Michael Clarke is a toxic piece of shit

Comparing Border/Simpson v Clarke/Lehmann is like comparing a Navy with subs and Polaris missiles with a canoe-paddling bloke armed with a rock.

OK I give in. Net scuttlebutt re Ponting, Hussey = fact.

Especially if you say it loud enough and often enough and bore dissenters into silent WGAF submission.

Oh so this is where all the conspiracy nutters went. I thought the other thread was surprisingly void.

As with all things, I think the answer lies in the middle area somewhere.

Clarke is more than competent as captain and I think it does show that CA did have some foresight when he became VC and they were grooming him for the job, even if it was made easy by all the spiv jizz about him.

It's very easy when a team is doing absolutely shit to blame the captain (or coach). Clarke is miles ahead of everyone of the other batsmen in terms of performances and ability. There is no one coming through, even in the bowlers, that stands out like captaining material so he is on his own. The fact that his deputies has been a Twat who puts himself before the team and a wicketkeeper that is shit at his job and can't bat either says a lot too.

A lot of the problems can be, and should be, pointed at CA and the selectors/administrators. That doesn't mean Clarke is blameless but he wasn't the only one pushing Katich through the door. That said, a good captain that puts the team before himself, would at least try to mend the bridges somewhat, which in Katich' case would mean you have a competent opener and experience in a team that needs it.

I don't believe he was a factor in Ponting and Hussey retiring and even if they were are people really suggesting that we'd have a side with all these players in it? Rogers, Katich, Ponting, Clarke, Hussey, Warner???? Talk about Dad's Army and we'd still be in the same position we are now, just 2-3 years later. Not sure that's the way to go about it.

The team environment needs to change, that is definitely true but CA only replacing Arthur with Boof is cosmetic at best. The buck stops at Sutherland first and should roll all the way through the team to players like Watson.

Punter and Pup were and are great mates. Pup was gutted when he retired. Any talk of Punter retiring because of Pup is complete boohockey. Hussey had simply got to the point that he couldn't justify the dollars v the time away from his 4 young girls any more.

skully wrote:Punter and Pup were and are great mates. Pup was gutted when he retired. Any talk of Punter retiring because of Pup is complete boohockey. Hussey had simply got to the point that he couldn't justify the dollars v the time away from his 4 young girls any more.

Boy too, Langer has four daughters.

Think Punter went because he finally saw the writing on the wall though Clarke was openly coveting his position as captain a few years before. Still recall the press conference after the Steyn/Duminy partnership where he should have defended Punter and didn't and he certainly was sycophantic in the way he spoke to the press etc. ensuring he was doing everything to look better in the eyes of the public who had never warmed to him. Seems to have the capacity to divide the changeroom though doesn't appear cold (as was mentioned here) regarding Chappellg. Recall Lawson et al writing about him as captain. They didn't dispute his tactical acumen but considered him too arrogant and distant. Also read snippets of ex-Qld players saying that they always felt intimidated playing alongside Chappell who didn't tolerate any sort of failure. He believed it was 'impossible' to drop catches and was the hardest of hard taskmasters when it came to performance. Can't see Clarke being in that mould.

I didn't see much of the nadir of the 80s. But at least that Australian side had to deal with a great Windies and decent English and Kiwi teams.

The current Australian side has just been white washed by what many Indians say is a bog ordinary Indian line up. And this Aussie team is now down three zip against an English team that may look good on paper but have played very ordinary cricket at times this series.

The side of the 80s might have been less talented than this lot but I hazard a guess they had more maturity and unity than Clarke's 'comrades'.

Phurt, we all bagged Punter for his appalling captaincy for a number of years, starting with Ashes 05. Punter was a vital supporter of Clarke's captaincy when he stepped down to hand over the reins. It was effecting his private life, something his wife Rianna confirmed when she said he became a better husband and father when he relinquished the captaincy.

You are letting your hatred of Clarke allow you to see things that aren't there, Redmond.

Paul Keating wrote:The side of the 80s might have been less talented than this lot but I hazard a guess they had more maturity and unity than Clarke's 'comrades'.

