Michael Clarke vs the World

[Father Jack]

It's certainly my view that, in total, they don't justify the venom directed at Clarke.

People can have whatever opinion they want. I just question whether they're based on anything.

They are, even though you don't agree with it. Accept it and lets all move on.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

They are, even though you don't agree with it.

They are because you say they are?

Wow. That's compelling.

When a poster says Clarke "enjoyed the attention when Hughes died", what's that based on?

 

[Father Jack]

They are because you say they are?

Wow. That's compelling.

When a poster says Clarke "enjoyed the attention when Hughes died", what's that based on?

It's based on everything he saw Clarke do and say in conjunction with his existing opinion of Clarke, which also was based on what he had seen Clarke do and say.

opinion
[uh-pin-yuh n]
noun
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

It's based on everything he saw Clarke do and say in conjunction with his existing opinion of Clarke, which also was based on what he had seen Clarke do and say.

So not actually based on anything.

Why don't you just admit that you couldn't defend that view?

No reasonable person could.

opinion
[uh-pin-yuh n]
noun
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

I'm asking what that opinion was based on.

 

[Father Jack]

So not actually based on anything.

Why don't you just admit that you couldn't defend that view?

I'm asking what that opinion was based on.

I'm done, you clearly can't comprehend plain English.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I'm done, you clearly can't comprehend plain English.

You painted yourself into a corner and now you want to hit the eject button.

 

[Bumpswithagrin]

They are because you say they are?

Wow. That's compelling.

When a poster says Clarke "enjoyed the attention when Hughes died", what's that based on?

It's based on their observations of his behavior at the time. I don't agree with this viewpoint but I can certainly see how someone could arrive at it. Is that so difficult to understand?

 

[ManWithNoName]

Because Taylor, Waugh and Punter never did paid endorsements

#StrayasFavouriteAir
#JohnnyWalker
#YoullFeelBetterOnSwisse

 

[Sweet Jesus]

It's based on their observations of his behavior at the time.

What does that mean?

What behaviour, specifically?

I don't agree with this viewpoint but I can certainly see how someone could arrive at it. Is that so difficult to understand?

Yes, if it's not based on anything specific he actually said or did.

Why would you draw such an extreme conclusion without any real basis?

 

[ManWithNoName]

What does that mean?

What behaviour, specifically?

Yes, if it's not based on anything specific he actually said or did.

Why would you draw such an extreme conclusion without any real basis?

You've had 65 posts in this thread and you only first posted here last Saturday.

Seriously. Let it go.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Seriously. Let it go.

Tell that to people who hate Clarke for no reason.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

What are you hoping to do here?

I'm not going to get drawn into cataloguing all the complaints against Abbott just to demonstrate that it's more than 'a vibe'.

However, one example would be Abbott promising "no new taxes" before trying to introduce a GP co-payment. Another criticism from some quarters is that Abbott has distanced himself from the scientific consensus on climate change, exemplified by his decision to shut down the climate commission and omit a science minister from his cabinet.

It's almost like you think it's impossible for someone to build an argument based on more than feelings, so asking me to do it is some fiendishly clever tactic.

That would be to his eternal credit.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

And don't give me this 'reason to believe' bullshit. Are you saying it happened or aren't you?

I'm saying it happened. Or at least, I am told it happened and I believe those who told me.

You asked for justification of a point of view. I have listed a small number. They inform my point of view on the man.

You either accept that or you don't. I truly don't care.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I'm saying it happened. Or at least, I am told it happened and I believe those who told me.

OK.

So what specifically do you claim happened regarding the 'homework' affair? What specifically did Clarke do wrong?

Bearing in mind that we already have one account on the record, which doesn't mention anything along the lines of what you're suggesting.

You asked for justification of a point of view. I have listed a small number. They inform my point of view on the man.

You either accept that or you don't.

You can either support those views or you can't.

Previously you said it was 'a vibe'. Are you now saying there's more to it than that?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Previously you said it was 'a vibe'. Are you now saying there's more to it than that?

No I didn't. Or at least I didn't say it was only a vibe.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

No I didn't. Or at least I didn't say it was only a vibe.

Which one is it, mate?

Feel free to answer the more substantive questions about the 'homework' affair while you're at it.

 

[western royboy]

OK.

So what specifically do you claim happened regarding the 'homework' affair? What specifically did Clarke do wrong?

Bearing in mind that we already have one account on the record, which doesn't mention anything along the lines of what you're suggesting.

You can either support those views or you can't.

Previously you said it was 'a vibe'. Are you now saying there's more to it than that?

As QAFL_Fan has posted somewhere, Dan Brettig's account of things is his version of what happened. I recall listening to a Cricinfo podcast that included Brydon Coverdale that went along the lines of "this is a hit on Watson". Whether you believe that or not is up to you, but using the book as evidence is no different to some of the other material on here. It has no more or less weight.

 

[Tulip]

Because Taylor, Waugh and Punter never did paid endorsements

#StrayasFavouriteAir
#JohnnyWalker
#YoullFeelBetterOnSwisse

* off mate, Clarkey's no good!

