- Banned
- #201
Must be on the money in that case.
End of story? OK, can't argue with that.
Did Clarke whistle inappropriately like KP?
Last edited:
Michael Clarke vs the World
- Thread starter ManWithNoName
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Did Clarke whistle inappropriately like KP?
GROTTO
TheBrownDog
- Jul 5, 2013
- 66,672
- 89,431
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Might ask thorne89 if you may have been banned and are now circumventing that. If I am wrong, you have literally nothing to worry about.
Mind you, you are not rude or unfriendly or unfair. I just think for a guy that just joined the forum, you dont strike me as a new poster.
Last edited:
- Banned
- #203
That's great.
On topic, do you reckon the ECB were right to sack KP?
Do you think it would be a wise move for the ACB to go down the same road with their captain and most accomplished batsman?
Someone thinks it's a good idea to start briefing against him. More today.
Timed to perfectly coincide with all the coverage of Steve Smith scooping the pool at the Allan Border Medal. Fancy that.
I'd suggest Clarke has a right to be peeved by this.
Last edited:
Can someone outline why Ponting hates Clarke? PM me if you need to
I know quite a few of the senior players back in the day resented Clarke because he used to openly covet the captaincy even when Ponting was still in charge, probably something to do with that.
- Banned
- #206
He never did anything of the sort openly.
If anything, he went out of his way to tell everyone that he wanted Ponting to play on as long as possible. Privately, he might have been itching to take over. But to say he did so "openly" is not true.
Ponting felt he did nothing as a Vice Captain to assist him, other than make the right noises publicly but didn't help with the team because he wanted the top job.
This situation is really not at all much like Pietersen's with England. I was sympathetic to KP, but even reading his own account of his hissy fit when James Taylor was selected in the test team makes me think they were justified. The dossier on what he did out here last summer reads like bullshit, but you can't be having a senior player in a team doing things like that.
- Banned
- #210
Well, you've got a senior player who has apparently fallen out with the management. And you now have the management briefing journalists to undermine that senior player. So there's a broad similarity in those terms.
Granted, the details are different. Pietersen's relationship with the management, Flower in particular, was beyond repair and he hadn't kept his nose as clean as Clarke has.
- Banned
- #211
So how would this poster know about it? Did one of the players tell him?
In all the leaking and rumour-mongering about Clarke, no one has ever said that.
How dumb do you think Clarke would have to be to go around advertising the fact he wanted Ponting's job, while Ponting was still captain? Does that sound plausible?
Clarke won't be sidelined for philosophical reasons, but ego will not allow him to play under Smith. If they make Smith permanent captain I would suggest that will be it.
People underrate the concept of team harmony - if the hierarchy believe the net performance of the team is better without Clarke in it than with him there that's the way they will go. The leaking of stories to non cricket journo's suggests that's the way they are heading.
Clarke is offside with many at CA and it will be hard to pull it back from here.
Bareth Garry
Team Captain
- Jan 20, 2014
- 592
- 960
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
On another note this is a convenient way for CA to phase Bailey out of the international scene.
That would make sense.
Yes that's what I meant. Though he wasn't shy of saying he wanted to be captain eventually in the press earlier in his career either. His public stance did soften once it was imminent though, like in the article below:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mi...ralian-captaincy/story-e6frf7jo-1225929214878
Michael Clarke willing to wait for Australian captaincy
THOUGH he dare not predict the day nor the hour, Michael Clarke is edging ever closer to the Australian captaincy.
Clarke, wary of coveting something not yet his, doubts he will be parachuting into the job anytime soon.
Faced with the question of whether he will be ready to lead sooner rather than later, Clarke blanches at the suggestion that Ricky Ponting might be close to the exit.
"I don't think that'll be the case, I think Ricky will play for a lot longer than that," Clarke said ahead of Australia's Test series against India.
"I think he's hitting the ball as well as I've seen and he's looking very fit, been training hard in the time we've had at home and he's very excited about the cricket that's ahead.
"I think the best of Ricky Ponting is yet to come."
This discounts an unmistakable - if not drastic - tailing off in Ponting's batting over the past two years.
And according to Clarke, his personal best is also yet to arrive.
Having artfully negotiated a very public break-up while also making runs against New Zealand earlier this year, Clarke has spent the off-season honing his technique.
His is a method that was criticised for its lack of verve during the Twenty20 World Cup, yet has emerged as the most dependable in the Australian Test team.
Against India and England it will be fully examined.
"You grow up a little bit (over time), you mature a little bit as a person and also as a cricketer. I think my game's probably changed a little," said Clarke.