You hazard wrong, Ponts. They were a dishevelled mess, something put into print by Steve Waugh, Geoff Marsh, David Boon, Mo Matthews and Border himself, who said everyone was just looking after their own spot rather than thinking of a team culture, such was the mess the side was in after consecutive series losses to NZ in 1985-86 and a home flogging in all forms by Gatt's 86-87 side (the nadir). It wasn't until the victorious World Cup in 1987 then the mighty Ashes 89 series that the side gelled into the side that would become world champs in 1995.

skully wrote:

Paul Keating wrote:The side of the 80s might have been less talented than this lot but I hazard a guess they had more maturity and unity than Clarke's 'comrades'.

You hazard wrong, Ponts. They were a dishevelled mess, something put into print by Steve Waugh, Geoff Marsh, David Boon, Mo Matthews and Border himself, who said everyone was just looking after their own spot rather than thinking of a team culture, such was the mess the side was in after consecutive series losses to NZ in 1985-86 and a home flogging in all forms by Gatt's 86-87 side (the nadir). It wasn't until the victorious World Cup in 1987 then the mighty Ashes 89 series that the side gelled into the side that would become world champs in 1995.

Cheers, Skully, for the clarification. I didn't know it was that bad. It must have been a horrendous time watching dire dishevelled mess.

Suppose Clarke had backed Ponting absolutely to the hilt (whatever TF that may have looked like and sounded like at the time), what would the reaction from the Noise been then?

I suspect there would have been a lot ot tut-tutting about Clarke being a bumptious little shit for arrogantly giving an on-air analysis of Punter's captaincy and letting it pass muster - as if he thought his opinion really mattered. As well as shooting across the bows the hint that any time Ricky really DOES drop a clanger he won't be so forgiving next time.

Seems to's and I think's - WGAF? Show me the mark on Hotspot!

It sure was. And it gives some perspective to what we are going through now. This side on paper is worse that the side in those glum mid-80s days, yet their performances have actually been better in some ways.

The likes of Waugh, Boon, Marsh, Jones, Taylor, etc were still to find their confidence and exhibit their later class. I really can't see where that is coming from with the current mob, Clarke and Rogers aside.

Skull, all those blokes except Taylor played Test cricket in 1985, and Tubby was just starting out for NSW and immediately showing notice by heading their batting averages in his first year.

Can't see too many of the current shower still being on the scene come 2017- including Captain Osama and especially including 'Hail Mary' Rogers.

The worst thing about the current set-up is that we see what's available in SS and there is a paucity of batting talent but we keep hearing from people working in the junior ranks that there are no irresistible youngsters coming through.

One thing about the eighties obviously is that they had to contend with the rebel tours too so the squad was fractured in a way that it would have been with the WSC schism some years earlier. Still sometimes things turn around quicker than is expected. Some say England may be sleeping giants for our summer to an extent because their form on balance has been questionable but maybe they've already reached their apogee.

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:What I do object to is Clarke saying he takes it as a positive that we only lost by 74 runs.

Michael Clarke Vaughan?

Something that you'd expect from a Zimbabwean or Bangla captain rather than Australia's.

Hughes and Khawaja are the cream of of Sheffield Shield cricket at the moment.

That says a lot.

baggygreen wrote:Oh so this is where all the conspiracy nutters went. I thought the other thread was surprisingly void.

As with all things, I think the answer lies in the middle area somewhere.

Clarke is more than competent as captain and I think it does show that CA did have some foresight when he became VC and they were grooming him for the job, even if it was made easy by all the spiv jizz about him.
....

I think you have to distinguish more than that.

First off, Clarke is a very fine batsman, who appears to attract some jaffas, I guess because such straining talents as Broad recognise his skills, and go for broke when he comes to the crease. (Clarke can also be a bit nervous at the start - more than a Bradman or a Ponting, who both looked to stroke and strike runs early, and had the confidence to do so more often than not.) Clarke often seems to get a low score or a high one.

