In case you missed it, ex-Australian skipper Michael Clarke made a return to cricket on the weekend, turning out in the Sydney grade competition for Western Suburbs.
Clarke came out of retirement to score 48 and 30 runs, and helped guide Wests to their first victory of the season. His appearance – on the surface – seemed like a simple and innocent story of a cricketer doing what he’s always done: play cricket.
However, things have never been simple when it comes to Michael John Clarke.
More cricket:
» Australia reversing to victory over Kiwis
» Trevor Bayliss and Eddie Jones have improved England, now it’s Wayne Bennett’s turn
» Australia’s Test batting lineup is becoming dominant
» World number one in Tests, now for the World T20 Cup
» New Zealand vs Australia: Second Test – Day 4 cricket live scores, blog
» Scorecard: New Zealand vs Australia second Test
The man they call ‘Pup’ has always been a lightning rod for publicity.
Many like to think it’s by design, and perhaps there is some truth in that sentiment. Clarke certainly seems at home in the limelight, controversy has never been far away during his career, and his media profile has been what can only be described as ‘managed’.
Yet by the same token, in the modern 24-hour news cycle, journalists and writers are always looking for stories, angles and narratives.
With the Big Bash having wrapped up weeks ago, the Test team being on tour, and football season not quite upon us, a slight vacuum currently exists for Australian sports reporting.
Clarke, by virtue of his personality, has always provided the sporting world with plenty of news. There’s never been any shortage of opinions on him, and opinions generate hits. In reality, Clarke should be sent gifts from many journalists and writers in the land as a thank you for making their jobs easier.
I therefore find it a little strange that when Clarke does provides ‘content’ – for lack of a better word – that some in the media take issue with it. Celebrities are often told to not ‘bite the hand that feeds them’, but surely that works both ways?
On Saturday, Andrew Webster from the Sydney Morning Herald wrote a piece on Clarke’s comeback.
Webster is a fine journalist, and one of my favourites writers. I rarely miss reading his material, yet that doesn’t mean I always agree with him. In fact, it would be extremely boring if I did.
To that point, I was bemused by his piece on Saturday, as he explained that he had no interest in Michael Clarke’s comeback – and then wrote over 600 words on it.
I understand the ironic nature of writing about something you purport to have no interest on; I’ve done it many times myself.
However the piece did serve as a catalyst for many a discussion about whether Clarke’s comeback was simply a case of him clutching at whatever relevance he has left, and struggling with not being in the public eye anymore.
I have no idea if this is true. Only Clarke himself can answer that. However, does it really matter? What if he does simply miss the limelight? Is that really a sin for a guy that’s been in it since he was 21 years of age? Can you blame him?
Before I break the Guinness Book of World Records for most questions in a paragraph, allow me to throw out another crazy thought. Perhaps, just maybe, could it be that someone who has done something since he was a little boy actually misses that particular something?
Is it not possible that an Australian male, who has played cricket his whole life, and only retired because he physically couldn’t play anymore, actually missed playing cricket? Is that not feasible?
Yes, Clarke has suggested that the comeback could be bigger than just grade cricket, with the BBL, IPL, County cricket, Sheffield Shield and even international cricket not ruled out.
To be fair, doesn’t it stand to reason that a cricketer who played at quite a high level – in an understatement for the ages – should set his sights a little higher than just Sydney grade cricket, once he made the decision to return to the crease? Wouldn’t that actually make sense?
Michael Clarke may miss the attention.
Maybe he just missed the game.
Perhaps he never separated the two anyway.
Either way, I have a hard time criticising a guy for doing something he loves, irrespective of his motivations.
Kris
Guest
If he misses playing cricket, then it's tremendous that he's able to do what he loves. If he misses the camaraderie of the dressing room, then it's tremendous that he's able to be part of a team environment again. If he wants to use this to work his way back to first class cricket or even international cricket then it's tremendous that he still has that hunger. If he wants to use this as a platform to launch a T20 career then it's tremendous that he has the opportunity to earn money. Whatever the reason, it's tremendous that he's playing cricket.
Train Without A Terminus
Guest
Please don't use CAPITALS as if this makes your prattle true.
