All aboard the Michael Clarke bandwagon

Apologies if my assertion of "fervently pursuing universal admiration" was overstating your statement. That wasn't my intention. What was was to highlight how people like to think of Clarke more as a brand than a person, and base their opinions of him on that. James, what choice does he have when a reporter asks a question regarding public perception? To ignore it? What do you think the headline will be then? As an ex-journo, I can only imagine how journos (who long think they have an entitlement to anything and everything) will act out by using colourful words that otherwise describe Clarke as stand-offish and a protected species. I'd rather him say what he honestly feels. And him saying that he would like to win the public's respect isn't rocket science, most public figures want that. The biggest issue I have with Clarke is that he now doesn't have as much time now to go around to schools across the Sydney area and give sessions with kids. That was his best asset when he first entered the team, and the kids loved it. I'd rather a cricketer that still understands their duty to the grassroots community, and Clarke has done that magnificently. That never gets talked about. Apparently only a relationship to a washed-up bikini model and trivial disagreements with ex-teammates are worthy of mention...

Perhaps the main issue is that the same standard be used for all players to avoid the suggestion of favouritism. How many extra chances does a player get based on past performances? The more objective the process is seen to be the less contention there is when form slips. We Australians do have a very strong egalitarian streak, no one's inherently better than anyone else, so real, and even perceived, favouritism will always cause animosity.

How far back we go in assessing a persons 'form' will always be an issue of debate, as will, when and when not to swing the axe. How many innings should any player be given at the top level to regain form? IMHO, any Test batman averaging just 24.3 in 17 innings is open to criticism, no matter who they are. If they are open to criticism then their place in their side should rightly be under active discussion, irrespective of who they are or what they might have done in the past.

I'm pleased to see a couple of sensible comments about the Katich incident. In my workplace (and they are professional cricketers so it was their workplace) what Katich did would get him instant dismissal. The criticism of Clarke for this has always made me angry.

Interesting point but I disagree. Use Mundine as an example. He doesn't toe any company line and in many ways is completely rebellious and goes against the 'standard' view on a lot of ways but the vast majority of sporting fans are turned off by his attitude. Australians will always side with the humble athlete that goes about his business rather than the flash harry. Clarke's run-in with Katich is an example, as Matt F points out above all Clarke wanted to do was go and spend some time with his missus after 5 hours of celebration and got grabbed by the throat and slammed into a locker...yet nearly everyone sided with Katich.

No worries Barry. I was originally of your way of thinking. I've come around to the view that maybe if this was going to completely preoccupy him, such that he would have just been going through the motions playing the one-dayers with his mind elsewhere, it was the right thing to do to go and sort it out (even though it would have been easier in many ways to stay and play in a half-arsed way). Maybe that's an over-generous construction of it.

Come on vas. I didn't say "fervently pursuing universal admiration". Don't overstate things to make your point. He admitted winning the public's respect is important to him, but he said you'll never have everyone like you. As I said earlier - I don't have too big a problem with him thinking that, but I don't know how wise it is for him to say it. maybe more of him is coming out in interviews now (a good thing), rather than the trained cliches we've usually had from him.

It's not that Australia prefer their heroes to be humbler, it is that Australian culture has a fundamental dislike of authority and affluence - it plays out in tall poppy syndrome, it plays out in the romanticised hero worship of a thief and murderer in Ned Kelly. Clarke has and (shock horror) spends money, and he toes the company line rather than mouthing off - he might have his cool guy tatts but he's essentially the class captain and Australians like to see themselves as gritty and slightly rebellious (however false that self image is).

Whoops - sorry JohnB read Barry, not Harry in your post. My bad. Still - my point stands about taking time off work to break up with your girlfriend !

So ? I didn't say that he'd missed tests. He's a professional cricketer - what reaction would you get if you asked your boss for two weeks off to break up with your girlfriend ?

