Michael Clarke vs the World

[Tex_21]

I know Katich to a degree, I doubt he'll ever spill the beans publicly, but basically Clarke ended his Test and Shield career. Andrew "Roy" Symonds is the book that Clarke will fear most if it is ever written.

Luckily for Clarke, Roy doesn't strike me as the kind of bloke who would be chomping at the bit to write a book, or have one written about himself. Wasn't there a story a while ago that for an interview about his 2003 WC hundred he had to watch the DVD, as he couldn't remember much of it?

 

[Run n Spread]

I have posted many times of walking into Kingsgrove Sports before 8am one morning and watching a kid come out of a net looking totally spent after an hour or so on the machine- in terms of individual focus - there is non better. But cricket has the added issue of players being with each other for extended periods of time and the team dynamics become an issue, harmony is important. If I was cynical you could suggest that Kharma may be starting to catch up with Clarke, given the role he played in ending 1-2 careers ahead of their time.

Why the hell was he even made captain anyway if he trod on so many people and rubbed many up the wrong way. Serious question as Australian Cricket places a lot in terms of team dynamics (partly the reason Warne was never captain to spite being tactically superior) so why Clarke? Was it a case of being the golden child for so long the admin wanted to back their man?

The article in itself was interesting. In terms of the journalist clearly been briefed off record. So Clarke doesn't get on with people and is a bit individual (no crime in that) it is one of England's problems in dealing with KP (successful management needs to deal with all personalities not just P*& off those they don't like) but when one is made captain it is asking for trouble.

Interesting thou it seems the older brigade Clarke has pissed off the most rather than the younger players under his charge. So hard to read what is what. I suspect like most massive feuds like this the truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Why the hell was he even made captain anyway if he trod on so many people and rubbed many up the wrong way. Serious question as Australian Cricket places a lot in terms of team dynamics (partly the reason Warne was never captain to spite being tactically superior) so why Clarke? Was it a case of being the golden child for so long the admin wanted to back their man?

The article in itself was interesting. In terms of the journalist clearly been briefed off record. So Clarke doesn't get on with people and is a bit individual (no crime in that) it is one of England's problems in dealing with KP (successful management needs to deal with all personalities not just P*& off those they don't like) but when one is made captain it is asking for trouble.

Interesting thou it seems the older brigade Clarke has pissed off the most rather than the younger players under his charge. So hard to read what is what. I suspect like most massive feuds like this the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Warne's issues weren't in terms of team dynamics. It was his off field stuff.

 

[Run n Spread]

Luckily for Clarke, Roy doesn't strike me as the kind of bloke who would be chomping at the bit to write a book, or have one written about himself. Wasn't there a story a while ago that for an interview about his 2003 WC hundred he had to watch the DVD, as he couldn't remember much of it?

In fairness Roy went fishing, missed a team meeting and showed up pissed to a match. Hardly can complain about being disciplined. Katich one like any fly on the wall would love to know what happened (to spite being Mr Popular he did physically assault a team mate so his hardly blameless) but doubt we ever will as no one really seems willing to spill the beans.

 

[Run n Spread]

Warne's issues weren't in terms of team dynamics. It was his off field stuff.

True but he did get on the wrong side of some key figure heads and cracked the shits in a massive way when dropped.

 

[western royboy]

Why the hell was he even made captain anyway if he trod on so many people and rubbed many up the wrong way. Serious question as Australian Cricket places a lot in terms of team dynamics (partly the reason Warne was never captain to spite being tactically superior) so why Clarke? Was it a case of being the golden child for so long the admin wanted to back their man?

The article in itself was interesting. In terms of the journalist clearly been briefed off record. So Clarke doesn't get on with people and is a bit individual (no crime in that) it is one of England's problems in dealing with KP (successful management needs to deal with all personalities not just P*& off those they don't like) but when one is made captain it is asking for trouble.

Interesting thou it seems the older brigade Clarke has pissed off the most rather than the younger players under his charge. So hard to read what is what. I suspect like most massive feuds like this the truth is somewhere in the middle.

He was anointed from a very early age and aspired to the role, even going to the extent of eliminating his sole threat to the role from the scene. People suggesting that he might come back and just play under Steve Smith as captain have no clue - it's not gonna happen.

 

[Hellgood]

I had significant dealings with Clarke, Watson, Hauritz, Johnson, SMarsh, McDonald, Klinger (and a number of other players around the 31-34 age group that went on to first class cricket and were involved in representative junior cricket)

Without doubt, Watson and Clarke were the standout cricketers in that age group by a huge margin. Probably not cooincidentally, they were also the biggest tools I came across.

