I wrote before the now completed South Africa series that the pressure was on Michael Clarke to consolidate on the games of the home summer.
Arguably, the series against South Africa was more important in the grand scheme than the Ashes.
If you’ll recall, or given how few people read my articles, I will remind you: Clarke was in a form slump, questions were being asked about the English team and the quality of the opposition beaten by Australia, there were legitimate questions about Australia’s top order and they were facing the number one ranked side.
A loss to South Africa threatened to undo a very prosperous and productive summer.
Yet here we all sit, a victorious series later, Clarke back in form, Australia rising up the rankings, and, once again, all feels good in the world of cricket.
Make no mistake, the series win in South Africa is bigger than the Ashes win. Monstrously bigger.
To put into perspective the achievement of the Australians, South Africa have not lost at home since, well, since we beat them, way back in 2009.
That’s a stretch up there with the great West Indian side of the 80s and the Australians of the late 90s, early 2000s.
And the victory was overseas. Recent followers of cricket will know that overseas Test series wins, particularly by Australia, are rarities.
So what do we make of Clarke? Two thumping match wins, one thumping loss, an otherwise barren series, but one captaincy-defining unbeaten century.
Was it a series of immense feast in otherwise famine, or was it a series of simply the result and the runs?
Truth be told, there are no longer any question marks over Clarke the batsman, Clarke the cricketer, Clarke the captain.
The century he scored in that final Test is his best. There’s no argument. It was tough, it was at times brutal, but this was the innings Clarke needed to play.
It was the score that the likes of Ricky Ponting, Steve Waugh, Mark Taylor, Allan Border and every successful Australian captain before him had scored.
In terms of the actual series margin, the blow out scorelines are ultimately deceptive.
I often refer to England’s 2005 Ashes win as the series they won by two runs. If Michael Kasprowicz and Brett Lee pull off the miracle at Edgbasten, I doubt people would unrelentingly refer to it as ‘the greatest series ever played’.
Well, if I’m consistent, the 2014 series in South Africa will be the series Australia won by 27 balls.
The caveat that Steyn was injured for the last Test is irrelevant. Ryan Harris played on a broken leg and bowled Australia to victory.
So the individual game margins were blow outs, but the series was 27 balls away from a draw.
In that light, it was a close series. It was a series that could have gone any way. So Clarke, driven by results, made the right calls.
And in hindsight, it is hard to question Clarke’s captaincy. He made the right calls, while he had the team that followed the calls, and Clarke provided the innings that his team needed at the singular moment they very much needed it the most.
While I would also question how ‘great’ a team is that was always seeking to ‘not be beaten’, rather than always seeking to ‘win’, as South Africa keep doing, it is always hard to ultimately beat a team that has forgotten how to lose.
So while the records and time will legitimately say South Africa were a great team, it took a perhaps greater team to finally seal a victory over them at home.
Australia still remain 12 gaping points behind South Africa in the Test rankings. That is nothing to be sneezed at.
Of course, ranking systems can be deceptive. South Africa have now only won three of their last seven Test matches. Australia have won seven of their last eight.
So South Africa are still the number one team over the last four years, but who is the best at the moment is at least open to debate.
For the moment, this is almost a great Australian side. A top order opener who destroys, a frontline bowler who genuinely strikes fear into retiring batsmen, and so many players with untapped potential.
That also fails to take into consideration the players on the outskirts: Starc, Cummins, Hughes, Marsh. It is no longer the case of who to put in, but who to leave out, and these are the problems you want with a strong side.
It is indeed exciting times for Australian cricket, such a far and distant cry from the shambles and shame that existed twelve months ago.
Michael Clarke returned home a proud, content and accomplished man.
Rightly so.
The pup has grown up. The pup has been replaced by the prize breed, a genuine blue ribbon cattle dog, as was so abundantly evident on that final day as he refused to take a backward step in those dying moments.
It is interesting that so much has been made of his run-in with Steyn.
Apparently Steyn can carry on like a clown with every wicket he takes, but nobody is allowed to throw it back at him. Notably, Steyn was not exactly a wilting wallflower in the confrontation with Clarke.
Further, I would argue that Clarke warning Anderson about impending broken arms, and asking Steyn to politely keep quiet and get back to his crease, have made him a better captain and a more relatable captain.
I know when I’m on a playing field, I don’t give a flying ducky how profane my captain is, I just want to know that he’s playing for me and he has my back and he’s leading from the front.
Michael Clarke has finally and categorically proven that he is that captain on every front.
So the questions about Clarke have not disappeared, but they have been replaced.
It’s no longer a case of ‘what type of captain will Clarke be?’, but rather ‘how good a captain can Clarke be?’.
No longer should we ask ‘does Clarke score runs when we need them?’, but ‘how many runs will Clarke score when we need them?’.
Clarke has three, maybe four, hopefully five years left wearing the baggy green. That time is now his to not necessarily define his legacy.
