On the face of it, all the ingredients are there for an argument that doesn’t really want to get started. A cricketer thinks he’s fit, and a selection panel aren’t too sure.
Quite easily solved, you would think, and thus avoiding all the inevitable toing and froing that the media have been lapping up in the last few days.
If Michael Clarke believes he will be alright to play in the Test at the Gabba on the back of minimal preparation then he should be given his head.
If the selectors feel that he needs a certain amount of cricket in order to be passed fit then they shouldn’t suggest he plays in a tour game or a grade encounter; they should tell him to do it.
In attempting to cover all the angles by naming Clarke in the squad, those charged with picking the team haven’t really helped themselves and the so-called spat, if it is actually that.
Without knowing anything about the dynamic between Clarke and the selectors, this issue is a tricky one to judge as it offers the impression that Clarke is effectively doing whatever he wants and doing it with two fingers raised in the direction of the men in suits.
This could well be the case, with the New South Welshman taking full advantage of his role as captain and calling their bluff, or it could be that he has been given the opportunity to prepare as he wishes with the proof of the pudding arriving when he has a fitness test in Brisbane.
Would that really be so bad?
Clarke’s history is hardly one of plain sailing when it comes to his fitness and rarely does a series go by without a bulletin about the condition of one part of his anatomy or another. But going back to an aforementioned point, if that isn’t what Rod Marsh et al want then they shouldn’t give their captain any choice.
There is a bigger picture to all of this, namely the forthcoming World Cup and a hectic Test schedule in 2015, but individuals don’t see the whole canvas when the focus is solely on the next game.
Clarke’s desire to play against India next week, and I’m not sure him being captain is really that relevant, is fully understandable and to mock him for being selfish is missing the point to a certain extent.
By definition it is selfish as it’s taken for his own ends, but a cricketer wanting to play for his country is hardly an attitude to criticise. And if his back is likely to end his career at some stage – possibly before he is ready to go – then willingly missing games won’t be particularly high on his agenda.
Looking ahead is the role of the selection panel and a touch more decisiveness wouldn’t harm their cause. They’re paid to make decisions and sitting comfortably on the fence doesn’t fit in that category.
On another matter, enough has been written about the subject already to make my opinion far from unique but I, like every other cricket follower, was shocked by the scenes from the SCG on Tuesday.
A stricken Phil Hughes was a desperate sight and I hope he can pull through.
Squirrel
Guest
Clarke has had his day . Just retire
Shortfineleg
Guest
Simoc, he played while injured in UAE. As a consequence, he has to prove his fitness by playing. It is up to him.
Simoc
Guest
Well if you can read or listen, Clarke has repeatedly stated he is in the hands of medicos and does and will do what they tell him to do. There is zero benefit sitting out the season which may be his last as the main problem is a degenerative condition, which means things are likely to get worse in the long term , not better. So it would be great to see him out there for the first test if the medicos say so. He has nothing to prove at club level and if the selectors don't listen to the medical team, replace one or the other.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
I couldn't care less about his age or anything else. Is he so important that he plays regardles of the risk of him breaking down? For mine, no. And on recent form, absoultely no. I would want him to have at least one full Shield game behind him before being selected. The two day idea is rubbish, and now that he has pulled out of even that there cannot be any confidence he could get through five days. One day of club batting, where he would probably not do anything else for the day is even worse. He should have been playing in the Shield, though the unofrtunate circumstance of the Hughes incident would have meant he would not have gotten to prove match fitness anyway. If I was a selector my message would be "Play at least one Shield game before Adelaide, or miss out there as well." Can Australia afford to take Watson, Clarke and Harris in all under injury clouds of varying degrees? At least Harris has played some four day cricket.
