Michael Clarke vs the World

[Sweet Jesus]

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.

Not at all.

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.

Sorry, just walk me through that again.

In the first instance, CA completely shafted Symonds. But it's not their fault. Symonds then lost it and repeatedly breached discipline protocols. He 'didn't benefit from team meetings' so should therefore have been excused for not showing up. Unlike everyone else. So it wasn't his fault, either.

Of course not. It was Clarke's fault. Because he made that decision unilaterally. Right?

Was it Ponting's fault when Symonds was sent home from England in 2009? I mean, Symonds is a team man and Ponting should have taken his psychological profile into account. Right?

You talk about Symonds' 'emotional state'. And I agree that CA shafted Symonds and they have a lot to answer for on that score. But the incident in Darwin was 6-7 months after the accusation of racial vilification involving Harbajhan Singh. Yet he was still entitled to special treatment that far down the line?

You also suggest that punishing Symonds was 'the poltically expedient decision'. I'd suggest it was the complete opposite. It was decidedly inconvenient.

Also, you say Clarke puts 'image and brand before team'. Honestly, what does that mean?

 

[Nevernude]

Not at all.

Sorry, just walk me through that again.

In the first instance, CA completely shafted Symonds. But it's not their fault. Symonds then lost it and repeatedly breached discipline protocols. He 'didn't benefit from team meetings' so should therefore have been excused for not showing up. Unlike everyone else. So it wasn't his fault, either.

At no stage did I suggest that CA was not at fault. In fact senior members have since come out to say that they hung symonds out to dry. I just made the point that he was disillusioned with cricket in general at the time.


Was it Ponting's fault when Symonds was sent home from England in 2009? I mean, Symonds is a team man and Ponting should have taken his psychological profile into account. Right?

If memory serves CA made the final decision not Ponting himself. In fact ponting had spent his captaincy championing the bloke. If not for ponting's support Australian cricket would have seen very little of Andrew symonds ( to their detriment).

You talk about Symonds' 'emotional state'. And I agree that CA shafted Symonds and they have a lot to answer for on that score. But the incident in Darwin was 6-7 months after the accusation of racial vilification involving Harbajhan Singh. Yet he was still entitled to special treatment that far down the line?

I wasn't aware that a man's emotional state has a definite timeline. I shall tell the good people at beyond blue.


You also suggest that punishing Symonds was 'the poltically expedient decision'. I'd suggest it was the complete opposite. It was decidedly inconvenient.

We differ on that point. I have my opinion, you have yours and that is fine.

Also, you say Clarke puts 'image and brand before team'. Honestly, what does that mean?

It means 'Michael Clarke's first priority is Michael Clarke and how he is perceived' said clarke in the third person. My opinion is that a leader backs teammates and does what is required for them to perform at their best. My opinion is that Clarke is a rigid and dogmatic leader who expects others to conform whether it is to their benefit or not. My opinion is that Clarke has a history of being more concerned with how the public views him than he is with the business of leading a United team (and this does not include any of the phil Hughes talk). That is my supposition based on established events over the course of his career including, but not limited to the gone fishing affair. As I said earlier no-one can prove Clarke is a good or bad leader of men, or a tactician for that matter. All we can do is look at established and well documented events and make suppositions. Of course, this is always seen through the prism of our experiences and prejudices. I doubt you and I will ever agree, and that is fine. Just don't suggest the burden of proof is on the prosecution. I can't prove he's toxic, but nor can the player's he's shafted.

 

[Nevernude]

Sorry. Screwed up that reply. Is only my second post after all.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

It means 'Michael Clarke's first priority is Michael Clarke and how he is perceived' said clarke in the third person.

What is that view based on?

My opinion is that a leader backs teammates and does what is required for them to perform at their best.

A bit like how he publicly backed Johnson to be man of the series before the last Ashes series and then watched as Johnson destroyed England?

But I'm sure you have a reason that doesn't count?

My opinion is that Clarke is a rigid and dogmatic leader who expects others to conform whether it is to their benefit or not. My opinion is that Clarke has a history of being more concerned with how the public views him than he is with the business of leading a United team.

