Four games into this World Cup campaign, and Michael Clarke has faced 18 balls. In fact, after sending down five overs against Afghanistan, he’s bowled more than he’s hit.
In the weeks before the Cup, the selectors’ deadline for Clarke was clear. He had to prove full fitness by Australia’s second game. If he didn’t take the field against Bangladesh he would be replaced in the squad.
There was plenty of comment at the time that this was strict, even harsh, with suggestions that the condition was set up to ensure he would fail to meet it. But the selectors seemed to accept that Clarke needed to play at least five of Australia’s six pool games to be ready for the knockouts.
That was all an illusion. Far from encountering strictness, Clarke has been allowed to cruise past the deadline while barely lifting a bat. The Bangladesh game washed away in Brisbane’s rain without a ball bowled. The New Zealand game a week later saw Clarke score 12 runs from 18 balls, while Australia’s time in the field was done in 23 overs.
In Wednesday’s match against Afghanistan, Clarke again had an undemanding session in the field as a captain defending over 400, and inexplicably didn’t seem to think that the most underprepared player in the tournament should probably have a bat.
With Shane Watson dropped, Clarke was listed to come in at No. 3, the perfect position for a sedate long-innings player in a line-up of hitters. Instead, when a wicket fell after three overs, Clarke promoted Steve Smith, a guy who this season has faced more balls than Indiana Jones.
When the next wicket fell in the 38th over, in went Glenn Maxwell. Then James Faulkner. Then Mitchell Marsh. Then Brad Haddin, who was batting at No. 8 last game and has been playing since just after the dinosaurs conked out.
Bang! Bang! Bang! went the fireworks from the bats of David Warner and Maxwell, while Clarke slid down the batting order like Super Mario down a flagpole. “Thank you Michael, but your match fitness is in another pool game.”
Remember that Australia’s selectors had effectively stated that by their second game of the tournament, Clarke’s time out with injury would mean he couldn’t reliably regain the rhythm of ODI cricket in time for the knockouts.
Now Clarke is about to enter the fifth game of the tournament – a must-win match against Sri Lanka – and still hasn’t had a meaningful innings in the middle. Except now there’s no apparent selectorial objection.
Bluntly, he has fulfilled the letter of their requirement, in being available to play, without fulfilling its spirit in proving match fitness. On the plus side, this has given him more recovery time without pushing his body. On the minus, we have no read on his ability to contribute with the bat, or on whether his body will fail.
The next game is at the Sydney Cricket Ground, where Sri Lanka have won four of their last six. Their top order has scored five centuries at this World Cup. Lose and Australia could face a quarter final against South Africa, then an away semi-final against New Zealand. Win and the route could be via Ireland or the West Indies, and India.
What happens if Clarke has another couple of failures, or another rain shower, or another day where his services aren’t required? Can Australia walk into the knock-out stage carrying a captain with no rhythm, no runs, no decent innings under his belt?
What if he can’t find form before a semi-final? A final? Will they have the gumption to drop him if the team needs it? Or will they stick stubbornly to the choice while George Bailey, who’s played almost every game in the last two years, remains a spectator?
Australia’s batting must be in order. If Clarke didn’t feel he was the right man to come in at any stage during Afghanistan’s 50 overs in the field, what the hell was he doing in the side? We flash back to when he led Australia in T20s, bumping himself down the order because he couldn’t hit like other players. Even in that frenetic format less than a third of his innings topped a strike rate of 100.
Clarke’s bowling against Afghanistan was a belated attempt at participation, but it reminded us of an option. Batting Maxwell at No. 5 and Marsh at No. 6 is not a viable order should a good bowling attack get the top three early.
Bailey must return to No. 5. If Clarke stays then he must combine with Maxwell and Smith to bowl the required overs around his four specialist seamers.
Clarke at his best could still be the core to a one-day innings, but has no recent form to suggest he can currently do it. Australia are thinking themselves favourites for this tournament while carrying a captain riddled with rust and leaving out another captain who is vastly better prepared.
Clarke’s selection was a risk to begin with, and week by week, the vagaries of the pool stage are making it an even greater liability.
This article was first published in Wisden India.
Geoff Lemon
Expert
Spot on, Cunning. Always a relief to hear from the people who get it.
Bobbo7
Guest
While I don't completely disagree with the article, the fact is Clarke is still the best batsman in the country and he can switch it on when needed. If he is fit he walks into the team as he us good enough to make runs without much of a warmup. Every country would give a player of his class a chance to get fit. I have no issue with the WACA game. Australia won easily which is all that really matters.
TheCunningLinguistic
Roar Rookie
Geoff, I think you are criticising Clarke, the Captain. Or more precisely, you are criticising his decision-making process. And you are entitled to do so. It is fair for you to criticise the decision he made- I think you are playing the ball, not the man. I believe your articles are generally fair and balanced, so I don't buy into this Clarke-hating argument. I also think it's fair for others to laud Clarke's decision- I for one am in that camp. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, the fun part is pulling it apart, debating it, disputing fact after spurious fact! That's what makes me love this place. I am Cunning, hear me Roar!
