If career statistics mean anything in modern day cricket, here’s one that doesn’t quite add up: Stuart Clark has played 24 Tests for Australia, claiming 94 wickets at an average of 23.86. Peter Siddle has played in 22 Tests, taken 74 wickets at an average of 32.10.
Debilitating injures have at one time or another sidelined both players from the game.
Here’s where I’m lost. Peter Siddle returned to Test cricket following injury, Stuart Clark was never given the opportunity.
In 2006, Stuart Clark found himself on a plane to South Africa, replacing paceman Glen McGarth who withdrew from the tour for family reasons. Clark made an immediate impact in a match that saw the New South Welshman record 9/89, the third best figures by an Australian on debut. This rich vein of form continued throughout the series as Clark amassed 20 wickets at 15.85, in doing so enabling him to become a permanent fixture in the Australian line-up.
Clark’s showing in South Africa ensured his selection for the tour of Bangladesh; however he failed to replicate the success, taking one wicket in the opening Test. Come the second Test, Clark was home in Australia after selectors opted for South Australian spinner Dan Cullen. Media reports suggested Clark was sent home to attend the birth of his child. Those claims were later quashed by the fast bowler who stated the rest “was not necessary in any case”.
After failure to perform on the sub-continent, Clark maintained his position in the Australian starting line-up and made his Ashes debut at the ‘Gabba in November 2006. A refreshed Clark managed to pick up where he left off in South Africa, claiming 26 wickets for the series at 17 and in doing so ensuring he ended the tour as the leading wicket taker.
With further success to follow, Clark’s career stalled late in 2008. A niggling elbow injury caused him to miss months of action in the lead up to the Ashes series in England. In playing only two Tests against England, Clark’s career came to an abrupt halt. Three years on and at the fifth Ashes Test in 2009 remains as Clark’s last Test match.
For a man labelled the next Glen McGrath, 24 Tests do not serve as justification by any means. The 2010 Ashes series required a player of Clark’s calibre. I can’t help but think our cause would only have be aided with the introduction of the man they call “Sarfraz”.
Stuart Clark to this day reads in my book as one of the unluckiest cricketers this nation has produced along with Stuart McGill (toe to toe with Shane Warne).
The selectors may not be killing this cricket team, but they are handing it the gun, cocked and ready.
Fisher Price
Guest
Yes, I think there's an obsession with pace. Much talk prior to the Ashes focused on how the pace of Siddle, Hilfenhaus, Johnson and Bollinger was going to worry the English. Unless you can either bowl at 140-plus and/or hit sixes you're pretty much sidelined from Punter's Club.
JohnB
Guest
No great mystery - Clark was a bit of a late bloomer and Lee wasn't. Lee came into the test side at a much younger age than Clark, and deserved to. He was a much better bowler at the time. For a long time Clark was a decent shield bowler, no more. You can certainly argue that at some point Clark became a better bowler than Lee - how long (if at all) that point was before Clark came into the test side is hard to say. As to selectors favouring pace - there's always an obsession with pace. Historically, a pretty justified one. Any very good team you point to has a very good pace bowler. No ordinary team does.
Lolly
Guest
Oh yes, he's smart enough. That may have cancelled him out of the picture fairly early as he is at least twice as smart as the 'captaincy team', but it's true that he really lost pace after his injury.
PeterK
Guest
The reason Clarke and McGill were not fixtures in the team and given second chances is they are far far smarter than Ponting, and it was obvious. Ponting resented them and couldnt wait to get rid of them. I mean bolwers smarter than the captain cant have that.....
boes
Roar Pro
An intelligent cricketer with unnerving control, experience and by reading his articles in the press also has a excellent and insightful analysis of the game. He has played mentor to a long list of young and promising NSW fast bowlers. One can only hope that he can have an influence on the future of Australia cricket. Australia could've done worse to build an attack around him for the Ashes.
peeeko
Roar Guru
Selectors have to make calls and the decision to go with Siddle and Hilfenhaus as the future and dump Clark prematurely was a very poor one. Their next call will be which is the best young quick to take Hilfys spot and what to do with Siddle, he is occasionally great but still goes long stretches without taking wickets
Russ
Guest
I thought it would be obvious, Clark is 35; like Lee, the selectors don't think he capable of playing out an entire series; whereas there is a reasonable chance Siddle will, given a little time, settle into the side and put up good numbers. 12 wickets at 29 this summer for Clark doesn't point to a player that would have made any difference. If you really want to solve a mystery, debate why Brett Lee, career average 30.81 played 76 tests and Clark only 24, despite being the same age. Is there a long-standing obsession with pace and the "X-factor" that means poor performances by certain players are allowed in the hope they'll be "game winners"? And given the relative success of boring Englishmen this summer, isn't that a more reasonable cause for complaint?
Tom
Guest
Certainly, its just that Clark's performances during his time in the team suggest it was perhaps justified. Oh well, from what I understand he has a commerce degree and is working towards a law degree at Sydney Uni; so at least he should have a decent fall back position in spite of his appalling treatment by CA.
Whiteline
Guest
Clark didn't wear his IQ on the back of his ODI shirt, unlike those who unofficially pick the team.
Calvin Shoddy
Roar Rookie
Can't argue with that.
EvertonAndAustralia
Roar Pro
It's because our selectors are retarded
Cricket Burble
Guest
I completely agree with the fact Clark should have played more when he came back from injury...it wasn't like there were huge numbers of world class bowlers in Australia. He was completely mishandled in the 2009 Ashes and on Cricket Burble I was still openly wondering why Australia ignored him for this recent Ashes. At the very least get him in and around the squad as a guy who can bowl 6 balls in a row straight. Peter George did alright in his Test in India but it must have driven Clark to dispair knowing that he wasn't in with a chance of selection ahead of George....
BS
Guest
Stuart Clarke lost significant pace. That is why his test career finished. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.
Tony
Guest
The list of cricketers "labelled the next Glen McGrath" is getting rather long.
damos_x
Guest
Brad Hodge is my favourite ! do agree about Clarke though, he & Lee seemd to go out of the picture yet Lee has rallied ( at what personal cost though ? ) perhaps Clarke saw the way a guy like Gillespie could be treated & realised there were other things in life & with the ways things are going now he's seemingly doing well for himself.
M1tch
Roar Guru
Another interesting guy is Phil Jaques, he actually scored a 100 in his last test match before injury..plenty of players who havent 'fitted' in with Ponting so they dont get the chances.
Calvin Shoddy
Roar Rookie
Clark is not one of Pontings pets, unlike Johnson and Siddle who continue to be picked no matter how poorly they perform.