- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
In case you missed it, ex-Australian skipper Michael Clarke made a return to cricket on the weekend, turning out in the Sydney grade competition for Western Suburbs.
Clarke came out of retirement to score 48 and 30 runs, and helped guide Wests to their first victory of the season. His appearance – on the surface – seemed like a simple and innocent story of a cricketer doing what he’s always done: play cricket.
However, things have never been simple when it comes to Michael John Clarke.
More cricket:
» Australia reversing to victory over Kiwis
» Trevor Bayliss and Eddie Jones have improved England, now it’s Wayne Bennett’s turn
» Australia’s Test batting lineup is becoming dominant
» World number one in Tests, now for the World T20 Cup
» New Zealand vs Australia: Second Test – Day 4 cricket live scores, blog
» Scorecard: New Zealand vs Australia second Test
The man they call ‘Pup’ has always been a lightning rod for publicity.
Many like to think it’s by design, and perhaps there is some truth in that sentiment. Clarke certainly seems at home in the limelight, controversy has never been far away during his career, and his media profile has been what can only be described as ‘managed’.
Yet by the same token, in the modern 24-hour news cycle, journalists and writers are always looking for stories, angles and narratives.
With the Big Bash having wrapped up weeks ago, the Test team being on tour, and football season not quite upon us, a slight vacuum currently exists for Australian sports reporting.
Clarke, by virtue of his personality, has always provided the sporting world with plenty of news. There’s never been any shortage of opinions on him, and opinions generate hits. In reality, Clarke should be sent gifts from many journalists and writers in the land as a thank you for making their jobs easier.
I therefore find it a little strange that when Clarke does provides ‘content’ – for lack of a better word – that some in the media take issue with it. Celebrities are often told to not ‘bite the hand that feeds them’, but surely that works both ways?
On Saturday, Andrew Webster from the Sydney Morning Herald wrote a piece on Clarke’s comeback.
Webster is a fine journalist, and one of my favourites writers. I rarely miss reading his material, yet that doesn’t mean I always agree with him. In fact, it would be extremely boring if I did.
To that point, I was bemused by his piece on Saturday, as he explained that he had no interest in Michael Clarke’s comeback – and then wrote over 600 words on it.
I understand the ironic nature of writing about something you purport to have no interest on; I’ve done it many times myself.
However the piece did serve as a catalyst for many a discussion about whether Clarke’s comeback was simply a case of him clutching at whatever relevance he has left, and struggling with not being in the public eye anymore.
I have no idea if this is true. Only Clarke himself can answer that. However, does it really matter? What if he does simply miss the limelight? Is that really a sin for a guy that’s been in it since he was 21 years of age? Can you blame him?
Before I break the Guinness Book of World Records for most questions in a paragraph, allow me to throw out another crazy thought. Perhaps, just maybe, could it be that someone who has done something since he was a little boy actually misses that particular something?
Is it not possible that an Australian male, who has played cricket his whole life, and only retired because he physically couldn’t play anymore, actually missed playing cricket? Is that not feasible?
Yes, Clarke has suggested that the comeback could be bigger than just grade cricket, with the BBL, IPL, County cricket, Sheffield Shield and even international cricket not ruled out.
To be fair, doesn’t it stand to reason that a cricketer who played at quite a high level – in an understatement for the ages – should set his sights a little higher than just Sydney grade cricket, once he made the decision to return to the crease? Wouldn’t that actually make sense?
Michael Clarke may miss the attention.
Maybe he just missed the game.
Perhaps he never separated the two anyway.
Either way, I have a hard time criticising a guy for doing something he loves, irrespective of his motivations.