Bring back Smitty. He'd, erm, fix these, erm, problems?

 

[peternorth]

So not actually based on anything.

Why don't you just admit that you couldn't defend that view?

No reasonable person could.

I'm asking what that opinion was based on.

how do you define and prove what a reasonable person is?
is there anyone you dislike?

are there any artists, musical, that you do like?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

As QAFL_Fan has posted somewhere, Dan Brettig's account of things is his version of what happened.

That's a little bit disingenuous, particularly when you were the one who said Dan Brettig's account would be damning for Clarke. And now, because that account isn't what you wanted to hear, it's automatically compromised?

That aside, what distinguishes Brettig's account is that it is backed by detail and at least some information on the record.

Now, if you have an alternative account of what happened, similarly backed by detail and some information on the record, then by all means present it for discussion. If not, isn't it reasonable to defer to the one that is?

I mean, are you saying the account presented by Brettig is factually incorrect or a misrepresentation of what occurred?

You're a reasonable chap but this is where the rubber hits the road. You can't imply that what he's written is incomplete or inaccurate without following through and offering a specific correction.

I recall listening to a Cricinfo podcast that included Brydon Coverdale that went along the lines of "this is a hit on Watson".

OK. That would be the start of an explanation. Where's the rest of it?

Whether you believe that or not is up to you, but using the book as evidence is no different to some of the other material on here. It has no more or less weight.

What material?

That strikes me as a pretty glaring false equivalency if you're likening Brettig's account – backed by details, quotes and his experience of being around the team at the time – to some of the baseless garbage on here. Are you really telling me there is no difference?

And let's face it, had the book supported your view of Clarke, you'd have no problem 'using it as evidence'.

I mean, here you are directing people to read the excerpt about Arthur's sacking. And again when there was an excerpt that appeared to be critical of Clarke. You were pretty keen on the book at that point, weren't you? Why weren't you saying 'oh, that's just one version'?

And you've repeatedly cited Hussey's book. Here, here, here and here. Surely that's 'just one version' as well? So you're not above 'using a book as evidence' when it suits you, are you? Can't have it both ways, champ.

The only reason you're dismissing Brettig's reporting in this instance is because it doesn't damn Clarke to your satisfaction.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

how do you define and prove what a reasonable person is?

I'm not going to get into endless definitional arguments with you.

If you're telling me, in all honesty, that you don't know the difference between a rationale argument that's based on facts and an emotional argument that isn't, then I'm happy to leave it at that.

is there anyone you dislike?

Yes.

are there any artists, musical, that you do like?

Yes.

 

[peternorth]

have you considered contacting those in the media who have criticised or written accounts of what have or have not happened or occurred in relation to directly or indirectly to clarke?

 

[peternorth]

I'm not going to get into endless definitional arguments with you.

Yes.

Yes.

so you do agree that people will disagree with you like or your most loved musical artist

 

[Sweet Jesus]

have you considered contacting those in the media who have criticised or written accounts of what have or have not happened or occurred in relation to directly or indirectly to clarke?

so you do agree that people will disagree with you like or your most loved musical artist

Come again?

 

[Nevernude]

I have been reading this thread for a while and honestly it has got to Quixotic levels. It is simply not possible to provide proof as to why someone is not a good bloke. Clarke could king hit me in a pub and there would still be those that jump to his defence.

In terms of his 'toxic' leadership, I don't think it is necessary to go any further than the gone fishing event. It is undeniably true that after monkeygate Andrew Symonds felt betrayed by CA (every team mate would have been aware of that). It is also absolute fact that symonds' and clarke's friendship had disintegrated by that point. It is also true that the Darwin matches against Bangladesh were clarke's first opportunity to sell himself as a leader of the Australian cricket team. For all of symonds' faults it is undeniably true that he was universally known as a team man. It is also well known that his psychological profile (which was a heavy emphasis of the Buchanan brand of coaching and something the Nielsen staff would have been aware of) made it clear that he was not a 'thinker' and benefitted little from team meetings.

Given symonds' emotional state there were certainly other options available to Clarke when deciding how to manage the situation. Many Australian captain's before him would have shielded a team mate from such a situation, but Clarke decided on a hard line approach that was hardly consistent with the full array of complicated factors involved in symonds' behaviour. clarke's decision was at best ill-advised ( especially since it pre-empted the end of symonds career), and at worst was a callous, politically expedient decision that would have made Machiavelli proud. In one fell swoop he removed from the team a man that he had an awkward personal history with as well as positioning himself as a strong leader. It was the Australian cricket equivalent of turning back the boats. In actuality it did nothing beneficial but it made him look like a leader.

This, of course, doesn't prove that Clarke is a horrible human being or a manipulative tosser, but it does highlight what many in this thread have been eluding to: he has shown a propensity to put image and brand before team and is at best a poor reader of personality and incapable of motivating team mates that do not conform to his mould. He is, essentially, the very kind of man that would fit well into the ECB management structure. From my perspective that makes him a very poor leader no matter how much people proclaim his supposed superior tactical acumen.