There has been animosity between those 2 blokes since they were about 13, because they were always going to play test cricket. You just knew it. Watson was the more gifted of the 2 and got the jump on Clarke, often getting picked in national sides in higher age groups (playing up as they say). He then played much better first class cricket and made his national debut before Clarke, before injury struck.

Nothing would have pleased Clarke more than seeing Watson's career curtailed by injury. Just as when Clarke was given the honour of captaining the Aus U/19 side in Sri Lanka, much to the chagrin of Watson (who was playing his 3rd year in the team) and was then sacked as Captain and dropped from the side mid tour after all the players basically refused to play under him. Watson would have been overjoyed by this, but his glee shortlived when they installed Hauritz as captain instead of him.

Some of the animositiy between these guys is so ego driven and goes back 20 years. Clarke has most certainly had the last laugh, being elevated to test captain and having the career Watson only dreams of. But Watson would quietly be revelling in the troubles Clarke is having now.

On the other hand, Johnson, Hauritz and McDonald in particular - you couldn't meet nicer blokes. I imagine Mitch Johnson would be happy if he didn't have to play cricket with either Clarke or Watto after the crap he dealt with from them when he first came onto the scene 15 years back.

Forget what you see publicly, some of these blokes can't stand each other. Watson and Clarke would have zero time for each other as many people know, but Johnson would have no time for either of them either. Then you have Watson, who is very popular with the playing group outside his own immediate age group who knew him when he was a teenage a-hole and you have a potentially toxic dressing room!

Brad Haddin is pretty much the only universally like bloke in the test cricket setup, which is probably why they are so hell bent on keeping him. (Steve smith as well probably)

Cheers for the insight. I remember first hearing the Clarke/Watson rumblings back in 2006 with the sliding doors moment of Watson being ruled out of the Ashes summer which brought Clarke back into the fold. Clarke had a very successful series, cashing in by riding the crest of the wave that the entire side was enjoying at the time (to be fair he batted extremely well, but such was our dominance that summer the mental state of the Englishmen was lower than a snakes belly).

 

[The_Reaper]

Why the hell was he even made captain anyway if he trod on so many people and rubbed many up the wrong way. Serious question as Australian Cricket places a lot in terms of team dynamics (partly the reason Warne was never captain to spite being tactically superior) so why Clarke? Was it a case of being the golden child for so long the admin wanted to back their man?

The article in itself was interesting. In terms of the journalist clearly been briefed off record. So Clarke doesn't get on with people and is a bit individual (no crime in that) it is one of England's problems in dealing with KP (successful management needs to deal with all personalities not just P*& off those they don't like) but when one is made captain it is asking for trouble.

Interesting thou it seems the older brigade Clarke has pissed off the most rather than the younger players under his charge. So hard to read what is what. I suspect like most massive feuds like this the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Clarke was the only established player in the team younger than Ponting when he was anointed.

And he does have one of the best cricketing brains in Australian cricket

 

[Run n Spread]

He was anointed from a very early age and aspired to the role, even going to the extent of eliminating his sole threat to the role from the scene. People suggesting that he might come back and just play under Steve Smith as captain have no clue - it's not gonna happen.

Big call then. Very similar to KP in that while in a position of strength you could just say thanks but no thanks or like incidentally was done with Shane Watson (you're back on our terms or not at all) but can the Australian batting line up really do without him? The hierarchy may consider it a 1-1 draw with KP out then who knows?

Could call his bluff and he may respond by retiring. Really is a PR game now. And I'd actually say whoever wins will depend on the World Cup (win and it's pi** off then lose early stages and it's how can CA be so stupid and wreck less)?

 

[Hellgood]

True but he did get on the wrong side of some key figure heads and cracked the shits in a massive way when dropped.

It's really interesting to read the perspectives of guys who were around the side of that time. The team dynamic seemed really awkward with immense tension between the two best players in Warne and Waugh going into the '99 World Cup. Even as they were about to walk out onto the field in the semi final at Edgbaston, Warney was still showing his fragility with a passive insinuation that he was going to retire after the match if they lost. Reading different players accounts of the campaign, a common theme is the praise of having an experienced 'conduit' in Tom Moody whose calm head and leadership went a long way to diffusing the tension - which seems to be the exact thing we did in bringing back Brad Haddin.

 

[western royboy]

In fairness Roy went fishing, missed a team meeting and showed up pissed to a match. Hardly can complain about being disciplined. Katich one like any fly on the wall would love to know what happened (to spite being Mr Popular he did physically assault a team mate so his hardly blameless) but doubt we ever will as no one really seems willing to spill the beans.