No, these final years are his to cement his legacy.
jammel
Guest
For me, that I've seen: 1=Border Ponting SWaugh 2=Clarke MHussey Gilchrist MWaugh Hayden 3=Boon Jones Slater MTaylor Langer Martyn 4=Lehmann Warner Katich
jammel
Guest
agreed Nick! Watson belongs with geoff marsh (and shaun marsh for that matter), blewett, elliott, love, law, etc.
matt h
Guest
Just be careful saying that stuff too close to Watson. The extra breeze might strain a bicep.
matt h
Guest
Tier 1 - Arthur Morris, Victor Trumper, Clem Hill Tier 2 - Bill Ponsford, Bill Lawry, Bill Brown Tier 3 - Ian Redpath. Norm O'Niell Sorry Johnno, just had to add a fw for my own piece of mind. Also I'd have Haydos at Tier 2 and same with Bobby Simpson (add his fielding, legspin and captaincy and coaching and you have a definite tier one in Australian cricket though)
Nick
Roar Guru
All I do is advocate some perspective instead of being blind to reality. I support the global game, not just Australia. Yes, I was happy to critique Warner, Johnson (like everyone else did) because they warranted it. I'm also happy to be proven wrong by their form. Good on them. I don't think I've every given Haddin a go (in fact I distinctly remember commenting on how ridiculous it was that the selectors cast him aside when his daughter was sick, considering that it was precisely why his head wasn't in the game). Clarke...well, I have a lot of time for his abilities I just don't think he is a great...yet. I think its wrong to put him in the same category as the fab four that we were treated to in the past decade. And Watson, I just purely hate him. And will continue to criticise him. He is just the most overrated sportsman in this country. It was completely pathetic that he was rewarded with the captaincy for being a triumph in mediocrity. So, I take on board some of your words, but I will continue to slag Watson until he retires or is dropped. Hopefully soon. Australia would have won all these tests without him. Johnson, Warner, Haddin etc have been that good.
Sideline Comm.
Guest
All sorts of wrong this. Huss is easily 2. Warner isn't yet 3. Watto isn't in any. Gilchrist is 3. Hayden could well be 2. And most importantly, the Don isn't in any tier but his own.
Sideline Comm.
Guest
Any bias towards the mighty Newcastle Knights is fine by me.
ozinsa
Guest
Is it really so easy to say, in the moment of extreme glory, I apologise for being a goose and allowing our victory to be tainted? More power to him. It implies he won't be as quick to make the same mistake again.
perry cox
Roar Guru
Definitely dashes of bias and hope mixed in. in large portions. I figure I am a passionate supporter. I love to show that rage on the page. I also love that you can see some good writing through the subjectivity. :-) Hopefully, though, you can still see the good writing through my bias towards the Newcastle Knights.
perry cox
Roar Guru
Thanks Jay. Really appreciated. I figure Clarke has copped it enough over the years. Time for him to enjoy the accolades he has earned.
Johnno
Guest
You have to remember those past players, alot of them made most of there runs, in the days of no ropes, less bat technology, and socring and averages were lower. You base it how dominant they were in there era, and big innings in big matches they played.
Blaze
Guest
Yeah that, or maybe, just maybe, the reason he actually gave in his interview? That being the heat of the moment when things happened and other things were said? Seriously, do you blokes need to have a conspiracy theory or some sort of skewed motive behind everything that people say? I mean yeah it's great for the comments section, but gee whiz.... He did it, admitted he was out of line because of the situation at hand and apologised like a normal person would and still cops this crap from you "experts" in psychology... Why wouldn't he say it in the post match interview? It was there for all to see anyway... The blow up and the apology an over or so later.... The media obviously asked him about it... Why would he cop an arrogant label by you lot if he had said nothing when asked? Seems like he can't win to me...
Declan McClure
Roar Pro
I think Clarke has more 150+ scores than most if not all of the tier one bats. Serious arguments can be made to put him in that first tier.
Nudge
Guest
Yeah I absorbe them because it seems your not happy unless your slagging off an Aussie cricketer. Who's it been in the last year? Watson, Clarke, Haddin, Johnson, Warner. Aussie cricket team on fire at the moment. Running out of options mate.
Nick
Roar Guru
Yeah, but he didn't fail in South Africa did he? Nice memory though. Glad to see my comments are absorbed :p
Nudge
Guest
And Warner should be dropped Nick, if he fails in South Africa. Right? Hahaha
Johnno
Guest
You have a point Nick, off to Tier 7 for Watto.
Nick
Roar Guru
Quite true. Its so easy to make a throw away apology after the event...ala Sebastian Vettel. Real leaders engage their brain before opening their mouth.
Nick
Roar Guru
Watto in tier 4? Really? A mid-30's average gives you tier 4 status? Lets then include: Blewett, Elliot, Lehmann, Geoff Marsh, Hookes, Walters, Hodge (dropped after scoring a double), Martin Love among others....players who are demonstrably better batsman that Watto. Try tier 7 for Watto.
Nick
Roar Guru
Clarke the batsman is not a great....yet. We can't just throw people into the great category. Too many will undermine the idea of being a great. IMHO I think a great needs to satisfy three criteria 1. Needs to have scored a double century (demonstrating an ability to completely master a bowling attack and have the stamina to play for hours). Clarke has met this obviously several times. 2. Needs to finish with a career average of better than 50. Clarke is meeting this. 3. Needs to have a home and away average differential of ideally less than 10 (a little bit of leeway can be excused). Clarke does not meet this. While he is improving his away form (a great 161 certainly helps) he currently has a differential of 20 which is too much. It indicates he can only be absolutely dominant at home. In fact, 3/4 of Clarke's home centuries are on two grounds. The greats are dominant both home and away. Dravid, Tendulkar, Kallis have average differentials less than 4 (Dravid actually performs better away). Lara has a differential of 11 but can be excused because he hit an equal amount of centuries at home and away, doubles at home and away, and obviously 775 of not out runs in two innings unnaturally inflates his home average. Ponting has a differential of 11, but also hit doubles at home and abroad, hit centuries against all nations etc. Clarke's 61 at home and 41 away is too big a gap at the moment. I'm not saying Clarke is incapable of doing it, he certainly has the ability....he just needs to do it to deserve to be placed in the 'greats'. As a captain however: superb tactician, dreadfully boorish leader.