"My intent and my goals are still the same, I still want to become the best cricketer I can possibly be and I still think I'm a long way from it.
"So I'm still working hard at training and trying to improve my game. I think just with experience you work out what your strengths are and where your weaknesses are.
"My shot selection is probably the main thing that's improved since being a youngster back in 2004, but in saying that I probably feel like I was 23 six months ago - I feel fit, I feel healthy and looking forward to this tour."
Clarke is still ironing out kinks in both his technique and his public persona.
Yet his standing within the Australian team continues to rise, and recently re-appointed coach Tim Nielsen is a staunch supporter.
"He's stepped up into No.4 and that really came about on the back of his Ashes form last year. He's seen as a player in our middle order who's got the potential and opportunity to play for the longest," said Nielsen.
"He's probably playing as well as he's ever played, so I think it's a really positive move, you've got your captain and your vice captain as the guts of your middle order basically and really being the role models for the team to set things up.
"I think Pup's shown with his T20 leadership, he's taken leadership roles around the group, he believes his preparation is critical to his success so he trains hard, looks after his body well and is a good leader by example.
"So he just keeps getting more and more important for us as he moves forward."
- Banned
- #215
And would the ACB be justified in doing that?
Was the team harmony OK when we smashed England and then won in South Africa?
This is all starting to sound a lot like the spin against KP.
How will the 'net performance' of the team be better by replacing Clarke?
You replace a guy with 8000 runs at 50 with Shaun Marsh or Joe Burns and that improves the team? Seriously?
What has Clarke actually done to suggest his mere presence could make the team worse than if he were replaced by a less accomplished player?
Again, the echoes of anti-KP spin are unmistakeable.
And that's disturbing.
But maybe people should be asking CA directly why they are trying to undermine their captain and most accomplished batsman.
Isn't that a bit risky 6 months before an Ashes series?
Because if it backfires and we go to England without Clarke and the batting fails and we get beaten, that decision will look like a poor one.
Last edited:
- Banned
- #216
Not if they decide to pick Bailey instead of Clarke.
Bareth Garry
Team Captain
- Jan 20, 2014
- 592
- 960
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
If Smith is the players choice for captain then that's curtains for Bailey IMO. We've discussed the Clarke-Bailey-Smith conundrum but if this is anything serious then two of them will be out. Bailey's selection has a lot on his leadership credentials. If he's not leading, then he's not worth a spot judging on form. Smith captain, Faulkner and Haddin push up the order with another all rounder in (Maxwell)
Warner
Finch
Watson
Smith
Faulkner
Haddin
Maxwell
- Banned
- #218
I don't think that's how it works.
If the ACB shaft Clarke, they're not going to then shaft Bailey in the same week. That would be insane.
Not sure how you reached that conclusion.
Surely one of Bailey or Clarke will be there.
Bareth Garry
Team Captain
- Jan 20, 2014
- 592
- 960
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Smith has stepped up to the plate as captain. Bailey doesn't warrant a place on the team sheet through his batting. Bailey has been doing a filler job in the last 2 years and he's done well to be fair but CA have found their man in Smith and why take it away from him now when he's in amazing form. If Bailey fails in the opening game it will definitely be curtains.
I'd rather Clarke as close to fitness for the Ashes than half-fit for this tournament. Other players will have to rise to the occasion but that's what you want. Clarke regardless isn't going to be here much longer. Ashes in England may be his final series. It'll be a full circle then, and the perfect time to let Smith build his team with Rogers and Haddin likely to be retiring, plus Watson and Harris's injury problems.
[QUOTE="Sweet Jesus, post: 36871677, member: 159044
How will the 'net performance' of the team be better by replacing Clarke?
You replace a guy with 8000 runs at 50 with Shaun Marsh or Joe Burns and that improves the team? Seriously?
What has Clarke actually done to suggest his mere presence could make the team worse than if he were replaced by a less accomplished player?
Again, the echoes of anti-KP spin are unmistakeable.
And that's disturbing.
But maybe people should be asking CA directly why they are trying to undermine their captain and most accomplished batsman.
Isn't that a bit risky 6 months before an Ashes series?
Because if it backfires and we go to England without Clarke and the batting fails and we get beaten, that decision will look like a poor one.[/QUOTE]
This all started in the UAE and perhaps before regarding selections. Clarke quite rightly in my book was not happy with Maxwell over Doolan and let it be known. Butting heads with Rod Marsh and Co isn't something I would make a habit of.
We then had the circus surrounding his fitness for the first test, which he won due to the distraction around Phil Hughes, but then lost by tearing the hammy.