Hussey gives a detailed account of the incident in his book. In a nutshell, Clarke had booked a bar for celebrations and wanted the song sung early, Hussey as custodian had the right to determine when that time was. Clarke didn't tell Hussey of his plans, and got Steve Bernard to act as intermediary continuo asking Hussey "when are you going to sing the song" Andrew McDonald and possibly one other we're playing there first test and Hussey thought it was important that they experience the culture properly. Katich sitting opposite Clarke has observed the goings on and given signals to Clarke to pull up, to which he was given a one fingered salute which escalated. I suggest you read the Hussey book for more on Roy and Clarke.

 

[Tex_21]

... Andrew McDonald and possibly one other ....

Doug Bollinger IIRC

 

[Belnakor]

Reading different players accounts of the campaign, a common theme is the praise of having an experienced 'conduit' in Tom Moody whose calm head and leadership went a long way to diffusing the tension - which seems to be the exact thing we did in bringing back Brad Haddin.

Very good point. If you look at Moody's record prior to getting picked, and his overall performance he didn't really justify being in the team.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Very good point. If you look at Moody's record prior to getting picked, and his overall performance he didn't really justify being in the team.

Still remember reading about Tugga trying to impose "no going out, no drinking" rules and Moody had to quietly approach him and let him know that was an awful idea.

 

[The Passenger]

Brad Haddin is pretty much the only universally like bloke in the test cricket setup, which is probably why they are so hell bent on keeping him. (Steve smith as well probably)

Had's is one of the best blokes you'll ever come across. Can vouch for this as first hand experience from when he was playing at Easts in Sydney. Would train his ass off, always was an ear for the younger guys coming through, and would have no hesitation buying people a beer in the club rooms including opposition and/or people he didn't know.

Even as he got elevated further up the ranks and his time became limited he still came back and did as much as he could for the club.

Yeah on the field he is fiery as *, and I don't always like the way he goes about it, but he rarely takes it too far unlike say Dave Warner.

But he is a completely different bloke off the field. An absolute class guy.

 

[PaddyO]

A cricket man who I respect immensely offered me this comment on MJ Clarke a few years back, "when he stops playing (cricket) he won't have a friend in the world from the game - and it won't worry him one bit"

I found it a sad but accurate observation- he has burned a lot of people on his way to the top.

Who said that?

Katich?

 

[PaddyO]

Hussey gives a detailed account of the incident in his book. In a nutshell, Clarke had booked a bar for celebrations and wanted the song sung early, Hussey as custodian had the right to determine when that time was. Clarke didn't tell Hussey of his plans, and got Steve Bernard to act as intermediary continuo asking Hussey "when are you going to sing the song" Andrew McDonald and possibly one other we're playing there first test and Hussey thought it was important that they experience the culture properly. Katich sitting opposite Clarke has observed the goings on and given signals to Clarke to pull up, to which he was given a one fingered salute which escalated. I suggest you read the Hussey book for more on Roy and Clarke.

The thing I never got about this whole incident is why didn't Clarke just piss off early? It hardly matters, all things considered.

Kato's far from faultless in all this though.

 

[western royboy]

Who said that?

Katich?

Was not Katich, just a man who has spent a lifetime around Sydney Grade and NSW Cricket.

 

[Sylvia Saint]

s**t article. Who cares if Clarke's a knob? He'll be back as soon as he's fit. His average is over 50 and his tactics have time and time again been proven to be attacking and effective.

They don't have to be best mates off the pitch, they don't even have to like each other. Just pick the best, most professional players and let their cricket do the talking. (I personally think England erred big time with the Pietersen saga and hope we don't go down the same path here.)

We won the Ashes 5-0 and beat South Africa over there with Clarke as our leader and I didn't hear anybody complaining then.

Hyperbole.

 

[carnthemlions]

For me, this raises more questions than it answers. It's pretty clear that there are plenty of people who have a certain view of Michael Clarke as a person and as a leader. Are they right? I have no idea. All we have at this stage is speculation, hearsay and rumours with the odd fact(or maybe more) mixed in. I'd probably like to see a different take on the situation, we're only getting a certain perspective here. It may well be the right one, but it's hard to judge on its own.

Let's say there's something in the article. If people at CA really are leaking against Clarke, this probably won't end well. I just can't see public opinion suddenly turning against Clarke. Someone's setting themselves up for a fall, that's for sure.
As an aside to that- I find it quite strange to see people swinging from one extreme to the other re: Clarke. After the Hughes incident, his leadership was widely praised. Now he's a poisonous figure who has to go. This doesn't apply to everyone in this thread, but don't expect your opinion to be taken seriously if you're unable to maintain anything like a balanced perspective.

Anyway, the article looks like a bit of a hatchet job to me(and a pretty poor one at that). If the issue is that Clarke is just an average bloke with a big ego, I don't care. He's a professional athlete, many of them are a bit like that. There may well be more to it, but I'm going to need a bit more than this to get me off the fence.

