Cricket Australia's treatment of Michael Clarke has been disgraceful

Indeed.....well said. Same as the military.

That is a fine piece of writing. Plenty of common sense.

Bringing clarke back as captain will be a step back as far as I'm concerned. It is Steve Smiths team and Smith should be captain in all forms. If Clarke does come back in the world cup he will do more harm than good. He will be denying Shaun Marsh who is in top form the chance to play and also he will put himself at risk for the Ashes. Another thing people haven't really thought about is if Clarke does re injure his hammy or back in the WC then the opposition captain could deny Australia a substitute fielder because it is not a new injury, Clarke came into the game with an injury. Best case scenario for Australia is that Clarke is ruled out of the WC.

Clarke is an employee of CA. It is up to them to select the team and set whatever fitness test they deem necessary. If Clarke doesn't like it, tough luck.

To all critics of Michael Clarke, imagine the last 10 years without him. Done pretty well scoring runs. Might not have the best people skills, but not everyone has. Can't keep everyone happy all the time. Different circumstances in different times might have been easier for him ,who knows. Can't be that bad, otherwise the place would have fallen apart by now. Who knows what Watson is like in private anyway? There are always 2 sides to a story. Clarke's brought me a whole lot of pleasure watching him, bat so he'll do me. If they can forgive players failing time and again, they should forgive him for being injured once in a while,especially with his track record.

David Warner not captain material- need to be a good man manager and have the capacity to think before putting the mouth in gear. Naturally talented but not leadership skilled.

Hope he is in the commentary box in England. Pomms 12th man.

Couldnt agree more with what youve written.Absolutely disgraceful how they have treated MC, but then again he really should be left out of the World Cup squad as preventative measure because if he fails with injury during the tournament I feel he wont ever be the captain again.

JT, according to your definition, I am a "selfish supporter" of Michael Clarke (you draw an assertion that his inclusion somehow benefits me personally - a truly original notion). Did you know that since the last World Cup, Australia have played 82 matches, for 47 wins, 28 losses, 1 tie and 6 no results. In those 82 matches, Clarke has played 43, for 26 wins, 14 losses and 3 NRs. Bailey has lead in 27 games, won 14, lost 10 and 3 NRs. The other captains are Smith (1 game, 1 win), Watson (9 games, 5 wins, 3 losses, 1 tie) and Ponting (2 games, 1 win, 1 loss). On those figures alone, I don't know how you mount a case that Clarke's leadership has somehow been a deterrent to the team. He took over the captaincy after Australia's WC knockout, has lost players of the calibre of Lee, Hussey and Ponting, and has managed to oversee the success of new players like Finch and Starc, and plenty more in the Test side. Beyond the mere captaincy, the batting numbers are also worthy of assessment. Both players present good stats. In his 43 matches, Clarke has scored 1601 runs, striking at 79.93 and averaging 47.08. In his 39 visits to the wicket, he has scored 9 50s and 3 100s. In Bailey's 55 matches, he has scored 1960 runs, striking at 87.22 and averaging 42.60. In 52 innings, he has 14 50s and only 2 hundreds. Now, should Clarke be jettisoned simply because a few people don't like him? Bullshit. It's no secret that Shane Warne started to hate Steve Waugh from the moment he was dropped in the West Indies in 1999. Moreover, Warne was no friend of Adam Gilchrist, going so far to rate his Victorian teammate Darren Berry as a greater cricketer than Gilchrist in his 100 best cricketers book. If Clarke can be dropped because people like Watson don't like him? If so, can we drop Watson because Clarke doesn't like him? Can we sack my colleague because I don't like him? Can your employer sack you because they don't like you? If that's the mentality, then we really need to grow up. Personal rifts happen in every workplace and in all walks of life. But that doesn't excuse the inability to work together. Gilchrist and Warne was a good example of working well together despite their personal differences. On the basis of batting stats, Clarke deserves a spot as a player. On the basis of his record as a captain, Clarke is better than Bailey. On the basis that a side with Clarke looks stronger than a side without (on account of his batting, captaincy, fielding and his left arm spin). But all of that is subject to his fitness. And if he wasn't adamant to return to the team at the earliest possible time, people like you would be questioning his work ethic, and I would be joining you. The fact Clarke is trying his darndest to return means he is keen to play and lead his country at a home World Cup. It has nothing to do with any sinister notion, despite your best attempts to make it seem so.

Correct Jo, Clarke and Warner are as "thick as thieves", Warner's been doing Clarke's "dirty work" on the field and behind the scenes for 2 or 3 years.

Perhaps then have a look at the averages of the group of players that were selected ahead of him for that match. Clear cut. And yeah let's rest the youngest batsman in the squad for the first match of the summer. Yep that makes a lot a lot a sense

Why not? As you've said, they had a surfeit of batsmen, two of which were looking to return from injury. "Resting" isn't about saying a player is exhausted right there and then, but managing them across a period of time, according to team scheduling and needs.