If you want specific examples he made it known that he didn't think Joe Burns was the right man to replace him. That would be great for your confidence knowing that the Captain didn't rate you.
Clarke appears to put a number of players on edge, they are leaking that the mood is more relaxed under Smith. Clarkes back isn't going to get better, it's only going to go one way, particularly if he tries to take them on.
How will the 'net performance' of the team be better by replacing Clarke?
You replace a guy with 8000 runs at 50 with Shaun Marsh or Joe Burns and that improves the team? Seriously?
What has Clarke actually done to suggest his mere presence could make the team worse than if he were replaced by a less accomplished player?
Again, the echoes of anti-KP spin are unmistakeable.
And that's disturbing.
But maybe people should be asking CA directly why they are trying to undermine their captain and most accomplished batsman.
Isn't that a bit risky 6 months before an Ashes series?
Because if it backfires and we go to England without Clarke and the batting fails and we get beaten, that decision will look like a poor one.[/QUOTE]
This all started in the UAE and perhaps before regarding selections. Clarke quite rightly in my book was not happy with Maxwell over Doolan and let it be known. Butting heads with Rod Marsh and Co isn't something I would make a habit of.
We then had the circus surrounding his fitness for the first test, which he won due to the distraction around Phil Hughes, but then lost by tearing the hammy.
If you want specific examples he made it known that he didn't think Joe Burns was the right man to replace him. That would be great for your confidence knowing that the Captain didn't rate you.
Clarke appears to put a number of players on edge, they are leaking that the mood is more relaxed under Smith. Clarkes back isn't going to get better, it's only going to go one way, particularly if he tries to take them on.
- Banned
- #221
If Clarke doesn't prove his fitness, I reckon Bailey keeps his spot and captains.
Let's not forget that Smith was left out of this side six months ago. To make that change right on the eve of the World Cup would appear rash.
If Clarke is fine to play then Bailey is in trouble.
If not, they're not going to axe Bailey after one match. That would be madness.
Of course. If he's half-fit, he won't play. Rightly so.
The problem arises if he proves himself fit and they still don't pick him. And that is the scenario the ACB is keeping in mind as they brief journalists to undermine Clarke.
I agree with that. I just think it's unfortunate that the ACB have decided to start undermining him.
And look at Watson just brown-nosing as hard as he can. The fawning comparisons to Ponting, with no mention of the incumbent captain, who also happens to be a pretty useful batsman. Will he call his first born Devereux as a gesture of fealty?
Last edited:
- Banned
- #222
So far, nothing to justify the ACB undermining their captain and most accomplished batsman.
I think it was Shaun Marsh who replaced Clarke. Joe Burns came in when Mitch Marsh got injured.
In any case, Clarke is entitled to have a view on selection. It's not like he walked up to the player and told him he was s**t.
Like who?
Playing under him hasn't hurt Warner or Smith. Remember when he backed Johnson to be man of the series in the Ashes and everyone laughed at him?
Please tell me this isn't another Shane Watson sob story.
If that's the case, maybe instead of worrying about Clarke 'putting players on edge', we should ask if it's acceptable for players to be briefing against the captain?
For what it's worth, I think it's unlikely that players have done that. Too risky. I think that has come from the management.
The leaks have almost certainly come from CA, the info can only have come from the those inside the bubble. If you can't see the build up that has lead to this, you may not have been that flash at dot to dots at kinder. It's a slow burn, but you would have to think that the hierarchy have had enough to an extent and are moving on given the snapshot they saw without him.
- Banned
- #224
Absolutely.
Someone should ask them why they think that's a good idea. How would they answer?
Presumably they'd just lie and say they'd done nothing of the sort?
Spare me the condescension, champ. It's neither cute nor justified.
I can see why CA might be stroppy with Clarke. But that shouldn't allow them to anonymously undermine him through 'confidential sources'. They should be asked: 'Why have you decided to undermine the Australian captain?'
They're certainly laying the PR groundwork if it comes to that.
My question is whether that's a wise move. I don't think it is.
If the end result is going to England without Clarke, how would that be a good thing?
That's the game the ACB are playing. It seems like they want to intimidate Clarke just enough to keep him in line without losing him completely. That's risky. Or would they prefer to go to England without him? Also risky.
Last edited:
You joined in 2014 and have 240 odd posts, plenty on this thread - I have been posting a fairly consistent line on Clarke for years.
Clarke's back is stuffed - it isn't going to get better. If they've decided that Clarke will not be Captain and it's looking that way - then I would not take him for team unity reasons.
