The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Clarke is finished, Clarke is king, Clarke is a Martian

Michael Clarke lofts one over the offside. Is his back injury going to be an issue on the final day? (AFP PHOTO / SAEED KHAN)
Expert
10th December, 2014
24
1043 Reads

At the end of play on Tuesday, Michael Clarke’s career was over. By Wednesday he was cricket’s dominant human. You wish people could make up their minds.

“Clarke’s playing future in limbo”, said the back page of the local rag here in Adelaide after Day 1 of the first Test against India.

>>FOLLOW THE LIVE SCORES OF AUSTRALIA VS INDIA

Plenty of esteemed press-packers echoed the warning. Roar commenters said he should retire, or should have already. A certain unpleasant strain even popped up saying that he was selfish for playing when he wasn’t fit.

Then he came out to bat the next morning and polished off a century.

Shoosh.

The press, of course, just switched to admiration and adulation, forgetting the copy they’d filed 12 hours earlier. I’m not sure where that species of commenter went to hole up, but they’ll be back.

Across the board, it makes me wish that people would hold their tongues with their typing fingers, at least for a little longer, before they get into proclamations.

Advertisement

Obviously Clarke wasn’t in a good way on his return. You could see how awkwardly he moved into his shots, how he avoided twisting, how he forced his boundaries away on the off side. Instead of turning when the short ball angled in to work it square, he leaned back and uppercut it behind point.

He still scored runs.

Was that just a triumph of mind over body? Will he be shot for the rest of the match or series? No idea.

None of us are Clarke or his doctor. Unless Clarke or his doctor are reading, in which case let us know in the comments. Maybe Clarke will battle the strain for the rest of the match. Maybe he’ll struggle in the field, or the second innings. Maybe he’ll only get more limber. Maybe we should shut the hell up.

The decision was made for Clarke to play by the relevant people who thought it was best for him to play.

First up, for those on the outer who argue that emotion should be no part of the equation, you don’t live in a world so easily partitioned. None of the players wanted to take on this match with a makeshift side. Clarke had led them selflessly and with great fortitude in the lead-up, and they wanted the same on the field.

Secondly, his injury on day one wasn’t the same one he’d been recovering from. His hamstring complaints are related to his back, but that doesn’t mean his back is affected by his hamstrings. Even Sesame Street viewers know that one of these things is not like the other.

Advertisement

Clarke’s back spasms and strains can occur any time. If this is your version of ‘carrying an injury’, and therefore a reason he shouldn’t have played, then congratulations: you win first prize at the Pumpkin Head Fair.

Clarke has managed this condition for years. In that time he’s missed one Test and made mountains of runs. In four years and 40 Tests of captaincy – while his back condition has been at its worst – he has as many hundreds as he managed in eight years and 68 Tests as one of the troops. He averages over ten runs more.

Every breathless comment about retirement or recklessness just made me hear South Park’s Saddam: “Hey, relax guy!”

Remember that Clarke has had a couple of weeks of incredible tension and strain. He has slept badly, travelled extensively, trained minimally, sat up late, been the focal point for so many people’s distress.

That Phillip Hughes’ family asked Clarke to read their statements to the media, to be the frontman, to prepare the eulogy, speaks volumes of how much he carried others, and of how heavily he would have been affected by the experience.

No one’s preparation for this match has been ideal, but no player has done more lifting than Clarke. It should be no surprise whatever that there were physical ramifications. It should be even less surprise that he battled through them.

Advertisement

Speculation on that basis is needless. Criticism on that basis is far more unpleasant. It would reflect well on everyone, especially in these emotionally loaded times, to limit their counsel to things they know to be true.

close