The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Michael Clarke, and a leadership lower than Kim Hughes

Roar Guru
19th June, 2013
Advertisement
Michael Clarke. Australian cricket's Mr Glass may have played his last game of cricket.
Roar Guru
19th June, 2013
9
1588 Reads

When Australians speak of failed captains, the name of Kim Hughes always comes up, fairly or not.

If there is any truth in the reports and rumours regarding the splits within the Australian cricket team, then there appears to be disturbing parallels between the present situation and the Hughes saga of 30 years ago.

Kim Hughes, like Michael Clarke, was groomed from very early on by the powers of Australian cricket to be a Test captain. They were, or are, highly talented batsmen whose overall captaincy records are actually not that bad.

Hughes’ win-loss record was not very impressive, but he had to cope with playing the West Indies at their peak almost every year, and his early captaincy was part-time.

Being a fill-in for an established great and leader cannot have helped matters, particularly when senior players were against him from the very beginning. Both led highly divided camps, with the captain only having the respect and trust of a certain few.

The current squad appears, as did those led by Hughes, to be split among those in favour of the captain and those who dislike him. More disturbingly, it appears that Clarke has his own favourites. That was not so evident in the Hughes era, as those against him included all-time greats who he had no choice but to turn to. It might not have been such a big issue even now, if Clarke was not a selector.

On one level, the division in the team appears quite similar, but there are also differences. Hughes had to contend with a group of senior players determined to undermine him from before the time he got the captaincy, even before he got a Test cap, according to some reports.

The World Series Cricket players, led by Dennis Lillee and Rod Marsh, were dead set against Hughes getting the gig. Hughes’ early captaincy was as a fill-in for a part-time Chappell, itself surely destabilising, in addition the existing animosity towards him.

Advertisement

After Chappell stepped aside, Marsh felt that the captaincy should have been his, and many agreed. Some reportedly saw the golden boy of the time being rewarded for loyalty to an inept, and maybe corrupt in their eyes, establishment. Hughes started out with much more baggage running against him than Clarke ever had. Hughes, in short, was never given a chance.

Clarke has no senior players, which is a problem in itself, but also lacks the trust and faith of many in the group. The big difference between Hughes and Clarke seems to be that Hughes was never given a chance, while Clarke started out with trust and loyalty and lost it.

It is wrong to lay the blames of every player on Clarke. These are professional cricketers who are responsible for their own actions. It is unfortunately, however, human nature for more problems than normal to surface when the leader is not respected.

Clarke started with seemingly universal support, even if there was some doubt about his tactical ability, but has lost people along the way. The amazing thing is that he seems to have lost the players while establishing himself as a reasonable tactician.

He is not making glaring on-field mistakes, and has earned respect in that area, one which should be the main part of a captain’s duty. Yet, he has lost respect in every other sense. It appears that many in the squad either dislike or, worse, distrust him.

With no alternative ready, and only two other players certain of a place in the eleven (if fit and not rotated), he will stay the titular head; but with severely diminished authority, unless he can find a way to assert himself – and do it in a manner seen to be fair. The fact that he can lead by example, and has shown himself to be capable tactically, means he still has a chance to do this.

close