I had significant dealings with Clarke, Watson, Hauritz, Johnson, SMarsh, McDonald, Klinger (and a number of other players around the 31-34 age group that went on to first class cricket and were involved in representative junior cricket)

Without doubt, Watson and Clarke were the standout cricketers in that age group by a huge margin. Probably not cooincidentally, they were also the biggest tools I came across.

There has been animosity between those 2 blokes since they were about 13, because they were always going to play test cricket. You just knew it. Watson was the more gifted of the 2 and got the jump on Clarke, often getting picked in national sides in higher age groups (playing up as they say). He then played much better first class cricket and made his national debut before Clarke, before injury struck.

Nothing would have pleased Clarke more than seeing Watson's career curtailed by injury. Just as when Clarke was given the honour of captaining the Aus U/19 side in Sri Lanka, much to the chagrin of Watson (who was playing his 3rd year in the team) and was then sacked as Captain and dropped from the side mid tour after all the players basically refused to play under him. Watson would have been overjoyed by this, but his glee shortlived when they installed Hauritz as captain instead of him.

Some of the animositiy between these guys is so ego driven and goes back 20 years. Clarke has most certainly had the last laugh, being elevated to test captain and having the career Watson only dreams of. But Watson would quietly be revelling in the troubles Clarke is having now.

On the other hand, Johnson, Hauritz and McDonald in particular - you couldn't meet nicer blokes. I imagine Mitch Johnson would be happy if he didn't have to play cricket with either Clarke or Watto after the crap he dealt with from them when he first came onto the scene 15 years back.

Forget what you see publicly, some of these blokes can't stand each other. Watson and Clarke would have zero time for each other as many people know, but Johnson would have no time for either of them either. Then you have Watson, who is very popular with the playing group outside his own immediate age group who knew him when he was a teenage a-hole and you have a potentially toxic dressing room!

Brad Haddin is pretty much the only universally like bloke in the test cricket setup, which is probably why they are so hell bent on keeping him. (Steve smith as well probably)

I know a couple of people who think(based on personal experience) that Mitchell Johnson is an absolute *******.
Not to say that you're wrong or they're right, but everyone sees things differently.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The story is spot on. He was savage that Chappelli suggested that he should not come back as Captain- if he gets back at all, following this he mysteriously made it into the Commentary Box for a few tests. The persona you get on air is not the real deal.

I don't think the hierarchy want him to get back for the World Cup, but they had to be seen to give him a fair chance. I was told the surgery went better than expected and he is such an individually focussed character that doing the work will not be an issue.

For so long, people didn't like Clarke because they thought he was a bit soft, a bit too much of a flash Harry. But now, he's too much of a hard arse?

He's the captain and a world-class batsman. He doesn't have to be best mates with everyone. Steve Waugh wasn't either.

Clarke had to lead Australia through a period of historic shitness. He was the only world-class batsman in that side and, as such, had to be a hard taskmaster. That doesn't lend itself to just being 'one of the boys'.

Can you fault him for wanting to play at the World Cup? He's been an integral part of steering Australia from an abject position into one of relative strength. I don't blame him at all for wanting to be part of a squad that could win a World Cup at home.

But whatever happens at the World Cup, I find it hard to believe he will be forced out of the Test side because of 'politics'. Are our batting stocks suddenly so strong that we can afford to jettison the likes of Clarke for no real reason?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

My point is that he enjoyed the attention and he liked being the center of it all.

Geez, that's an ugly thing to say.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You can say this is a horrible story, but there is alot of truth in it.

But not many facts.

Chief writers don't go out with brave stories like these without consulting people close to the nest. I would say he has done his research and relied on people close to the Aussies camp to go as hard as he has.

Really?

Look at all the bullshit that has been written about Pietersen in the English press over the past 12 months.

 

[King Elvis]

In fairness Roy went fishing, missed a team meeting and showed up pissed to a match. Hardly can complain about being disciplined. Katich one like any fly on the wall would love to know what happened (to spite being Mr Popular he did physically assault a team mate so his hardly blameless) but doubt we ever will as no one really seems willing to spill the beans.

I think the real question is what caused Roy to lose his s**t, and basically throw his career away?

Ponting, Hussey, Katich.

Are there 3 cricketers in recent memory who are held in such high regard, as men, as these 3??

The way men of this calibre view Clarke is enough for a reasonable person to conclude there is validity to the rumblings.

 

[King Elvis]

Clarke had to lead Australia through a period of historic shitness. He was the only world-class batsman in that side and, as such, had to be a hard taskmaster. That doesn't lend itself to just being 'one of the boys'.

Was he a hard taskmaster though?

I think the issues is that he's always prioritized his own career over the good of the team; he appears to have improved in this regard since Boof came onto the scene, but now looks to have reverted back to self preservation mode.