of Selectors
I would just like to say, I was winning 10-0 but out of the fact Ben might get upset NP thought it would be best to remove the poll and close the thread.
Nah but seriously I want that to stay open, Ben or me wont get upset if people say they hate us cus frankly I wont care and I'm sure he wont either lol.
Actually, they don'tClarke hasn't faced Warne, Lee or McGrath...
Same way Smith hasn't been facing Steyn or Ntini...
lol but they play England, India, Pakistan etc etc.
Grame Smith for me again a great captain and Batsmen is a lot better that Michael
And why do you think he is a better batsmen?
shravi
National Board President
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2005
- Profile Flag
- India
mattfb
Chairman of Selectors
Someone getting angry here
lol no it was a geniue question. I didn't mean for it to sound like I'm getting angry
South Africa
School Cricketer
Well if you look at there batting stats, Smith has a higher average and has scored more centuries. But Michael Clarke has played a few less games. I think it is way to hard to say who is a better batsmen, but If I was only able to select one of I would take Smith because it is alot harder to find a good test opener. I would also choose Smith over Clarke in Odi's and 20/20 has he is more of a powerful stroke maker and Clarke is a noodler.