OJP
Guest
I agree with all that The Bush, especially your points about the Haddin situation
Andy Hill
Roar Pro
The real Andy Hill thinks Clarke can do what he likes. Doesn't bother me.
Andy Hill
Roar Pro
Just look for the Koala Don. If you don't see it, then its the troll on the loose.
Andy Hill
Roar Pro
Errr, I never commented on this. And for the record, I don't see anything wrong with what Clarke is doing. Good on him. Has someone been using my handle again?
Zim Zam
Roar Rookie
Yeah. What Clarke did for the Hughes family and the Aussie team throughout that period was incredible. The fact that anyone could attack him over it is unbelievable. Some people, huh?
Al
Guest
Especially when every interview has been done in a Wests polo shirt...... Coincidence? Highly doubtful...
JoM
Roar Rookie
Very seriously Zim Zam. Having to listen to him trying not to cry during that speech and then for that person whoever he is saying the team have taken nothing on board and that maybe they were a bit more like crocodile tears. I was probably one inch away from making an international phone but I would have made a goose of myself probably so didn't.
jamesb
Guest
Just like Border did with the Qld side in '95. The result, Qld winning their first Shield title, while young players like Hayden, Love, Symonds were all learning from AB.
Zim Zam
Roar Rookie
To be honest, I really doubt Clarke had to engineer anything to end up with this much publicity. I don't think he could have avoided it if he tried. If told every journalist trying to interview him to bugger off, it would hardly paint him in a better light, would it?
Zim Zam
Roar Rookie
Seriously, JoM? It's just bloody sick how people have brought up Phil Hughes and used him as a device with which to attack Australia over the spirit in which they play the game. It's a hundred times worse than anything arrogant or boorish a player can do on the field.
matth
Guest
And if Katich did come out of retirement? Would you then be critiscising him as well? What about all those retired players going around in the new masters league? Why does the public think they have the right to tell these guys when and where they can play cricket?
matth
Guest
The way people go on you would think Clarke was some sort of master criminal
JoM
Roar Rookie
I'm still listening to Radio Sport through the CA website and they are banging on about Australia not playing in the spirit of cricket and how we are not custodians. Then they had the gall to play part of Clarke's speech at the Hughes funeral and have just said the Aussie team has not taken on board one word of that speech. The worst part was the goose who is hosting this said he thinks they were crocodile tears. Absolutely disgusting.
Andrew
Guest
That's very disappointing andy and doesn't surprise me about Clarke
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
There are similarities (at least for me) to when Michael Jordan came out of retirement to play for the Washington Wizards. Considering he was close to 40, many people bemoaned the fact that Jordan would be ruining his legacy, and it would taint their memories of his greatness. Somehow it was them, not him.
The Bush
Roar Guru
Great story JoM. Clarke sounds like a real jerk... P.S. If anyone actually knew anything about Clarke they'd know that he's actually a pretty bright bloke for a cricketer and that he's been very smart with his money from a young age. So as you say, apparently he's loaded. Hardly needs the cash from cricket at this point. Besides a lucrative career awaits in the comm box if he wants it (apparently Lawry is throwing in the towel for good).
The Bush
Roar Guru
So first off it was that Clarke had issues with Watto, making him divisive as Watto was very popular, to actually he wanted Watto there all along and he was actually fighting with the selectors. As Don Freo said, to some people, there's nothing Clarke can do to win in their eyes. As for the Haddin thing. The entire team was apparently upset at Haddin being replaced whilst dealing with family issues. Why wouldn't they be, they'd all like to think that they would be retained after something like that. Clarke was simply sticking up for his team mate, his vice captain to boot. Remember as captain, he is the mouth piece of the entire side. The reality is that this is the exact reason why it was correct to remove the captain from the selection panel - the panel made the right call and it the captain was the right person to represent the group in that situation.
The Bush
Roar Guru
Thanks Maggie, I couldn't remember the exact timing of it all. I certainly know that at the time Katich's anger was directed to the selection panel and there was talk of "suing" CA. It seems only as time passes that it was Clarke's fault.