Michael Clarke or Kevin Pietersen - Who would you take?

[Hasan123]

2 of the best batsmen in the modern era. Both were brilliant vs spin and both played match winning knocks for there teams.

Who would you say is the better batsmen out of the 2?

Personally think it's a close contest.

 

[marlonbrowndo]

In T20s there is no contest. Pietersen easily.

In both Tests and ODIs, if I had a weaker batting lineup I would take Clarke otherwise I would take Pietersen

 

[Slog]

Id take Pietersen any format

i never watched Viv live but if there ever was a batsman who bullied bowlers its him

 

[Arham_PakFan]

KP in LOI's,Clarke in tests.

KP was an impact player.

 

[Chief Destroyer]

KP any format.

 

[Mobashir]

Clarke was brilliant but KP was better in every format.

Clarke was a superior leader tough.

 

[James]

If the score was 250/2 I would take Clarke. He was very good at grinding down an opposition and coolly batting them out of the game with a massive bludgeoned knock.

If the score was 12/2 however it would be Pietersen. He tended to save his best performances for the more hopeless scenarios.

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

Kp.

 

[Ab Fan]

KP quite easily.

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

KP in all formats. An impact player, can change a game in a very little time.

 

[Square Drive]

KP.

Was one helluva batsman and one of my favourites growing up.

Would've been a top 5 batsman currently, if he was still playing.

 

[Timewaster]

Kp especially in test, because Clark could score fast if he was in and was a stroke maker, but Pieterson could literally walk down the pitch and slog the fast bowlers for 6 and get away with it, which only a select few have done in Tests. If he played more selfish, he could of average 55+ in tests

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Clarke in Tests. Clarke in ODi's. I'd only take KP in T20's maybe. In tests, Clarke scored heavily against the best attack of his time - a whopping 67 average KP was good but not that good. Average of 45. KP also played ODI's at a time when England barely played ODI's compared to OZ/IND/PAK/SL. Much less workload. Clarke only reduced the number of games he played when his back problems worsened. So i'd take Clarke by a bit. T20's - hands down KP. Clarke simply was not good enough in T20's

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

If we are considering peak form, 2012 Clarke beats any version of KP easily.

 

[Arsalan Pro]

Kevin Pietersen easily.

 

[Ozymandiasza]

Clarke in tests. Overall I'd go with KP though.

 

[Khaseer]

Clarke. Both are around the same level but in Clarke you get a more reliable batsman and a good captain as well.

 

[dauntless]

KP easily, he was so destructive and wonderful to watch.

 

[ahmedwaqas92]

As much as I love Clarke (the player) I just have to go with KP, a true/ genuine impact player.

 

[Specialisttailender]

Two of the worst commentators to listen to. I can understand why no English player liked KP.

 

[Bilal7]

Clarke was a bit of a HTB and not as good against spin as OP makes him out to be. Pietersen was inconsistent and had his own flaws but he was the superior batsman.

 

[shaz619]

KP any day of the week and twice during crunch games. Just on another level to Clarke, he was so clutch and played some unreal knocks againsh high calibre attacks including one of the best ever

 

[Bhaijaan]

KP was a talent of a higher tier i believe. He could really hurt you, had swagger, was usually at his best in adversity which is what you expect from greats. Taking nothing away from Clarke who was himself a great talent, one of the good ones of his era but was a tier below KP for sure.

 

[Mainul]

Clark

 

[yasir]

KP in all formats. If there was a batsman who bats like VIV it was him. His 2005 Ashes(One of the best Ashes or modern time) and then beating indian in India in 2012, then in WT20 bulling all pace Auses Attack were testimony of his Stature!!

 

[Gabbar Singh]

Kp.

 

[Mamoon]

If I want to win a match = Pietersen

If I want to win series = Clarke

 

[The_Odd_One]

KP easily in all formats

Clarke never had to face his own bowlers.

 

[Gilly]

Clarke was a better match winner than Pietersen, Clarke scored 17 hundreds in matches won and Pietersen scored 11 hundreds in winning matches.

 

[Gilly]

KP easily in all formats

Clarke never had to face his own bowlers.

News flash::: no batsmen have to face their own bowlers in test matches.

 

[Justcrazy]

KP without any shade of doubts .

He was once in a generation player.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Clarke played in an ATG team almost his entire career. You will win more matches when you play with Ponting, Hayden, Gilchrist, Warne, and McGrath.

 

[The_Odd_One]

News flash::: no batsmen have to face their own bowlers in test matches.

That's an advantage that Australian and SA batsmen have mostly enjoyed.

 

[Hasan123]

[MENTION=97523]Buffet[/MENTION]

 

[Convict]

KP easily in all formats

Clarke never had to face his own bowlers.

For most of his career Clarke's bowler was Peter Siddle.

 

[Convict]

Clarke played in an ATG team almost his entire career. You will win more matches when you play with Ponting, Hayden, Gilchrist, Warne, and McGrath.

Warne and McGrath retired about two years after Clarke made his debut. Gilchrist a year later. Hayden another year but was carried for the last year of his career.
Ponting played on about four years too many.

Clarke's actual regular teammates were Siddle, Watson and Haddin with extensive stints from players like Bollinger, Cowan, Hughes, Shaun Marsh, Hilfenhaus and co.

There is a reason why KP's England beat Australia in 2009, 2010/11 and 2013.

 

[ads101]

KP but post 2010 Clarke was the superior batsman. Pietersen just had a really good first half of his career.

 

[Haz95]

Both were pretty inconsistent which stopped them hitting ATG level. Between the two I'd say they're equal. I'd expect KP destroy the strongest bowling attacks while when Clarke he scored, scored big and made sure the match was won. Also had to play in a poor line up for the latter half of his career and was definitely more of a fighter (who had to regularly fight with a bad back).

I'd rate Clarke higher if he was more consistent but KPs dismantling of the most dangerous bowlers of his era (Steyn, Ashwin, Warne, McGrath) makes him take it for me by a slight whisker. On song he was capable of feats only Lara/Sachin level batsman could achieve.

 

[Hermoine Green]

KP anywhere any time in any format.

 

[shariqnoor]

If I want to win a match = Pietersen

If I want to win series = Clarke

Really?

Whenever Australia or England have won away series, this is the record of Clarke and KP

Clarke: 1500 runs at an average of 40.5
KP: 1207 runs at an average of 54.8

KP has contributed more to England series wins away from home than Clarke has.

 

[Ab Fan]

Not much to separate between them.

KP was a much better batsmen but Clarke did much more to Australia than KP did to England.

Both are at the same tier nevertheless.

 

[James]

Pietersen from 2005 through to 2008 was playing at close to an ATG standard, but from 2009 onwards his career was merely good, so ended up as a very good batsman. No doubt more naturally talented than Michael Clarke, but only results matter in the end, so overall they are about on par.

 

[Last Monetarist]

Pietersen. The lad ruined his legacy but that's not to detract from the fact that he was a once in a generation cricketer. Clarke was very good too, but he couldn't change the match during the course of a session like Pietersen.