They wouldn't rest the youngest player in the squad for the first game of the summer either, even if it was a short turnaround between Pakistan and the first one dayer.

Yes there has been a bit of painting of him in caricature, with little horns, pitchfork and a pointy tail. Not helpful really, although to tell the truth neither is painting him with a radiant halo. I'd certainly back him in, up to a point, but I think that point is cutting it pretty fine at the moment.

As I said Dalgety Watson and Clarke were returning from injury, Bailey had just been captain and was a lock at that stage, and even though Smith had a great couple of games in that series he didn't have the runs on the board at that stage compared to the other 5. Remember Smith had been very poor in one dayers up until that Pakistan series. This is what the top 5 was in that first one dayer against South Africa and also my estimate averages to that point in their one day careers. Finch (35) Warner(32) Watson(41) Clarke (43) Bailey (48) Smith not selected (26) Mitch Marsh batted 6, and he was needed as the 6th recognised bowler with Watson returning from injury. And the reason he would not have been sent back to NSW was because he was in the squad and needed for backup in case a batsman got injured, which is exactly what happened first match to Micheal Clarke. Second match Smith came in and he continued on from where he left in Pakistan

David Lord! Good Lord! There's no explicable reason for him being dropped Nudge and you need to reach into some nonsensical accounts to explain it. A much simpler and logical explanation is squad/player management. Plus if he really was dropped, then why did he not go back and play for NSW?

He may not of played for a while, but champions don't lose their form overnight. I remember the one day series last year against Zimbabwe when he had no warmup match and hadn't played for 3 months. All the rest of our batting order couldn't hit the ball off the square, but yet Clarke did it so easy and effortlessly in compiling 70 odd. Then in the Adelaide test last year, despite once again no match practise for 2 months, and batting at about 60 percent fitness for his last 70 runs he toyed with the Indian bowlers. The bloke is an absolute gun player, and he should be afforded every opportunity to play in the World Cup. The sporting world is so fickle, and it's amazing how some so called sports lovers can forget how good someone is, just because they haven't seen them play for a couple of months.

The supporters for (clarke to play this WC) are the exact reason for the team to hit rock bottom after 2007. Clarke puts himself up at the top of a mountain while putting the team at the bottom of the ocean. His only motive is to be a vicious dictatorship. The supporters of clarke are guilty of the same thing. The want him blindly at the cost of the team losing. Clarke& his supporters wanting to play this ODI WC is a joke. It proves that his selfish supporters are not the supporters of Australia. Beside being unfit, he didn't play ODIs last year while the rest played atleast 15 & have become a solid ODI team. Clarke coming back all of a sudden for WC ODI is as ridiculous as some test player like rogers wanting to playing ODI again. Clarke's inclusion physically looks like a team of 10½ players, but actually(mentally) it will be a team of under-performing players since his presence (dictatorship) has negative effect on the team. Anybody with a brain knows that his inclusion is detrimental & ruins Oz's WC chances.

As I see it CA is much the same as another sport which figures prominently when it comes to deceit and spiralling down changes to effective team members and fine ambassadors of their respective sports. It's all about money and the belief that they believe some loser can put bums on seats. Having said that allow me to say I believe MC is probably one of the most astute captains AC has ever had and his skill with the bat is second to none. So why would CA want him out or ball him out ? He isn't a spent force and not physically brittle like other players which are mentioned and whom I might add my opinion on this and the particular player in mind is seconded by IC and his peer group. SS is the nominated successor it had been well written of and qualified by responsible entities within CA. So I ask do you all believe the crap that is written and sensationalised by some buffoons whom are employed by the media who over reach the "freedom of the press" notion? I certainly don't, they are employed to sensationalise, strip character and sell papers not to be responsible, just hinge on being responsible. And I'll almost guarantee these journalists ???? are of the X gen. So why do they write this crap? Simple to sell and entice you people to become involved in what is termed social media it occupies space and time and is a windfall for media and comms but most importantly you the social media freaks hide behind pseudonyms and have scant respect or empathy for the victim being ravaged by mindless dills who print the original garbage, in essence you are being conned and are making fools of yourselves by way of paraphrasing and creating conversation based questionable reporting. . Sorry to the genuine reader but hey I've got a life and social media with it's character assassinations is not part of it particularly when the story is very questionable. This is not a reflection on John Hunt

Dalgety, your wrong on that one, he was certainly dropped. Clarke and Watson who both missed the Pakistan one dayers came back in for the start of the RSA series and Smith was dropped. If you go back and read an article from David lord on the roar he was scathing on the decision from the selectors