Michael Clarke vs the World

[the_interloper]

Not all of us our speculating that 'he enjoyed the attention after Hughes died'.

The more extreme the conclusion, the more evidence required to support it.

You're offering an extreme conclusion, with zero evidence.

So who's to judge what's extreme and what isn't? And how much extra evidence to do I need? And as I said I have no evidence this is what I believe.

Speak for yourself. But, in light of that, maybe those assertions should be tempered.

Well I have an opinion, an assertion, a train of thought, whatever you want to call it, and I'm going to express it, that's bad luck for you.

You're offering more than an opinion. You're making a statement about Clarke's motivations following Hughes' death.

You're saying something really ugly that's not based on anything.

I didn't say anything about his motivation, i just said that I believe he enjoyed the attention. Again, you're more than welcome to have a cry if you don't agree.

 

[drummond2fevola]

It all makes sense!

I could tell because I have the same kind of headache from reading his posts.

 

[Tulip]

So who's to judge what's extreme and what isn't? And how much extra evidence to do I need? And as I said I have no evidence this is what I believe.



Well I have an opinion, an assertion, a train of thought, whatever you want to call it, and I'm going to express it, that's bad luck for you.



I didn't say anything about his motivation, i just said that I believe he enjoyed the attention. Again, you're more than welcome to have a cry if you don't agree.

Because, mate, he had lost one of his best friends and was doing his best to hold it together. Never mind whether you're right or wrong, it's just plain rude and unnecessary to accuse him of something like this.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

So who's to judge what's extreme and what isn't? And how much extra evidence to do I need? And as I said I have no evidence this is what I believe.

To suggest that Clarke 'enjoyed the attention after Hughes died' is obviously extreme.

Some evidence would be better than none.

Well I have an opinion, an assertion, a train of thought, whatever you want to call it, and I'm going to express it, that's bad luck for you.

That's fine. I'm just pointing out that it's not based on anything, which you concede.

Are you in the habit of forming opinions based on nothing?

 

[nineteen eighty]

There's a lot of discussion about Clarke the bloke but very little about Clarke the ODI cricketer and whether his form even warrants a spot in the team. He is far from a walk up start...borderline at best.

There are a lot of assumptions that he should automatically selected in the team. Maybe the selectors have seen the opportunity to move forward with the ODI team that has its best chance of winning. And that means Clarke is not in the team. A poster early in this thread put up the numbers of games played and winning %. Clarke is not even in the picture.

The ODI game has moved on. Clarke is now a good test cricketer. His last couple of years have been been average (30's average...or was it low 40's). Not sure he should be looking to make too many demands with his numbers falling the way they have been.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

There's a lot of discussion about Clarke the bloke but very little about Clarke the ODI cricketer and whether his form even warrants a spot in the team. He is far from a walk up start...borderline at best.

What do you think about Bailey's form?

 

[The_Reaper]

There's a lot of discussion about Clarke the bloke but very little about Clarke the ODI cricketer and whether his form even warrants a spot in the team. He is far from a walk up start...borderline at best.

There are a lot of assumptions that he should automatically selected in the team. Maybe the selectors have seen the opportunity to move forward with the ODI team that has its best chance of winning. And that means Clarke is not in the team. A poster early in this thread put up the numbers of games played and winning %. Clarke is not even in the picture.

The ODI game has moved on. Clarke is now a good test cricketer. His last couple of years have been been average (30's average...or was it low 40's). Not sure he should be looking to make too many demands with his numbers falling the way they have been.

Clarke is a much better batsman than Bailey.

 

[the_interloper]

To suggest that Clarke 'enjoyed the attention after Hughes died' is obviously extreme.

Some evidence would be better than none.

That's fine. I'm just pointing out that it's not based on anything, which you concede.

Are you in the habit of forming opinions based on nothing?

Get over it mate. Like all sports fans we form opinions on sportsmen based on how they come across in the media and what they say. If none of us could have an opinion without first hand knowledge we'll there'd be no point having this forum. Off you go to pull yourself over your Michael Clarke poster wearing your Cricket Australia polo and waving your boxing kangaroo flag.

 

[QAFL_Fan]

What I've never quite understood through all of this is the continual inconsistency.

So Clarke is apparently a disgrace for jumping into the commentary box during the test series, yet Shane Watson, who basically waged a one-man lobbying campaign (with the help of some sympathetic journalists) to push for his return to opener while Cowan and Rogers initially struggled, is a great bloke and universally loved?

Watson is pretty much universally hated as far as I can see.

As for the claim that he waged a one made lobby to return as opener, (while Cowan and Rogers were struggling) you are 100% incorrect on both fronts.

Watson wasn't in the test side. When asked where he would prefer to bat, he said 'opener'. Given he was opening for NSW, had held the opening spot in the test side for the previous 3 years and won back to back AB medals and a Test player of the year gong - is it really a surprise he wanted to open?

Then the likes of Hinds, Baum and Whately who all have a hard-on for Cowan because he is a nice articulate private school boy started whining that Watson said he wanted to open. No matter what his answer was, there was someone currently occupying that spot - so he was always going to be accused of coveting an incumbents spot. Whether it be opener, #3, #4, etc etc. I can imagine the outcry if he said #3 (where Marsh had just average 1.75 over a series) - "stamping on his grave!"

