Can someone set me straight here?

I've got a problem with australia's batting order for ODIs. Not a huge problem, as you can imagine, it's not keeping me awake at night this summer that's for sure.
But I don't understand why you'd have someone like michael clark at 4 and someone like cameron white at 7.

Now don't get me wrong, I understand clark is a better player, but I've noticed he's a really slow scorer.
He's a good safe batsmen. Meawhile cameron white either scores a 6 every ball or he's out for nothing off hardly any balls.
Wouldn't he make a perfect opening batsmen?
If he doesn't get out, the team will score the maximum runs it could have, if he gets out first ball, who cares? he's out of the way.
Clark is a good option to have later down the line for "in case" all the big hitters get out for next to nothing.
He can gradually tally up a somewhat respectable score for the team as a last resort.
I feel the same way about england, bell is like clark and pietersen is like cameron white (basically, obviously different techniques etc, but run wise), one thing I'd definately do if I was managing england was have pietersen out there first.
So it's a general batting order question.

I'm constantly wishing bell or clark would get out of the way so their team could start scoring at a faster rate.
When clark had that "man of the match performance" recently I was just wishing he'd get out, he seemed to be hurting australia to me by batting that early in the lineup. At one stage he had 8 runs from 38 balls or something.
I know white came in and got out for 5 in as many minutes, but I don't think that hurts my theory, it wouldn't have mattered if he got his 5 before clark had a bat.
It would have mattered if he came in and ran out of overs while hitting sixes off every second ball, after clark had drained the game of balls, scoring a single run off every 6th or 7th one.
It would have meant we could have got a way way higher score if white came in before clark.

I don't want clark off the team ofcourse, I just think players like bell and clark should be "insurance" you save for the end.
Is there some reason I can't see as to why it's not always like this?
Why have cameron white at 7? If he's good at anything, it's smashing the crap out of the ball, and he'd undoubtedly function better without too much pressure at this stage in his career. Throw him in first, he's either going to score a century in an extremely short and efficient length of time, or he'll be out from swinging when he shouldn't have, not carefully going about getting a run or 2 every over (really wasting the potential of overs).
That's ideal for an opening/top order batsmen, in ODIs at least.
These careful safe players would be much better lower down the order, as a plan b, after the explosive attack has failed to demolish your opposition.

My batting order for australia would be:
1. Gilchrist
2. White
3. Symonds
4. Hayden
5. Ponting
6. Hussey
7. Clark
... bowlers blah blah

Ponting can score big so why move him from 3 you ask? Well he's also fairly reliable and clutch, as a captain he should want to be in that position to oversee how things go and then be the guy to react accordingly or save the game if things don't go to plan. Hussey and clark are proven game savers.
Gilchrist, white, symonds and hayden are somewhat hot and cold, but when they're hot they get huge totals fast, so they should be "plan a".

It seems like respected players are being "rewarded" by being put high on the order, and rookie, uncemented players like white can't have the honours.
Despite how illogical this is strategy wise in light of how they play.
Does anyone agree?

If not, what am I missing?

Your missing the fact that Michael Clarke has one of the best strike rates in ODI cricket history: he's not matching the pinch hitters like Jayasuria or Gilchrist or the tail-end sloggers like Symonds... but 81.81 is way above many all-time greats... and it's actually better than Ponting!

Clarke is the perfect no 4: he can score a century at over 4 an over by playing low-risk shots that rotate the strike: he's in the tradition of all the best ODI batsmen and is the perfect man for the middle overs of a match.

Well I just haven't seen the game where the benefits were apparent I suppose. Whenever he's out there it seems like it would be better if symonds or white or hussey were ahead of him.

Clarke didn't get in the way today against NZ, he seemed to be playing riskier shots and more aggressively like he read my post (joke) before getting out quickly, but look at cameron white at the tail end. He was wasted. He was settling in to smash boundaries at will when suddenly the 50 overs are up.
I don't see the point in having that kind of player at number 7, IF he's going to be on the side, he might as well be in the top 4.
What would be the problem with having clarke at 7?

Hypothetically, who do you think would have a higher score if they opened and somehow stayed in for 50 overs?
Clarke or white?
Keeping in mind whether or not they are likely to stay in 50 overs is not the issue, it's a given in this hypothetical scenario that they do.
I think it's quite obviously going to be white.
White probably over anyone else in the side barring perhaps gilchrist.

To me it just seems logical then that white and gilchrist should open, with symonds at number 3, if all goes to plan they'll stay in for a long time and make the most out of the overs, if they don't, no problem, we still have solid reliable types like clarke down the bottom end to pick up the slack.

As it stands, the problem is clarke is liable to sit at the crease as the overs tick away hitting the odd single here and there, by the time symonds and white come on they might be low on overs so even if they're smashing it we'll just run out of time before we get a big score.
If clarke managed to stay in today I doubt we would have scored 344.
And that's the other thing, if Clarke has an off day and gets out off one of his first balls we're left with guys who are riskier to be out for next to nothing when we could really use the reliable clutch performer type of player.
I'm not trying to insult ponting and hussy and clarke by suggesting they should be 5, 6, 7.
I think they're important positions which need a certain type of player, and I think cameron white isn't it, or certainly hasn't shown himself to be yet.
I see the likes of ponting, clarke and hussy as guys who can see what the team needs and adapt accordingly, and pull it all out when it's needed.
White, symonds, gilchrist- when they're firing, they're really really firing.
So plan A should always be to send these types of players out first, they should even be instructed to play aggressively, and ideally they score the most runs that is humanly possible in 50 overs. Plan B, for when plan A fails, is send out the pontings, clarkes and husseys and tell them to play smart and try to last the 50 overs.
I think it comes naturally to these guys to raise the bar when they have to, and it comes naturally to white, gilchrist and symonds to murder the ball when they're comfortable and having fun trying to set a big score.
I can't see how my proposed batting order isn't better in light of this.