But to the point of his captaincy. He is not simply a good or bad captain, surely. He tends to be a very adventurous captain in the field, doing something different, unexpected with a bowling change or a field placement (a la B McC, his only obvious competitor in this area). Even brought himself on for an over or two at Manchester, which nobody expected, esp given his back problems. He doesn't always get it right, sometimes seems to get too clever, but nobody gets it 100%. It was baffling he kept holding back Siddle in Tests 3 and 4, for example - perhaps the bowler was as rumoured carrying a niggle at CLS, though? In which case, I'm not sure why, despite his manful penetrative exploits over three Tests, he was playing at all. Field positions mainly very good, forcing the pace, good declaration points, not helped by the weather.

No, the PROBLEM is man management, I agree partly with Skulls it's a major attitude problem with some of the players as well. (Not sure Clarke has handled this as well as he could have - not sure at all.) Lehmann has helped weld a team, for all the two batting subsidences in the series, ... but there are still two or three oversized spoilt brats around the team Boof inherited.

But Clarke appears to be a deeply insecure captain, who loves supportive favourites and fears and resents alternative authoritative views in particular. Onfield, he has looked good with his team, you would even say - despite the rumour mill - popular and respected.

But the problem is what you DON'T see there. I agree with the ever=passionate Lardbucket that it is in cricketing terms CRIMINAL that Katich, even Hussey, and a better choice of wicketkeeper are not present in the Aus batting lineup. Yes, Hussey is an old salt, Katich too is no spring chicken, Paine has been injured (dunno about Hartley). But it's hard to believe they would not have been helping Aus to a series edge in this present Ashes. Why aren't they there? There is a single and obvious reason for this.

There's your problem, which makes Clarker an excellent/terrible captain. The solution? I don't know.

Well Jim Maxwell, who apparently knows Clarke pretty well, reckons he'll call it a day after the coming Ashes series in Aus anyway.

Let's not forget that "Pup" is actually 32 these days, has a chronic bad back, and has the hard grind of 10 years of international cricket in his legs already. Looking at him standing at slip, he seems to have aged physically quite a lot in the last year or so.

Yeah, it does seem quite strange seeing him in the replays of the '05 series alongside all the legends who seem like ancient history now. Last of the old guard in effect, the only one remaining who experienced any real part of the great years of Aussie cricket.

Interesting that he and Cook are due to play their 100th Tests together at Perth in December, injury and selection permitting - that would surely be a unique occurrence for two captains.

Henry wrote:Well Jim Maxwell, who apparently knows Clarke pretty well, reckons he'll call it a day after the coming Ashes series in Aus anyway.

Let's not forget that "Pup" is actually 32 these days, has a chronic bad back, and has the hard grind of 10 years of international cricket in his legs already. Looking at him standing at slip, he seems to have aged physically quite a lot in the last year or so.

Interesting and rather alarming news, if true.  

PeterCS wrote:

baggygreen wrote:Oh so this is where all the conspiracy nutters went. I thought the other thread was surprisingly void.

As with all things, I think the answer lies in the middle area somewhere.

Clarke is more than competent as captain and I think it does show that CA did have some foresight when he became VC and they were grooming him for the job, even if it was made easy by all the spiv jizz about him.
....

I think you have to distinguish more than that.

First off, Clarke is a very fine batsman, who appears to attract some jaffas, I guess because such straining talents as Broad recognise his skills, and go for broke when he comes to the crease. (Clarke can also be a bit nervous at the start - more than a Bradman or a Ponting, who both looked to stroke and strike runs early, and had the confidence to do so more often than not.) Clarke often seems to get a low score or a high one.

But to the point of his captaincy. He is not simply a good or bad captain, surely. He tends to be a very adventurous captain in the field, doing something different, unexpected with a bowling change or a field placement (a la B McC, his only obvious competitor in this area). Even brought himself on for an over or two at Manchester, which nobody expected, esp given his back problems. He doesn't always get it right, sometimes seems to get too clever, but nobody gets it 100%. It was baffling he kept holding back Siddle in Tests 3 and 4, for example - perhaps the bowler was as rumoured carrying a niggle at CLS, though? In which case, I'm not sure why, despite his manful penetrative exploits over three Tests, he was playing at all. Field positions mainly very good, forcing the pace, good declaration points, not helped by the weather.

No, the PROBLEM is man management, I agree partly with Skulls it's a major attitude problem with some of the players as well. (Not sure Clarke has handled this as well as he could have - not sure at all.) Lehmann has helped weld a team, for all the two batting subsidences in the series, ... but there are still two or three oversized spoilt brats around the team Boof inherited.

