Michael Clarke has failed his first test as leader before a ball has even been bowled in a test match. When Ponting retired earlier in the year, I like many others, thought that Simon Katich – despite his advanced years – was the right man to lead Australia out of its current malaise.
He has a Border like quality (a man who turned a rabble into a fine Ashes winning side) and is made of the right stuff for test cricket.
His fate has been somewhat different. Despite having the best batting record of any Australian batsman over the last three years and the respect of his peers and the cricketing public – his contract with Cricket Australia was torn up this week.
This is a fate somewhat more grave than being dropped from the team because there is no way back – not at his age.
Katich is an old school cricketer, the very antithesis of Michael Clarke. Herein lies the problem, and the answer, to why Katich’s Cricket Australia contract was not renewed.
Regime change is rarely bloodless. While Clarke is not primarily responsible for choosing contracted players he would have input, and his finger prints are all over this crime scene.
Among cricket circles it is widely know that Katich and Clarke do not like each other. In fact that is putting it lightly.
The relationship has been frosty ever since the famous incident at the SCG following the final test of the 2009/2010 series against Pakistan.
The team were fresh from a massive come from behind test win against Pakistan (as we now know Pakistan may also have been celebrating that night!) and it was the last test of the summer.
Both of these factors meant that a sacrosanct team ritual would be performed that night. As is tradition, the team would wait for the stadium to empty (while emptying a few cans themselves) and the sun to set over the grand old ladies’ stand before venturing out into the middle once more where they would sing the team song “Under the Southern Cross”.
Clarke the inked up, waxed down, sensitive new age guy wanted to make a quick exit to see Lara Bingle while Katich the hairy, crotchety old man would have none of it. Legend has it, team mates had to pull him off Clarke.
Not liking each other does not mean you cannot work together effectively for the greater good of the team. S
imon and Garfunkel sold out stadiums while not talking for years. Kevin Rudd is performing his duties as foreign minister with gusto while openly referring to the lodge as Bogan-ville.
And even in test cricket – Wasim and Waqar and (S) Waugh and Warne were far from mates in very successful teams.
The point is Katich is the best man to open the batting for Australia and Clarkey should have been a big enough man to bury the hatchet.
Katich is not the first man to feel the knife after falling out with the captain – Dean Jones, Michael Slater and Stuart MacGill would have all played many more tests if they had not rubbed their captains up the wrong way.
The difference is all of these guys had attitude problems which impacted their relationship with the team at large.
Katich is a team man and popular amongst his peers. When you think about the incident after the Sydney test, Katich was standing up for team over self.
Clarke on the other hand has put his own feelings above the interests of the team. In doing so he has weakened the top of our order at a time when it was the only solid foundation on which to build the new era.
Joe Karsay
Expert
"I’m just hoping something good comes out of this situation because I actually think the decision that came on Tuesday was absolutely ridiculous" - well said Kat! When is this bloody review of the national team and admin going to be finished?
Viscount Crouchback
Guest
Do I detect the whiff of bromance in some of these panting articles about the laconic, "hairy-chested" Katich? As apaway so cogently points out, it does seem rather strange that attending a dinner date with a boffable filly is somehow seen as less "Australian" than sitting around for hours in a stinking changing room whilst the team song leader - a faintly ridiculous concept in itself - waits for the "perfect moment" when the chaps can belt out their precious song with tears in their eyes. Indeed, I venture to suggest that Clarke's sensible, straightforward approach to playing cricket ought to be seen as a welcome counter-balance to some of the more sentimentalist absurdities of the Australian tradition.
apaway
Guest
I've got a few issues with what has been said in the article: First of all, Simon Katich threw punches at Michale Clarke, who if I remember rightly was the Australian vice-captain at the time. Clarke's "crime" was wanting to fulfil a date with a very attractive woman, over getting p***ed with a sweaty bunch of blokes he'd hung with the whole summer. And it's Clarke who has the attitude problem? How many people in a workplace do you know who would keep their job after taking a swing at the 2IC? Secondly, does Clarke have THAT much say in who gets contracts? He and Katich have played together regularly since the incident without obvious friction so I'm just not getting that Clarke would be throwing his new-found weight around to get rid of Katich at the first opportunity.
