Clarke deadline is asking for trouble

The problem with black and white is that it completely ignores the grey, and the real world is a dull shade of grey.

In theory, the selectors’ decision to put a deadline on Michael Clarke to prove his fitness is sound.

They don’t want the saga dragging on throughout the tournament, posing a potential distraction to the team and stand-in captain George Bailey.

We have seen this situation in many sports.

The latitude given to players to prove they are able to play is usually directly proportionate to their stardom. Bit-part players are ruled out early, superstars are given until an hour before game time.

But this case is different. Michael Clarke is the national skipper, the talisman, the leader.

Surely, according to the theory, he should be given all the time he needs, and be allowed to play any part in the tournament that he can. The rub, though, is that Clarke and the selectors have been lining each other up for a little while, and it was only the tragic events of November that put this little stand-off on hold.

Clarke is a thorn in the selectors’ side, and with the form of Steve Smith over the summer, and the orderly queue of middle-order options, he is probably no longer seen as the essential pick that he once was, particularly in the one-day game.

All of this has combined to give the selectors the fortitude to draw the proverbial line in the sand, and you can bet that Clarke, despite what he says publicly through gritted teeth, is not happy with the power play.

We are now staring down the barrel of the farcical possibility that Clarke will be unfit for Bangladesh on February 21, be good to go a week later, and be sitting on the couch when Australia comes up against the heavyweights at the business end of the tournament.

But maybe the selectors aren’t as worried about that possibility as they once would have been…

The real issue here is whether George Bailey is mature enough to lead the team in Clarke’s absence, with his shadow hanging over him. The selectors obviously think not, hence the deadline to avoid the uncertainty.

Bailey is more than capable of leading the side in these circumstances. It is obviously not ideal, but when you weigh it up against the chance to have a fit and firing Clarke back for the semi-finals, Bailey has a good enough head on his shoulders to handle this unusual situation.

Surely the best result for the team is for the selectors to be straight-up honest with Bailey about his role in the team and the tournament, and bring Clarke back when he is fit.

There are no guarantees with hamstrings, deadline met or not, so it is always going to be a risk and if other players’ form doesn’t leave room for him so be it. Flexibility has to be the key though.

No doubt some will argue that Clarke should just go, or that Bailey isn’t good enough to be in the side anyway. That’s not the argument.

The argument is whether black and white rules help us, or just paint us into an uncomfortable corner. The more I think about this situation, the more uncomfortable I get.