Fair enough, but regardless of whether or not you think these things are 'stupid' one, some or all of these are the reasons why people have struggled to warm to Clarke. I think the common thread with a lot of these things is the way Clarke has been happy to play them all out in public. You may call it tall poppy syndrome but I would suggest (without any data other than gut feel) that most Aussies don't warm to guys who constantly 'big note' themselves. We prefer our heroes to be a bit more humble. The Ferrari, the bat sponsorship, the undies, the relationship with Bingle, whether they're stupid or not were played out in public. To my mind the biggest factor in the turnaround of how Clarke is perceived is that he's showing infinitely more humility and is keeping his private life private. 329* didn't hurt ! For example - his new missus is an absolute stunner, but have you seen them plastered over New Idea, etc like the Bingle relationship was ? What we're talking about is public perception of Clarke - mainly away from the field - and since coming onto the first class scene I don't think he's managed his image (or brand) particularly well.

Which of course is the fault of the man in the shed rather than the one with the willoe (or god forbid the coaching staff).

Barry, most of those reason are just stupid. Bat Sponsorship - I doubt he was on a million dollars before he played test cricket, though I stand to be corrected. Regardless name me anybody else his age that wouldn't take that kind of money if they were offered. I would and I'm positive that you would as well. Annointed leader - Why is that his fault? He didn't order CA to annoint him. They saw his potential leadership qualities, and the age of the rest of the side at the time, and thought he had the nescessary qualities. Signs so far have been quite good. Hate CA if you want but it's not his fault. these same people must absolutely despise Tim Paine! Bingle - A man in his early-mid 20's falls in love with a girl, realises she's no good and ditches her. I'm sure there are plenty of people who have gone out with somebody that they now regret in hindsight. Undie ads - He hasn't done those for years. Besides everybody loves Pat Rafter and he was in the exact same ad campaign! Katich - God forbid he thinks 5 hours of celebrating a victory is enough! I'm still not sure how requesting a song be sung (which always used to be sung straight after a game until fairly recently) warrants getting a hand around your throat...... Time off - he missed a few pointless ODI's to fix his personal life, ditch Bingle in person (ie the right way,) and get his mind right for the Test series. I love a cricketer that puts Test cricket first. Don't you? Lack of big scores - 18 test centuries not enough? Average of 48.65? That's a very good record so far. Form slump - People don't like him because he had a form slump? I can understand questioning his spot in the XI but why is that a reason not to like him? Besides, every player has had rough patches in their careers. I'd love to know of a player who's never had a form slump before. Ponting was rubbish for 2 years up until a few weeks ago yet he got a rousing reception everywhere he went.

Personally I don't think he's won the public's respect yet. He's won some of them over but some are merely going quiet now and are waiting for a failiure before they jump out agin. I just don't get how some people can dislike/hate a guy that they've never met and who seems to be a far better off-field character then other ex-cricketers who they adore (a famous leg spinner that may or may not have the initials SKW is one of many examples that spring to mind.....)

He was asked the question of whether he felt the innings would help him gain the public's respect, to which he did respond that he wanted it, but that he knew he'd always have his critics regardless of what he does. I don't see that as fervently pursuing universal admiration, but more as a man who has become comfortable with the notion that some people will view unfavourably, with or without justification. I don't think there's anyone out there who didn't wish they could be more respected, but Clarke doesn't seem to be a guy who is actively pursuing it now. He may have once upon a time, but not anymore. He's being true to himself, and that's all he should be. What others think shouldn't matter.

Axel I always thiought Clarke would be a good or very good on-field captain. I was impressed with how he handled theAussie T20 team, with luittle experience. Poor T20 bat, but good captain. The reverse of Ponting in tests! I think his apologists need to understand he is on his way, but can't claim to have won over the public yet. All signs since taking over the captaincy are positive though. Well, almost all.

Vas Clarke after his 329 said he is looking for the public's respect. So yes, he does care about what we think.

I wondered the same Hoy about the collapses. Should the captain be galvanising them shoehow? and how?