I didn't realise Clarke had such a decent strike rate to be honest, but still, even if it's one decimal point lower than symonds', why does he go out before him?

I'm not following you on why someone who plays low-risk shots that rotate the strike is ideal for the four spot, as opposed to someone who slogs fours and sixes at will (even with the risks).
Why it isn't a better last resort insurance to fall back on low risk batsmen after the sloggers have tried to get a massive score but failed. Then you rely on the low risk batsmen to get a reasonable score.
You'd rather have the massive score, but if that doesn't work out you resort to a reasonable score. Makes sense doesn't it? Really, does it? t seems to.

So the batting order should directly reflect massive score potential. Massive score per ball potential. Even if your spin bowler who is out for a golden duck 95% of the time, if the other 5% of the time is consecutive fours and sixes, ball after ball, then throw him in early. See if it's that 5 %, and if not, get him out of the way early so you're not relying on him in the dire late stages.
Win win.

This just seems so straight forward to me, I doubt I know better than whoever's been arranging batting orders since the dawn of time though, so I suppose I'm just failing to see the logic in it?

But I do also wonder whether there is some illogical tradition of rewarding solid sporting players with high spots on the batting order, even though if you were to be coldly strategic, you'd invariably send these players to the crease after the sloggers.

Not even the best batsmen in history get "in" consistently: Brian Lara is one of the best in the history of the game and not even he passes 30 in much more than 4 innings out fo 9... and I suspect most top players fall somewhere nearer 4 in 10.

In terms of making a big impact.. even Jayasuria and Gilchrist have struggled to get past 50 in more than 1 in 4 games.... and I suspect most (like Sehwag, Symonds and Flintoff) struggle to manage a big impact in more than 1 game in 5.

Michael Clarke plays lower risk shots and looks to score off a higher proportion of delivieries: by cutting out the dot balls he not only manages a better strike rate than Chris Gayle, Ricky Ponting, Brian Lara and co... he posts the 8th highest batting average of all time (putting him in the company of greats like Kaheer Abbas and fractionally ABOVE Tendulkar).

Now the interesting bit: Clarke gets starts (30+) in more than half his innings (54%). He gets to 50 in MORE than 1 game in 4 (27%). It's this consistency that merits the no 4 spot.

On the broader theme... nudging and nurdling from the end of the power-plays until the 40th over has ALWAYS struck me as the way to go in ODIs: once the field goes back there's a single available off nearly every ball if you're good enough to find the gaps... and as such players don't take big risks anyway.. they can generally deliver a top strike rate in situations where the clatter of wickets the other end might oblige a big hitter to reign in his strokeplay.

Put it this way... If you had a stack of clones of Cameron White playing... the chances are that in 1 game in 3 or so... opponents would at some stage have the side becalmed as the side tried to halt the steady fall of wickets and found that without big hitting... they couldn't score. Sure, in one game in 3 they might post a HUGE total.... but winning tournaments is about posting competitive totals in every game not managing a mix of high and low scores!

Scoring quickly in ODI's is not all about hitting 4's and 6's. Its about knocking the ball about, rotating the strike and constantly making the bowlers adjust their lines and lengths.

Thats why two of the best one days bats IMO are Bevan and Fairbrother, they always seemed to get runs and at a good rate, without smashing too many 4's or 6's

This is where England are going wrong at the moment we are either blocking everything or throwing the bat at everything. If the batters knock the ball around you can score at 5 an over without too much risk and as soon as a bad ball comes along, 4 more....

__________________
Mark.

I think the point about playing the big hitters in the lower-middle order (behind the nudgers and nurdlers) is that they end up coming to the crease knowing what they are licensed to do: if the nudgers and nurdlers have done their job and the platform is in place they know they have a license to slog good balls... whereas if the top order has failed they know they have to wait for the bad ball (and ideally play shots along the ground rather than going over the top).

I agree with you though: Bevan (batting average of 53.58) is arguably the best ODI batsmen of all time... and he scored barely 1 in 4 of his runs through boundaries. Mark Waugh and Damien Martyn have perhaps been Australias other two great ODI batsmen for the core overs of a match... and both scored just 1 in 3 of their runs through boundaries. Hooper was a superb ODi batsman and worked much the same way. Batting at 6, Johnty Rhodes managed a strike rate of over 80 through his scurrying between the wickets: just 3 in every 10 of his runs came through boundaries.

ps. Shahid Afridi has scored two out of every three of his runs through boundaries. I calculate that he's faced about 4535 deliveries.... and off 3859 (85%) of those he's scored... 1742 runs.. suggesting that he returns a dot ball for well over half (and probably near three-quarters) of the deliveries he faces! No wonder his average is just 22.91!

Thats the problem with our batters at the moment, trying to hit fours off everything. They are playing ****** or bust and keep coming up bust! Granted, I think you should have one opener with licence to be agressive from the off (in our case Loye).

The annoying thing is Bell and Colly should be good at working the ball around but even they are struggling to do that.

__________________
Mark.

In fairness.. Bell's been working the ball around very nicely... but in the first few games his running was hesitant and nervy, the burden of carrying his side clearly telling as much as the ferocity of the Aussie fielding. One commentator noted he was playing plenty of shots on which Hayden would have run... but ball watching rather than committing himself.

All concerned seemed agreed that this was NOT the case in his most recent innings: virtually every commentator and summariser talked of far more positive running turning the pressure back on the fielders rather than allowing the fielders to build the pressure on England.

Bell's not been batting badly.. we've just been witnessing his lack of experience: the kid is still just 24 with barely 30 ODIs to his name!