Based on what? You are making these claims about Clarke's psychology but how can you make them with any confidence?

I actually don't think Clarke gives two shits about how the public views him.

As I said earlier no-one can prove Clarke is a good or bad leader of men, or a tactician for that matter. All we can do is look at established and well documented events and make suppositions.

Absolutely. What are these well-documented events?

Of course, this is always seen through the prism of our experiences and prejudices.

Speak for yourself. What are your prejudices?

Just don't suggest the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

Well, it is. Casting it in legal terms only underscores the point.

 

[Nevernude]

What is that view based on?

A bit like how he publicly backed Johnson to be man of the series before the last Ashes series and then watched as Johnson destroyed England?


My point is that Ponting backed symonds personally and professionally in his role as Australian captain when selectors were umming and ahhing. That is very different from a media sound bite when your bowling cattle is low from injuries after the ashes in England and you need to stop the bleeding from the homework gate affair where he hung Johnson out to dry.

 

[peternorth]

watching the 99 wc final. steve waugh shakes punters hand after the last dismissal. i think tugger was the last of the old brigade who shook hands in celebration rather than high fiving

 

[Father Jack]

bloody West Indies, introducing that seppo crap into the game

 

[BORK]

I actually don't think Clarke gives two shits about how the public views him.

Agree with some of your points but cannot see how you could come to this conclusion.

 

[Hellgood]

watching the 99 wc final. steve waugh shakes punters hand after the last dismissal. i think tugger was the last of the old brigade who shook hands in celebration rather than high fiving

No. Passed that trait onto Ponting, I remember reading about how Gilchrist found it absolutely hilarious watching the awkwardness between Ponting and Lara in the Boxing Day Tsunami Relief match. Lara obviously being as cool as ice, loved the Caribbean patented 'shazam' or punch of gloves at the end of every over, whereas Ponting had no time for such shenanigans. After an awkward moment or two where Ponting left him hanging, Lara persisted and eventually Punter reluctantly had to do the fist bump at the end of every over as they put on a big partnership.

Kind of reminds me of one of my first games in the firsts for the seniors as a kid. In juniors when a wicket fell, as not out batsmen we used to walk halfway off the field to meet the next kid coming in and talk s**t with them coming out. Found out that this trait was tolerated by most of the senior guys (although not exactly encouraged), but when our number five gun bat who was an experienced campaigner (in every sense of the word!) strode out purposefully to the crease brushing straight past me without even the slightest acknowledgement plonked his bat down and barked at the umpire 'middle-to-leg' and proceeded to smoke the ball around. Despite having been batting for a while and over the initial 'oh s**t I'm in the big time now' I was absolutely packing it batting with him and it was made even worse when for two overs in a row at the non-strikers I followed what I still believe to be standard practice of meeting the striker on the side of the pitch the non striker is inhabiting at the time. Of course he was having none of that and I had to twice make this pathetically awkward leap across the midpoint of the pitch in my spikes that would make a three legged donkey cringe... Fair to say I didn't really feel as though I belonged!

Not sure how I got sidetracked onto that story, but anyway got to be better than the 'yes he is' 'no he isn't' volley of the past 50 pages.

 

[the_interloper]

What has Clarke actually done or said to warrant the extreme venom directed at him?

Read this thread, there's a lot of anecdotal evidence.

Not sure what this means.

I wouldn't expect you to understand everything I say, I'm certainly a lot more intelligent so a lot of my posting probably goes over your head.

A convenient way of deflecting from a lack of a specific evidence.

People don't come up with these frequent anecdotes about Clarke being a flog from thin air you know. How many stories have you heard about Ponting being a flog? Mike Hussey? Mark Taylor?

Again, not sure what this means.

Again, I'm a bit too clever for you so you may not understand me a lot. That's ok, I think discussing issues with smart people like me may improve your intelligence eventually.

Hilarious.

Your dysfunctional relationship with reality continues to deliver the big laughs.

I'm quite sure you're not laughing, I reckon you've gone through about seven keyboards during our little debate. Don't get mad, it's not a disgrace to admit you're wrong.

