Mickey and Pup throw a well deserved elbow

ShakaZulu, I respect your alternate views. As said, I believe this is coaching by media. I doubt a coach in the old days, in an honorary position (assuming they had them back then), with all expenses covered & a daily allowance provided, but no salary, would have felt the need to make a public show like this. Part of the problem was for Arthur to be seen by his bosses as being a tough, proactive coach. In other words, protect his contract. I had a boss once who worked on the first floor & we all worked on the ground floor. His attitude was that, if no problems came up the stars to his office, then everything was okay. The inference was that the four shift crews sorted out any behavioral or operational problems on crew. It had to be a pretty severe problem if he needed to be made aware of it. As it ought to be. BTW, the movie Zulu, despite its historical inaccuracies, is an outstanding example of leadership.

But what if the things a coach may want you to do will impact on your playing style? for example: If the coaches say you have to do weights sessions that then changes your body shape and suddenly you can't swing the ball anymore, pretty sure its not the coach thats going to be dropped.

Sheek, finally I have found something in your comments with which I agree i.e. your remarks re MacArthur - probably the most over rated Military leader ever. Your comments on Arthur are way off target based on my sources in the cricketing world in my old country. I think you are making a lot of assumptions re facing confrontations. He faced plenty in SA not the least all the political interference and won respect from everyone. And that's confrontation with a lot more potential dire consequences than what has transpired here! My take is that the fellows who could not face confrontation were the ones who sat through the team meeting and apparently said nothing in disagreement re the alleged task and then behaved as they did. We don't have all the facts but it seems to me that Arthur and Clarke are facing up to the confrontation pretty well and Pattinson is showing excellent maturity. Watson is an enigma to me - great potential, seems a likeable bloke but always seem to have some reason or other not to play to his potential Or, just maybe, he never had the potential we all assumed he did. Clarke is not my cup of tea but boy has he performed as a player! And he is trying his best to make the team understand what the performance standards must be. He has my respect.

Hi Cameron, By now you might have guessed I am no fan of the "leadership cult." It's my view that for every good leader in the business & political world, there's probably as a many as 99 duds. That's an appalling conversion rate. You would hope the conversion rate was better in the military, but reading the history books, it gets ugly there as well. The way our society works, the way most western societies work, often the wrong people climb the management ladder. The most competent usually aren't in a hurry to scurry up the ladder, while those that do are mostly in it for themselves. Either for personal financial & material gain, to sate their overblown ego or to hide a social defect (if I'm boss, they'll have to acknowledge me). I would suggest the people who seek promotion because they want to make the world a better place are actually in a very tiny minority. Which is sad. Consequently, the world is full of incompetents & Australia isn't immune. I could give you a thousand examples, but as someone with a military background, you would appreciate the heroism of Kokoda. It was a very close run thing. In the end the Aussies prevailed because of the extraordinary courage of those at the coalface, the careless overconfidence of the Japs, & the terrain (arguably the most inhospitable in the world). But no thanks whatsoever goes to the high command back in Australia. Both Blamey & Macarthur were first rate imbeciles. How any American with a working military knowledge can consider Macarthur a great strategist is beyond my comprehension. Blamey isn't worth wasting breath on. Yet the leadership of the middle management team (OIC generals down to captains, even lieutenants) at Kokoda was exemplary. But for their efforts they got shafted anyway. Mickey Arthur is not a leader. I find his behaviour treacherous to the code of solving issues in-house. It takes a man of courage & stature to square his team mates in the eye & tell them to lift their game. Arthur couldn't do it, he had to run to the press. Ditto Clarke. It's a shame because he's a great batsman, & shown himself to be an adventurous & innovative captain. But like Arthur, he can't handle face to face confrontation. Much easier to run to the press.