Then when actually selected, he said he was happy to bat anywhere and all he wants to do is play for his country.

PS: all this happened well before Rogers was re-called or even involved in international cricket again.

 

[QAFL_Fan]

Not all of us our speculating that 'he enjoyed the attention after Hughes died'.

The more extreme the conclusion, the more evidence required to support it.

You're offering an extreme conclusion, with zero evidence.

Speak for yourself. But, in light of that, maybe those assertions should be tempered.

You're offering more than an opinion. You're making a statement about Clarke's motivations following Hughes' death.

You're saying something really ugly that's not based on anything.

I believe he took advantage of an unfortunate situation.

I'd never previously seen any evidence of their apparent close friendship, Clarke had screwed him when he was a selector. Hughes was far closer to the likes of Finch, Smith, Cooper etc - and none of them felt the need to be front and centre of everything.

I don't doubt for a second that he was an emotional man mourning a friend, but I found it a little distasteful, and I felt the media adulation that followed just egged him on. Some of the stuff written by non cricket journo's trying to muscle in (like that Ant Sharwood, who milked the story daily and still does so) was deplorable. Clarke just got caught up in it.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Get over it mate. Like all sports fans we form opinions on sportsmen based on how they come across in the media and what they say.

How did you form the opinion that Clarke 'enjoyed the attention after Hughes died'?

What did he say that indicated that?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I believe he took advantage of an unfortunate situation.

As opposed to fulfilling his duties as captain at a very difficult time and being genuinely distressed by a teammate's death?

Hughes was far closer to the likes of Finch, Smith, Cooper etc - and none of them felt the need to be front and centre of everything.

Clarke is the captain. He was representing Australian cricket and the players.

I don't doubt for a second that he was an emotional man mourning a friend, but I found it a little distasteful

His emotional response to the death of his friend and teammate was distasteful?

 

[peternorth]

i felt for cooper and South Australia Cricket during that time as they were
more emphasis was on nsw sydney cricketers

 

[the_interloper]

How did you form the opinion that Clarke 'enjoyed the attention after Hughes died'?

What did he say that indicated that?

We're going around in circles here champ, it's the impression I got from the media coverage at the time, that's it.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

We're going around in circles here champ, it's the impression I got from the media coverage at the time, that's it.

So nothing specific Clarke said or did?

It was just 'the vibe' that made you think he was enjoying himself while paying tribute to his dead teammate?

That seems perfectly reasonable.

 

[MisterMarcus]

What do you think about Bailey's form?

Watson will come back in so he takes Bailey's place. Which of Smith, Maxwell or Marsh makes way for Clarke? On form, none.....

Warner
Finch
Watson
Smith
Maxwell
Mitch Marsh
Haddin
(whatever combination of bowlers you want)

 

[the_interloper]

So nothing specific Clarke said or did?

It was just 'the vibe' that made you think he was enjoying himself while paying tribute to his dead teammate?

That seems perfectly reasonable.

Cool, well I'm glad you agree then!

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Watson will come back in so he takes Bailey's place. Which of Smith, Maxwell or Marsh makes way for Clarke? On form, none.....

Well, Mitch Marsh only played the final as cover for Watson.

So actually, if Watson returns, it's him versus Marsh for that spot. That still leaves Bailey in the side but vulnerable if Clarke is fit.

But if you want to make it a choice between Clarke and Mitch Marsh – in a side where we've already got Watson and Maxwell as extra bowling options, so Marsh's bowling isn't a factor – then Clarke should get the nod every day of the week.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Cool, well I'm glad you agree then!

I've never encountered someone so willing to admit their opinion is based on nothing.

 

[the_interloper]

I've never encountered someone so willing to admit their opinion is based on nothing.

I've never encountered anyone so willing to flog a dead Sooz.

 

[QAFL_Fan]

I'd imagine Mitch Marsh will now be in the side in place of Faulkner.

I'm hearing he may not play in the WC at all (although I bet they give him longer than Pup to recover!)

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I'd imagine Mitch Marsh will now be in the side in place of Faulkner.

So 20 overs from Marsh, Watson and Maxwell?

 

[jackess]

How did you form the opinion that Clarke 'enjoyed the attention after Hughes died'?

What did he say that indicated that?

It seemed to me that he was seeking attention mainly because he was posting so often on social media. Others were able to mourn in private.

To be honest though I found a lot of the stuff afterwards a bit OTT like Warner kissing the ground when he made 63 and all the players looking up at the sky after they did someting good. One of my pet peeves is when people use a famous death by making themselves look good through posting stuff on social media or racing to be the first to post something to get likes and retweets.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

It seemed to me that he was seeking attention mainly because he was posting so often on social media. Others were able to mourn in private.

To be honest though I found a lot of the stuff afterwards a bit OTT like Warner kissing the ground when he made 63 and all the players looking up at the sky after they did someting good.

I'm inclined to give them a pass given the circumstances. Aren't you?

One of my pet peeves is when people use a famous death by making themselves look good through posting stuff on social media or racing to be the first to post something to get likes and retweets.

Sure, if it's someone they don't actually know. But these guys lost a teammate, who died while playing the game.

Can you really accuse them of 'faking it'?

 

[happy_eagle]

Either Clarke is fit and he comes in for Bailey or he doesnt play at all