How good is Michael Clarke compared to past generations?

[Little Punter]

I only started to be interested in cricket around 2006-07 so I have missed out on watching the Australian greats of the past like S. Waugh, A. Border, G. Chappell, The Don and I missed out on the best of Ponting. The only outstanding Australian batsmen I have watched is Michael Clarke. I am wondering where he stands among the players I have already mentioned as well as the rest of them, in your opinions. Statistically he is right up there but numbers aren't everything. Where would he sit among these players?

 

[Left_Hander]

Clarke is a good cricketer no doubt, but his last few years has seen him go to another level. I've been following cricket since around the 2001/02 Australian summer when I was 8/9. My memory of Steve Waugh isn't great bar that SCG hundred and his final Test innings.

The best Australian batsmen since I've been following cricket, in my opinion are

Ponting
Hussey
Clarke

Hayden and Langer are up there, but because they are openers I'd put them in a different category. They'd probably both be better than Clarke if you factor that in.

One thing Clarke will have on his side is the fact that he is almost a one man batting line up. Sure at the moment he's got some good support but if that support doesn't fire, then the team really suffers. That's something which I believe, made people think Lara was such a great player. Not to say he wasn't good, just he didn't have that much quality around him.

I've posted a lot of waffle, someone with more knowledge will post something far more helpful to you soon probably

 

[Owzat]

Pah, the aussies of the 90s and early 00s were just lucky, batsmen included.................................

 

[phil1987]

I only started to be interested in cricket around 2006-07 so I have missed out on watching the Australian greats of the past like S. Waugh, A. Border, G. Chappell, The Don and I missed out on the best of Ponting. The only outstanding Australian batsmen I have watched is Michael Clarke. I am wondering where he stands among the players I have already mentioned as well as the rest of them, in your opinions. Statistically he is right up there but numbers aren't everything. Where would he sit among these players?

Stats wise he is right up there and stylistically too but until 2 years ago Clarke was fairly susceptible on decent bowling wickets and a lot of his big tons he made last summer were on some of the flattest pitches we have seen in Australia but the fact that he plays spin so well makes up for that and justifies him as a world class player.

The thing with Border and Waugh, even Ponting to an extent (his 156 in the 2005 ashes 3rd test to save the test match is one of the best 100s i have ever seen) those guys could really dig deep on hard batting wickets especially Border. Making 100's on green tops is a true reflection of how great a batsman is.

I would rather Waugh or Border over Clarke unless i am in the sub continent on a dust bowl vs spin.

Only guy i have ever seen play spin better in the modern era than Clarke is Lara.

 

[cricket_icon]

I would rather Waugh or Border over Clarke unless i am in the sub continent on a dust bowl vs spin.

Only guy i have ever seen play spin better in the modern era than Clarke is Lara.

That's a bit of an hyperbole is it not? Tendulkar and Younis Khan are both miles better at playing spin. Yes, for a non-subcontinental player, Clarke is exceptional at playing spin.

To answer the TS question, Clarke is a terrific batsman, one of the leading lights for Australia in recent years and over the last 18-24 months he has taken his batting to a different level but he isn't a true great like Ponting, Border or Bradman. Just below that level of being truly elite.

In my opinion a bit like Inzamam when compared to Ponting, Lara and Tendulkar, if you get what I'm trying to say. Clarke isn't even the best bat of his era, with KP, Amla, Smith, Cook over taking him in that regard.

 

[sifter132]

^In the new era (ie. after Lara, Ponting, Tendulkar), the only guy I'd rate above Clarke is Sangakkara. If it's stats you use, all others are at least similar in stats eg. Clarke and Amla similar average, he's better than KP, Smith or Cook. Hussey and De Villiers too. I can't find anyone in that group that's clearly better than Clarke in my view. Of course they are all pretty close

From an Aussie view, he's still behind Ponting, and probably Steve Waugh in this modern age. Think he's going past Hussey though, and Clarke vs Matt Hayden is a good argument.

As for his play against spin, I'm not sure it's 100% accurate either. Sometimes Clarke gets carried away and runs past one to get stumped or gets too confident and that gets him out vs spin, a bit like Sehwag or Gambhir tend to do. I think the plaudits are more about his method rather than his results, although those are pretty good too. He plays spin like it SHOULD be played, with quick feet.

 

[cricket_icon]

It's not the stats alone that should define how good a player is. In my opinion KP is better because he is a go getter, willing to take risks, play shots never played before and really push the bowlers from the first ball. I imagine it in this way, if I was a bowler, who would I like to ball to? KP or Clarke, the answer is and always will be KP.

Having said that, I don't think Clarke is too far behind KP or Amla. He is a well rounded batsman though and if it wasn't for him the Aussie batting line up would be laughable.