I don't think Clarke is after the trust of people like you or me Wooblies. He has family and friends for that. We're merely his audience. Let's not overstate our importance. If you don't like what you're watching, you're perfectly welcome to swtich your television off or leave the stadium. It's that simple. What do you know about Michael Clarke the person Wooblies? What do any of us know? We don't know jack about him, or Border, or Chappell or Waugh. We are a public gallery through which all of them performed to, and we judged them by their performance. If their performance wasn't up to scratch, they wouldn't survive. With an average of 48, Clarke is very much entitled to sit alongside those other names in terms of performance. Clarke can't win or lose without being confused? How is he confused? He knew the simple truth that regardless of whether he had 29, 329 or 529 runs in Sydney, his team would not win that Test match unless they took 20 Indian wickets. His declaration with more than two days remaining was the boldest statement in telling his bowlers to take their time and work to a plan. His bowlers delivered, and his decision was vindicated. A by-product of what club? What do you think James Sutherland and Wally Edwards are doing at Jolimont, smoking cigars with petty cash and drinking Dom Perignon out of crystal glass? For all their faults, they haven't turned Cricket Australia into the Playboy Mansion. Where was his prowess before India? Waiting to be found, just as Steve Waugh took four years (and 27 Tests) before scoring his first Test hundred. Just because you pay hard-earned cash to watch the game you love does not entitle you to make ill-thought out assumptions on the personalities of players. I don't know them, nor do you. The only ones who can claim that are the people within their inner sanctum. We're merely the public gallery.

Harry, let's break down your points one by one. - Was it Clarke's fault that he was required to attend a sponsor's function, or is Vodafone void of any blame for scheduling a p*ssy media event during the middle of an important Test match? If Clarke says no, then CA has to sack him to keep Vodafone happy. And as the Monkeygate issue showed, CA has no problem in selling out its players in order to keep their profits thriving. Clarke was merely covering his arse. The alternative would be to kiss his international career goodbye. - Clarke left the ground after play ended? My God that's terrible. What do you expect him to do, stay and deliver a lashing to his players on the field in full public view? Remember these guys are professionals and do this for a living. They don't deserve to be humiliated in the full view of the public gallery. If that's what you're after, go to a mud wrestling match. - Clarke did not miss the NZ test series that coincided with Lara Bingle's personal issues. He sought leave from the ODI series that preceded it, where players are regularly rested to keep fresh for the more important Tests. And while Lara Bingle might be a media whore and showpony, Clarke was doing the right thing by the woman he was with. Admonishing him for trying to help his girlfriend through a serious issue is something I would like to think we would all do, regardless whether we're Michael Clarke or Joe Nobody. (And for the record, his first appearance after breaking up with Bingle, he scored 168 - his highest Test score until a week ago). - Getting out before stumps. Bad form slumps. Read Waugh, Taylor, Ganguly, Hayden, Martyn, Katich, Clarke (after his first bout). Read even Bradman (who scored 18 and 1 in his first Test, and was dropped in the following one). While Tendulkar has never been dropped (not that India's selectors would ever have the hide to do so), he did get out to Peter Siddle in Melbourne near stumps on Day 2. Given a career of 183 Test matches, I can imagine that wouldn't be the first time he's done so. Point is, the so-called supporters of Australian cricket love a scapegoat whenever things are tough, and their attention turns to Clarke, regardless of whether he's actually at fault or not. And they hold much more value on when he's in bad form then when he's in good form. For no better proof of that, people will still talk about last season's poor Ashes series now. Yet in a year from now, if Clarke gets in a slump, then those same people will decide to conveniently forget he's made four hundreds in his first 10 Tests as captain with an average above 60. And for those thinking I'm referring heavily to his triple ton, that's still not as good as the knock he made against South Africa in the Cape Town debacle. I've not seen a better Test innings by an Australian batsman in tough conditions since Steve Waugh...