But Clarke appears to be a deeply insecure captain, who loves supportive favourites and fears and resents alternative authoritative views in particular. Onfield, he has looked good with his team, you would even say - despite the rumour mill - popular and respected.

But the problem is what you DON'T see there. I agree with the ever=passionate Lardbucket that it is in cricketing terms CRIMINAL that Katich, even Hussey, and a better choice of wicketkeeper are not present in the Aus batting lineup. Yes, Hussey is an old salt, Katich too is no spring chicken, Paine has been injured (dunno about Hartley). But it's hard to believe they would not have been helping Aus to a series edge in this present Ashes. Why aren't they there? There is a single and obvious reason for this.

There's your problem, which makes Clarke an excellent/terrible captain. The solution? I don't know.

2 jaffas and he's suddenly on the corner attracting them.

I dont think I denied anywhere that Clarke fails a bit when it comes to man management, think I said something similar in the meat of that post. He has some flaws, whether they're borderline psychotic or non-existent depends on the poster it seems.

There is clearly some problem there, whether its as big as stated or worse as others think is open to conjecture. We may not know till the books come out in 5-10 years time. I disagree that Lehmann has done anything himself except be a fresh face.

Also on the 2-3 spoilt brats there really is only Watson, Haddin and Warner. Watson seems to be selected no matter what he does, or doesn't do, even whilst apparently being the main force against Clarke. Haddin has been recalled and made VC, so he's clearly a supplicant personality towards Clarke. Warner, for all his problems is still only 1/5th of the batting line up. The other batsmen and bowlers aren't in the team enough imo to be a bad influence off the field and we haven't heard anything about them anyway. A lot of players could simply be maintaining a "siege mentality" always in danger of being rotated or dropped, it would hardly be a calming influence nor would it allow anyone to get any foot in the dressing room, so to speak. Is that Clarke's fault? I don't think so because whilst he would have some affect, he's not the one who picks the teams, he's even given up having that influence.

So the problem is what we don't see, don't know?

Hussey is 38. Whilst he could have staggered it better so soon after Ponting, he was always going to go sooner than later. As I said, him leaving now has left these glaring deficiencies in the side. From Aus' point of view is it better airing them now or in the Home Ashes series? If Hughes, Khawaja or Cowan played like this in Australia they'd be forgotten about quicker than you can say Rob Quiney. Katich still has some cricket left in him but no one at CA or Clarke wanted to mend that bridge so yes, that's their fault there. The obvious reason for Haddin being there is that they think he's on par with Wade and they still think Wade is better than the rest, with Paine despite being injured still the only one close to Wade's ability.

Hindsight's a wonderful luxury. The old brigade may have (optimistically) helped Aus limp to a 2-1 loss but even then, because they're the old brigade we'd be demanding more and that it's time for them to hang up their pads. Same for the wicketkeeper situation, it's completely unknown. We don't even know how Wade would perform, he wasn't given a chance.

skully wrote:

Henry wrote:Well Jim Maxwell, who apparently knows Clarke pretty well, reckons he'll call it a day after the coming Ashes series in Aus anyway.

Let's not forget that "Pup" is actually 32 these days, has a chronic bad back, and has the hard grind of 10 years of international cricket in his legs already. Looking at him standing at slip, he seems to have aged physically quite a lot in the last year or so.

Interesting and rather alarming news, if true.  

Farking oath! Who the fark would lead this rabble? Watson or Haddin?

Bailey, Hartley/Paine, or .... Katich.


(pssssst, I don't believe Clarke is going to go ... Jim Maxwell hops a lot of balls ....)

Bailey has done nothing to get anywhere near the Test team.
Hartley isn't even on the radar.
Katich is laughing too much (to himself) at the incompetence and is older than Pup himself!

But yes, I agree that JM is likely talking out of his stump.

Jimmy is very well known for his love of excessive amounts of quality red wine. I hope he was 3 sheets to the wind when he made the statement.

Dunno if it was anything more than just a guess.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-22/clarke-to-retire-in-next-12-months-says-maxwell/4834956