 

[the_interloper]

You're setting a burden of proof which no one can meet, and then dismissing people's opinions when they fail to meet it.

Correct. In this way we couldn't even say that Adrian Bayley is a bad person, because none of us have (hopefully) actually met him.

 

[western royboy]

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.

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

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.

The only reason I am querying the Brettig book is that I had a version of events that suggested it was to be along the lines of the discussion on Cricinfo and a version I was told. I have bothered to check why it wasn't written as it serves no purpose. My information is that the Hussey book was heavily sanitised as was Pontings regarding Michael Clarke. My view of Clark has been formed over a long period, there are clearly two sides to him.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Which one is it, mate?

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

I said what I said. If you want to place alternative interpretations on written English, that is, I guess, your prerogative.

 

[ManWithNoName]

SJ in this thread

 

[Tulip]

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.

And yet the side has been rebuilt under his leadership into a dominant side again. People are so quick to forget the fetid side Ponting was leading between 09-11.

 

[Noobz0r]

I actually don't think Clarke gives two shits about how the public views him.

Where is your evidence for this!?!?!?!

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

And yet the side has been rebuilt under his leadership into a dominant side again. People are so quick to forget the fetid side Ponting was leading between 09-11.

Perhaps you could provide evidence of a correlation between Clarke's "leadership" and recent results, in a cause and effect sense?

I know "Sweet Jesus" will be wanting that.

 

[Borisdog]

And some have got their wishes partially fulfilled. Clarke retiring from ODIs after final.

http://www.cricket.com.au/news/mich...ld-cup-final-australia-new-zealand/2015-03-28

 

[ClokesShankedIt]

And some have got their wishes partially fulfilled. Clarke retiring from ODIs after final.

http://www.cricket.com.au/news/mich...ld-cup-final-australia-new-zealand/2015-03-28

I'll be happy to see the back of the divisive campaigner

 

[nineteen eighty]

Is Michael Clarke an attention seeker?

Maybe...maybe not. His actions however in coming out before the final and making it about himself does make me think he is.

 

[nineteen eighty]

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

I don't know why you even bother. One can't have a discussion when the other party simply won't comprehend that your thought are based on...wait for it now..an opinion. What's more...your opinion.

 

[Run n Spread]

Wins and losses really are all that matters in the grand scheme of things. Like it or not Clarke has performed as captain, won the ashes, gone to a World Cup Final (with a very likely win) and could go a win in England 1st time since 01. Do that and he on performance at least is one of the better captains. Only big losses were to SA at home (hardly a disaster) and the Indian fu&* up which is seemingly corrected.

Fact is his record speaks for himself. Yep he could be a pr*( who has alienated people but so have PMs, business leaders, other sportsmen. At large as captain he will end up with a tick.

As a bloke don't know. Could be an A Grade ars%^hole or could be a decent bloke who simply kicked a few egos into place to get things done/just wasn't the cool kid. Either way truth is probably in the middle and having never met and will never meet the bloke don't really give a sh*& to be honest. (By that I mean there are those on here who have played at a high level/are involved at a high level who have decent valid gripes about Clarke and his influence on Australian Cricket. From an outsiders perspective thou it is a bit like people getting divorced. Sure there are valid arguments on both sides but really not your concern/care level as an outsider looking in).

 

[Jsmoove1]

Is Michael Clarke an attention seeker?

Maybe...maybe not. His actions however in coming out before the final and making it about himself does make me think he is.

Thousands of sportsmen have announced their retirement before a final.
So what you're saying is, every sportsmen that has ever announced their retirement before a final is an attention seeker?

That has got to be one of the dumbest things I have ever read on a forum.

 

[tek87]

Clarke's selfishness will be exposed tomorrow by the Kiwis.

 

[nineteen eighty]

Thousands of sportsmen have announced their retirement before a final.
So what you're saying is, every sportsmen that has ever announced their retirement before a final is an attention seeker?

That has got to be one of the dumbest things I have ever read on a forum.

My opinion...he's an attention seeker.

Your opinion...not.

I don't get why he would announce the day before the final that he's retiring from ODI. Why would he do that? Brand and image come to mind for myself.