Geoff Lemon
Expert
Don F, making a statement doesn't make it true. There is not one sentence in my article that supports your contention. Nudge, I'm puzzled that I need to explain the difference between disputing an argument and attacking someone's motivation for making it. "You hate X" is a long way from "Your argument about X is wrong because..." If you don't rate my opinion on cricket, I'd suggest not reading my opinion articles about cricket.
Ross Fleming
Roar Rookie
I am with Geoff, he is spot on with his comments in this article
Ross Fleming
Roar Rookie
Real shame Clarke hid against Afganistan, why carry a batsman not in full fitness when the likes of Bailey, Shaun Marsh or Watto can have that spot. Very dissapointing and i can only hope Clarke retires after the world cup from ODI cricket ot focus on on test cricket
Dog's Breakfast
Guest
Agree he should've batted 3 as given on the team sheet. He may have avoided 3 in Tests but he's opened in ODIs and -- all due respect -- we were playing against Afghanistan. With Finch getting out when he did, Clarke had the perfect opportunity to spend some time in the middle. The mind boggles as to why he didn't take the opportunity. Also, looked a real struggle for Smithy to stay focused while batting in that game. He was rousing on himself for playing bad shots quite a few times. Forgivable since he's played so much this summer. Another reason Clarke could have come in at 3.
AussieinNZ
Guest
Neither is the fact that Clarke has never been a great short form cricketer. Come on fellas whosever's side you take we have to accept that the whole situation is bizarre for the reasons well outlined by Geoff.
Dog's Breakfast
Guest
I would have liked to have seen Clarke bat at 3 as advertised for this game. He couldn't do anything about the weather for the Bangladesh game but he certainly did look underdone against the Kiwis. The selectors are to blame though. If they had wanted team stability throughout the World Cup they could have left Clarke out altogether and just have him focus on preparing for the upcoming Tests... But they didn't. And now they're in a situation where they have no clue as to Clarke's form or fitness going into a crunch game -- they deserve the anxious wait. The fans? Not so much. Based on the heated debate here, one can say that the selectors and Clarke will get everything they deserve (and more) if their move proves to be a masterstroke or an abject failure. Agree Bailey should be batting 5 for team balance heading into the knockouts. He's rescued us once already against England (and that was when the Poms had their tails up and still had everything to play for). I think Maxwell and Marsh are good, but I'd like to see them have another 4 years of international experience and growth before expecting success from them in a crunch game, with their side in trouble against a strong attack and they still have 35 overs to bat.
Photon
Guest
All I will say as a South African is, Michael Clarke is one of the better tactical Captains Australia has had, the way he managed the bowling against New Zealand at Eden Park was majestic. They almost defended a score that was impossible to defend. This guy is just like Fleming and Cronjé, two people you could pick just because they are great captains regardless of form caus good players perform like great players under their leadership.
Darren
Guest
Have to agree with Nudge on this one Geoff. You are looking at everything through the prism of Clarke's injury. If you could put that to one side for a moment.you'd see Clarke as captain made exactly the right call. And teamsheet or not, with Watson out Smith was always going to bat 3 and Clarke 4.
Larney
Guest
Clarke said he did it because they were going for a Cup record. That is a bonus but a win against Sri Lanka is a necessity.
TheCunningLinguistic
Guest
Yep, he probably hasn't hit the nets at all... With all of Clarke's experience, and with the Aussie attack bowling to him in the nets, I'm pretty comfortable that he will be fine. I for one was advocating Clarke missing this series for the good of the team, but now that he's back, he made the right decision. Good call, Clarkie.
TheCunningLinguistic
Guest
I'm with you, Ryan- right on the money!
TheCunningLinguistic
Guest
Strewth, ain't that the truth! Terrible pun, I know...
Don Freo
Guest
You are definitely criticizing Clarke, the individual.
Nudge
Guest
Um dah, do you really think we will be going at 8.5 runs per over against Sri Lanka? Of course the run rate was going to decrease when your going at that rate. The beauty of Clarke is that if we are 2 for 30 you wouldn't want anyone else coming in. Also doesn't lined getting bogged down in that situation, and keeps the scoreboard ticking over.
Sylvester
Guest
I'm really surprised so many people are happy for Clarke to go into what is a must-win match with next to no batting under his belt.
Sylvester
Guest
A world class 4 in desperate need of a hit can't bat 3 against a minnow? Yeah, I'm not buying it.
NRC
Guest
I have to agree with Geoff here and I'm by no means a Clarke-hater, quite the opposite. I can't help but notice that many people supporting Clarke's decision not to bat are invoking the selflessness argument; "it was selfless not to come in and slow the RR". Well, if it's agreed he'll slow the run rate against Afghanistan why would we risk him against SL or in finals?