The Bush
Roar Guru
It's tough for Clarke at this point in his career factoring in his injuries and how the team is travelling. Clarke is 33 and has a degenerative back condition. By all accounts he'll be lucky to play another two (2) years. In those circumstances next year will likely be his last Ashes. With Warner and Smith establishing themselves as reliable bastmen and a number of Shield players scoring more runs than we have seen for a while, coupled with Clarke's very obvious loss of form, he must be extremely concerned about his place in the side. His concern is well founded based on the behaviour of the NSP in recent years and their wilingness to drop established players (think Katich). The scenario goes something like this - Clarke misses this Test series and the Aussie batsmen plunder the Indian attack. The World Cup then comes around, and we all know the NSP see ODI runs as the best evidence of an ability to score Test runs, and players such as potentially Khawaja, M Marsh and others also score heavily. Suddenly the encumbants have scored runs and they get backed for the Windies prior to the Ashes. More runs here in the middle order and suddenl one M Clarke, turning 34, isn't so vital. Personally I don't think it's a likely scenario, especially when Rogers is a match-by-match proposition and Watson hardly has a track record with form and fitness to stay in the team. I suspect it is really just a case of Clarke's strong desire to continue playing, being ultra competative and his general frustration with his fitness and form. I am sure he strongly feels that if he can just get out there and hit a few he'll recapture his form and it'll all flow from there.
Shortfineleg
Guest
To be frank, he lost that privilege in the UAE by playing injured. The selectors had to step in.
Blake Standfield
Roar Guru
Saga! in CA's dreams. They are just trying to drum up some publicity for a series the general doesn't care about after the start to the summer that no one knew about. If CA didn't want this in the news they wouldn't be making statements about investigating. Clarke is the Captain of Australia and our best batsmen, he had to be given every chance to prove his fitness. Was there some disagreement about what game he should play in the lead up, I don't know, who cares. Gossiping like school girls.
Ray
Guest
Clarke's recent form is poor and that coupled with an injury doubt is far different position to previous times when he seemed to score runs despite being on one leg. He now needs to prove both form and fitness to be selected going forward.
Monday's Expert
Guest
I think he has enough credit in the bank to be given as long as possible to be declared fit - the test starts 4 December after all - and if he's not up to scratch the day before, then he's out. I get that he's over 30 but he's given great service even if much of the wider public don't appreciate him for it and a few days grace is the least he should be offered.
Geoff Parkes
Expert
He is the captain with a great record of service and success for his country and thus has plenty of credits in his bank to draw from. But does this entitle him to select himself? I think not, that's what selectors are for, the position of Australian captain or test cricketer isn't a job that anybody is entitled to in perpetuity, it is something you get selected and reselected for each time.
Johnno
Guest
wrong end of 30,well said.
Silver Sovereign
Roar Rookie
It has to be taken out of his hands. He is a player and like it or not has to do as he is told. If I was in charge Id make Clarke sit out the whole test series and get himself absolutely 100 percent fit. He is very much over 30 and has to realize there isn't a lot left for him at test level. Better to get himself right as with that age you are much more susceptible to these soft tissue injuries. Especially with his back problems. We need him for the ashes more than the Indian series or world cup
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
I agree. It's silly to drag this out. He wasn't completely fit in the UAE no matter what hs says.
Johnno
Guest
This mini saga has shades of Brian Lara in the 90's, Shane Warne at various times,KP for England vs Peter Moores round 1 when KP is in his prime, Roy Keane Vs Mick Mccarthy soccer World cup 2002, Sir Alex Ferguson V David Beckham, similar patterns of power struggle between establishment v player, coach v player etc. The notion that some players act or think there bigger than the team, the coach etc, the establishment. History shows the player rarely wins out, so Micheal Clarke shouldn't get too big for his boots. Micheal Jordan didn't get on with the general manager at the Chicago Bulls a lot of the time. but this was tolerated as Air Jordan brought in so much money $$ for the Bulls. But Micheal Clarke's bargaining chips have gone down since the south Afrcia series. Rumours of him and Darren Lehmann having selection disagreements etc as Clarke used to be a selector etc. Micheal Clarke is 33 now, 34 in April next year not getting any younger and a back that seems to be getting worse not better. He's hardly the future of Australian cricket anymore.