Alan Jones is ALWAYS right! :-) :-) :-) (Heck, even I know I don't believe that). ;-)

Alan Jones is ALWAYS right! :-) :-) :-) (Heck, even I know I don't believe that). ;-)

Appreciated, Chris b. While I'm usually quite happy to cut across the grain on many topics, I'm gratified to see many more people share the same views as I than don't. i notice even Boycs (treat the players as adults & keep it in-house) is saying much the same thing! ;-)

You don't sacrifice fairness to an individual for "universal message' THe ends don't justify the means (and it's remains to be seen whether the ends will turn out to be good). Especially when there's a risk of having the squad thinking the management are behaving unfairly. Suspending two players for repeat infringement is still a strong message but it would be fair.

What a load of crap. I don't know how old you are but if you can remember the pace attacks of the 70s through to mid 90s, there is no way you would think modern bowling has improved. And just sticking with cricket, if modern players are so much better why are most modern batsmen so at sea whenever pitch or ball does something? Who knows how they'd cope on an old "sticky" wicket? Very insulting view about some if our greats. Id love to see warner and co face bodyline or the windies of the 80s without a helmet.

Sheek, out of thousands of comments on this topic this is far and away the best. No doubt there are lazy cricketers in the oz set up right now, but they are, and will be, exposed by poor form and lazy play, not by passing (or doing) a written exam. The overreaction by the same management team responsible for astoundingly poor team selection was ridiculous and reflected badly PN all concerned. For those with a pop culture bent, it reminded me of Lord Rees-Moggs famous editorial "To break a butterfly on a wheel" in response to the Rolling Stones' drug bust, where he castigated another silly establishment response. Wonder what he'd make of homework-gate?

They are both right. Jones' point was that if the leadership group were so big on team unity and the like, hence the harsh punishments handed out for seemingly minor infractions, Clarke could well have lead the way and chosen an activity that didn't involve not travelling with the team.

Yes he hasn't handled this whole thing very well

Sheek, I don't think they'd run out of options at all. At first, I thought the suspensions were harsh. In time, I've come to realise they were the only way to send the message properly..

And mine does, JGK? It was reported over the weekend, and Arthur said in the press conference and his CA blog, that the players had two days off to do as the please. David Warnerwas all over Twitter showing off some new golf clubs ata resort course in or near Chandrigah (which isn't far from Mohali, as I understand). Clarke, for his break, elected to go to the Taj Mahal. Why is Alan Jones more right than the journos travelling with the team?

I am no fan of Jones but his comment doesn't seem wrong.

In my humble opinion, the only people who have significantly failed in their duties here are the four players named and Pat Howad, who must have surely given one of the most inept media performances of a rugby official for many a year. The players at fault have been dealt with. I would imagine that Howard will be councelled at some point also.

Cannot argue with any of that. Spot on.

Gidday Brett, We're obviously gonna have to disagree on this one, as we basically have since Monday night. ;-) I'm amazed you think Arthur & Clarke had run out of options. You were right above when you said, "the team management must similarly look at why the standards had been allowed to slip." In my job, serious misdemeanors, breeches of protocol, etc are writable offences. Three writable offences in a reasonably short timeframe (12 months) & your continued employment is on the line. We tend to be contemptuous of one particular officer who is quick to write people up, because he is basically only able to control through fear. Good officers, & good managers, will only use the write-up as a last resort. Going public with suspensions, is hardly the best way to solve this matter, in my humble opinion. Of course, I could be wrong, & we might see a 'bounce back' in the third test. But there are serious fracture lines in Australian cricket now.

Previously, I have never been a fan of Clarke but I have been changing my view of him ever since he became unbingled. He is still young but obviously has set high standards for himself and the team. He is showing signs of learning fast and will make mistakes but appears to have the guts to keep trying to lead. And he performs as a player.His time off appears sanctioned and reasonable and I doubt that he is trying to hide from anyone. Watson, on the other hand is now 31, has scored just 2 centuries in 40 tests and seems to have a sense of entitlement.All those injuries have been a real hindrance but it's time he toughened up and performed to his own valuation of his ability. And time he supported Clarke from the front as well.Pattinson appears to have true grit from his response and I think we may have the makings of a great fast bowler here.