four_or_six
Well-known member
That's what I'm saying. He was unbelievable last year, but this year he was good but not that good. I'm not saying he's bad, just that he needed a better summer than that to force his way in.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Australia name 30-man WC squad
- Thread starter James
- Start date
aussie
Well-known member
Shows how strong Australia still are ATM, since i don't think one can say that any of the World Cup winning top 7 can't smash it when its required.
four_or_six
Well-known member
Yeah, I think they've all proved that. Plus Hodge too for that matter.
NUFAN
Y no Afghanistan flag
Because Michael Clarke is such a terrible player.. 
You definately don't get the Australian philosophy, we are picking our best cricketers over 1 day and are hoping that the skill and experience of playing International cricket will be enough to get us as far in the tournament as possible.
open365
Well-known member
I'm not saying Clarke is a terrible player, but how on earth can you not pick Cameron White?
This guys record is simply immense, imo he's the best Twenty20 batsman in the game.
I know you'll argue that he's not good enough for international cricket, but i think in Twenty20 that's a moot arguement considering White's record.
He averages 50 with a SR of 164 from 23 domestic matches including the highest ever score and in his one twenty20 international appearence he scored 40* from 20 balls.
Michael Clarke while being a great one day player has never evern scored a Twnety20 fifty despite playing 11 matches, 5 of which were internationals in which he averages a meagre 12.
I just cannot see how White was not the first name down on the team sheet.
This guys record is simply immense, imo he's the best Twenty20 batsman in the game.
I know you'll argue that he's not good enough for international cricket, but i think in Twenty20 that's a moot arguement considering White's record.
He averages 50 with a SR of 164 from 23 domestic matches including the highest ever score and in his one twenty20 international appearence he scored 40* from 20 balls.
Michael Clarke while being a great one day player has never evern scored a Twnety20 fifty despite playing 11 matches, 5 of which were internationals in which he averages a meagre 12.
I just cannot see how White was not the first name down on the team sheet.
Mister Wright
Well-known member
I don't necessarily agree, as I think a specialist 20/20 side should be selected. However, out of the guys selected, how many of them really aren't good enough to be in the 20/20 side? None that I can think of, certainly not poor enough to include White ahead of. Clarke, maybe, but he's been established in the ODI side for a while now.
open365
Well-known member
You said it yourself, Clarke, who's record in Twenty20 is not even in the same ballpark as White's.
four_or_six
Well-known member
Clarke hasn't had the chance to play twenty20 much at all the last couple of years. I would expect his batting to hold up well.
Plus, I think his fielding is excellent and along with Symonds this will be really important for Australia. Add to that his bowling, which is likely to be more useful than White's, and his international experience... I'd say he's a more than fair choice.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
One could say the same thing about playing it at all.
Fiery
Banned
Why? It just means the more attacking players are selected. 20/20-hate is bollocks imo. Just enjoy it ffs. Test cricket will still be around for 100s of years.., and there's definitely a place for all 3 formats
Last edited:
four_or_six
Well-known member
It's irrelevant anyway. Every one of the eight Australian batsmen are attacking, and that includes Clarke.
open365
Well-known member
Are you saying Cameron White isn't talented?
open365
Well-known member
But just because they are thought to be attacking doesn't make them good Twenty20 players,
Batting in Twenty20 requires different skills to ODIs, just like batting in ODIs requires different abilities than batting in test matches. The gap may not be that different, but it is definitely there.
aussie
Well-known member
Your point is valid, but i think its fairly obvious that selectors worldwide even though they realize the importance of picking so called 20/20 specialist in their sides, i don't think the level of seriousness has kicked in yet. With Australia its definately not as important to them, just listen to Symonds comments the other day, so based on that even if the best 20/20 player in Australia in Cameron White is to be left out, none of the WC winning members would be left out, they would be expected to back them.
But if 20/20 does get serious in the next couple of years & i.e a person like Clarke even though very attacking doesn't click in 20/20 the push for specialist will become more relevant in future world cups & internationals.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Well Bradman was a better bowler... err, probably.