In amongst the wailing and gnashing of teeth that followed Australia's capitulation in Hyderabad a consensus emerged: there needed to be changes to the team and that Michael Clarke needed to bat at number four, presumably on the basis that he's the captain, dammit.
The first of these is now out of the window, although we may be treated to the sight of Steve Smith batting at number five in a test match, and the second, although the absence of Shane Watson and Usman Khawaja makes it inevitable, is difficult to justify. The general thought seems to be that as Michael Clarke is the best batsman in the side then he should take the responsibility and bat in the top four, but this ignores the simple truth that Michael Clarke is one of the best batsmen in the world only when he bats at five.
In his book about the 2005 Ashes, Duncan Fletcher discusses the differing demands of batting at four and five at some length, explaining that the the differing requirements of the roles meant that he saw Graham Thorpe and Kevin Pietersen as direct rivals for selection because, at that stage in their respective careers, neither was suitably equipped for the demands of batting at four. In the case of Michael Clarke it is certainly arguable that he has never been adequately equipped for batting anywhere other than at five.
A quick glance at the statistics supports that assertion. Clarke has played the vast majority of his tests at five and averages 63.95 with twenty centuries, whereas in his nineteen tests at four he averages 22.20 with a highest score of eighty. Of course these may be skewed by the fact that his recent tremendous run of form has come batting at number five, but either way there is a startling difference.
The question, then, is this: what serves Australia better, Clarke doing what is expected of him and batting in a position that he doesn't like and which doesn't suit him. or Clarke remaining at five and scoring heavily? Of course it isn't as simple as this and Clarke's recent dazzling form may translate to batting further up the order, but when your team is struggling for runs it seems a bit daft to disrupt the one bit of it that is functioning properly simply to appease those who think that he should be taking more responsibility. This is a sub-plot to watch with interest over the coming months.
The first of these is now out of the window, although we may be treated to the sight of Steve Smith batting at number five in a test match, and the second, although the absence of Shane Watson and Usman Khawaja makes it inevitable, is difficult to justify. The general thought seems to be that as Michael Clarke is the best batsman in the side then he should take the responsibility and bat in the top four, but this ignores the simple truth that Michael Clarke is one of the best batsmen in the world only when he bats at five.
In his book about the 2005 Ashes, Duncan Fletcher discusses the differing demands of batting at four and five at some length, explaining that the the differing requirements of the roles meant that he saw Graham Thorpe and Kevin Pietersen as direct rivals for selection because, at that stage in their respective careers, neither was suitably equipped for the demands of batting at four. In the case of Michael Clarke it is certainly arguable that he has never been adequately equipped for batting anywhere other than at five.
A quick glance at the statistics supports that assertion. Clarke has played the vast majority of his tests at five and averages 63.95 with twenty centuries, whereas in his nineteen tests at four he averages 22.20 with a highest score of eighty. Of course these may be skewed by the fact that his recent tremendous run of form has come batting at number five, but either way there is a startling difference.
The question, then, is this: what serves Australia better, Clarke doing what is expected of him and batting in a position that he doesn't like and which doesn't suit him. or Clarke remaining at five and scoring heavily? Of course it isn't as simple as this and Clarke's recent dazzling form may translate to batting further up the order, but when your team is struggling for runs it seems a bit daft to disrupt the one bit of it that is functioning properly simply to appease those who think that he should be taking more responsibility. This is a sub-plot to watch with interest over the coming months.
No comments:
Post a Comment