GG
Guest
gossip mongering. what evidence do you have that Clarke had anything to do with it?
niee
Guest
why they dropped katich ..may be becoz of the old rift may be between mc n sk...
Al from ctown
Guest
More Clarke bashing huh?.... Really? Katich isn't as good as everyone thinks... He is the reason the blues lost their finals and semi final in the domestic season this year... We were going fine until he took over again... And to be honest... There is no way the captain of the team has any say in who gets a contract from cricket Australia... Please.... Talk about your Clarke hater conspiracy theories... -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.
Matt F
Guest
no he can technically still be selected. there's no rule that only the 25 contracted players can play for Australia. All the top 25 contracts mean is a high guaranteed income by CA. They still get match payments on top of the base contract for every game they play and any player not in the top 25 also gets match payments if they play for Aus, it's just that the rest have to live off a much smaller state based contract. However you would assume if they were going to play him they'd contract him. given his age and the comments made regarding his snubbing it seems clear he's out of their plans, especially given the likes of ferguson, pattinson and cummins are unlikely to be regular's in any form of the game and yet were picked ahead of a test regular (ferguson and pattinson will get a fair few ODI's and T20 matches i'd guess but it would be remarkable if cummins plays more then 3-5 ODI's+T20's)
Matt F
Guest
i doubt it. even if they can't stand each other (clearly they had a massive blue but did they bury the hatchet? i don't know) i doubt, given the lack of any quality replacements at the top of the order, that Clarke would get rid of one of his best performed players just because he felt like it. Even if his ego was out of control surely he'd keep katich in given we've got a much better chance of winning matches with katich rather then without (and a succesful captain gets much more kudos then a losing one.) It's more likely they kept ponting because of his past exploits (and probably part of a guarantee they gave him in return for giving up the captaincy) and hussey because he still plays ODI's as well and is therefore "more valuable." That and given the decisions the selectors have madever the past few years it's more then probable they've just stuffed this one up on their own.
Brett McKay
Guest
Bushy, in the words of Billy Birmingham impersonating Richie Benaud, it's "not an impossible task, but pretty f****** close to it.." Given Australia's next Test is in Sri Lanka in August, and Katich isn't playing in England currently, I suspect they'll use the 5th Ashes Test team as a starting point and go from there. Certainly, losing his contract would suggest he's not in future plans. Katich could force his way in over the domestic summer, so you couldn't say we've definitely seen the last of him, but it's safe to say he's behind the eight-ball now.
FT
Guest
Great result for the other test playing nations! I hope SK signs a lucrative overseas contract and enjoys the last few years of his career with teams that appreciate and value his contribution.
LK
Guest
My understanding is that Kat-man is on a game by game payment system. If memory serves, Hauritz's contract wasn't renewed at one point and he was still selected. It is a weird system. Why 25 players? Especially as there are now three forms of cricket.
jameswm
Guest
Hadn't thought of Clarke being behind it. Who knows? It's consistent with Hilditch's other moronic selections and comments, so I find it easier to believe it's all come from him. I fully agree that Katich was the man to pull us through the next couple of years. Instead they dump him. And we are lumped with an opener whose technique has more holes in it than Butch Cassidy.
The Bush
Roar Guru
Just to confirm, does this mean that Katich will not be selected for the next Test Match involving Australia? Is having your contract "torn-up" (in reality simply not renewed) mean that you are unable to be selected? Or does it just mean Katich is now on a game by game payment-schedule for Test Cricket? If anyone could confirm is we have now seen the last of Katich that would be appreicated.
fisher price
Guest
No, according to Peter Young. But then again, he wears a bow tie.
CAP
Guest
Couldn't agree more Joe. And this is more damning evidence against Hilditch. Clarke has got to go. And so has Hilditch.
Rabbitz
Roar Guru
Actually I think Clarke did bury the hatchet. Unfortunately it was buried deep into Katich's back....