Michael Clarke - all hype, no performance

[open365]

i don't.

Clarke needs time in domestic cricket to sort himself out.

as long as the selectors make it clear to him that they still want him to play for AUS in the furture,i think its the right thing to do.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Neither of them are as good as Joy Division.

 

[The Baconator]

Neither of them are as good as Joy Division.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Precisely.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Neither of them are as good as Joy Division.

Who did she play for?

 

[Son Of Coco]

On the Clarke issue, personally I think a stint in state cricket is the way to go - with the 'stint' becoming a career if things don't improve. He obviously has talent, but it's a bit embarrasing to watch at the moment when there players waiting in the wings who should at least be given the chance to perform better than he has so far this series. Let him go back a level and try to make a lot of runs, it would give him some confidence.

 

[Mike Hussey]

Yeah, he can come back for NSW.

 

[Slow Love™]

Don't Sack Clarke, Says Slater

This is an interesting view from Michael Slater.

More generally, I think you have to be careful in dropping players who you actually think and hope (as the selectors do) will play a big part in the team's future. I mean, dropping a player can have a devastating effect on them mentally, and sometimes they never - even if they do make it back - quite recover.

Dropping an insecure personality like Slater for instance (when he was averaging 47) was probably the worst thing the selectors could have done to him. What made that sacking even more bizarre was that, as he points out above, he returned to the team exactly the same player as when he was dropped (ie still impulsive). Anyway, I think they should think long and hard before (and if) they drop Clarke.

I respect Slats, but seriously.... tough titties. If being dropped means he never really gets his mojo back and spends the rest of his years playing domestic cricket (or sporadic international appearances), so be it, it's not a nursery, it's top level sport. Slater might have had a diagnosable illness, but to my knowledge Clarke has not, and such a defence would only re-inforce in many people's minds that he doesn't have the mental strength to succeed at the highest level. It would be one thing if there weren't plenty of guys knocking on the door, but at this level, it's his job to convince the selectors he's the man for the job, and not somebody else.

Personally, he's looking so clueless I'd drop him after this match, but certainly the very next test should be his last chance to show something special, or he's got to have a spell out of the team. As someone said, it's not fair on those who are performing and should be given the opportunity. The selectors' interests must be the success of the team, rather than extending Clarke courtesies that few players with so limited experience would ever be offered.

 

[aussie]

I respect Slats, but seriously.... tough titties. If being dropped means he never really gets his mojo back and spends the rest of his years playing domestic cricket (or sporadic international appearances), so be it, it's not a nursery, it's top level sport. Slater might have had a diagnosable illness, but to my knowledge Clarke has not, and such a defence would only re-inforce in many people's minds that he doesn't have the mental strength to succeed at the highest level. It would be one thing if there weren't plenty of guys knocking on the door, but at this level, it's his job to convince the selectors he's the man for the job, and not somebody else.

Personally, he's looking so clueless I'd drop him after this match, but certainly the very next test should be his last chance to show something special, or he's got to have a spell out of the team. As someone said, it's not fair on those who are performing and should be given the opportunity. The selectors' interests must be the success of the team, rather than extending Clarke courtesies that few players with so limited experience would ever be offered.

top post SL, totally agree

 

[Mike Hussey]

And Clarke is gone.

 

[aussie]

well now that Pup is out, hopefully he will go back to domestic cricket and do would he didn;t get a chance to do before he made his test debut, just score runs....

I think his early experience at test level will help him alot, he's not like past young stalwards i.e Mark Wugh, Ponting who plundered runs at domestic level & force his way into the side as we all know, he had his superb ODI performances & he was into the test side. Then all his techinical flaws that he could have worked out at domestic level were exposed at test level. But he has class, to score a hundred on debut in sub-continent conditions & to have a 36 average is decent, he's the future in the middle order so i'll back him to come back no doubt...

 

[Jono]

It was only a matter of time really. This must have made Mister Wright's day who has been calling for this for a long time.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I would have dropped Symonds and given Clarke one more game. However, the decision is understandable.

 

[Crazy Sam]

why give clarke one more game?!?! he was hitting his head against a brick wall!! He just doesn't have enough experience to turn his poor form and technique around in front of everyone at test level the way hayden did. Leaving him in the test team to 'hopefully' get a few runs wouldn't have resulted to anything I believe.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

It might have resulted in him scoring a century in the next game and fulfilling his potential. It's in the interests of the Australian team to have Clarke playing the way that he has shown he can. He obviously is much more likely to have a future in the Australian test team than Symonds, due to his age, and the class he has shown at the top level to date, so if one was going to be retained for one final test I would have preferred it be Clarke. With Symonds not bowling, and not really showing much with the bat in any test so far, I don't see what the point of continuing to select him is. I'd rather have someone like Phil Jaques or even Lehmann or Martyn in the team.

 

[howardj]

With Symonds not bowling, and not really showing much with the bat in any test so far, I don't see what the point of continuing to select him is. I'd rather have someone like Phil Jaques or even Lehmann or Martyn in the team.

I'd like to think, considering what they've done with Hussey for Adelaide, that the selectors would consider batting Phil Jacques in the middle-order, if his form holds and a vacancy presents itself in the near future. I think he started his career batting down the list, and in my view is certainly every bit as good as (and five years younger than) Hodge, Hussey and Symonds.

 

[andyc]

I think Symonds ought to be given this next test, seeing as how his innings in Hobart doesn't really reflect any trouble at the crease, just poor communication in that one instance. But the thought of Jaques having a game after being absolutely stellar for NSW is a nice one.

 

[age_master]

why give clarke one more game?!?! he was hitting his head against a brick wall!! He just doesn't have enough experience to turn his poor form and technique around in front of everyone at test level the way hayden did. Leaving him in the test team to 'hopefully' get a few runs wouldn't have resulted to anything I believe.

he wasn't looking to bad to me last innings, hes certainly not far off form.

The selection policy with Hayden was stupid, he didn't look like scoring a run for 12 months and ofcourse he has come good given that much time

 

[age_master]

I think Symonds ought to be given this next test, seeing as how his innings in Hobart doesn't really reflect any trouble at the crease, just poor communication in that one instance..

it was Hodge's fault too.

 

[howardj]

The selectors' interests must be the success of the team, rather than extending Clarke courtesies that few players with so limited experience would ever be offered.

Always, the team's interests come first. I guess it's all a matter of what your definition of 'team's interests' is. (ie - is it the short term interest of Australia scoring the most possible runs in the next Test/Test series?; or should 'team interests' be looked at in the mid-to-longer term?). But I agree with your broader point that, yes, selection is a performance based exercise - not exclusively though.