Katich - Clarke Ended My Career

[Kram81]

Tin foil hat much?

On a side note Vodafone are the most ****ing useless mobile phone service provider.

 

[nairbe]

I accept the premise of your argument and understand the influence of sponsorship but i feel you are somewhat too suspicious. Clarke has always been the golden boy and this alone is probably why i have never taken to him but Clarke was not alone in the poor form department during the humbling we received during the last ashes. If he was to get the boot then to should a few more and there lies the real selection problems. You cannot simply change 50% of a team and expect results. Clarke despite his poor form has been the future capitan for a while, i don't think they had considered any other possibility. He is still young enough that he would regain form and be a good bat again so pressure was with others fir the selectors.
Despite my concerns and as i have said, Clarke has started his time as capitan well and hope is there, i wish him all the best and am glad to eat my words. Any problems with sponsorship as genuine as it may be is something that needs dealing with off the field. You crusade may be genuine but we should support the team as they are.
As for vodafone never been with them and never will with their coverage issues.

 

[Form Players Only]

This is not some kind of conspiracy theory - it's standard marketing practice to pay someone famous to be your face on TV, then pay someone else to make sure that person stays famous. What I'm saying is this should have no place in representative sport. It's fine if, say, a footy player is paid sponsorship money and the same company pays the club a little more to make sure that player makes the team each week. Still morally questionable, but the club is a business and can argue that making money for the club by choosing one player over another is benefiting the club.

The Australian cricket team is Australia's representative team though. Nothing but merit should be a factor in selection, and you cannot say that nothing but merit has caused Michael Clarke's continual selection in the Australian team throughout his test woes over the last 18 months.

As for the team winning recently, in tests we can thank Mike Hussey (2011 average 72.57), Shaun Marsh (2011 average 80) and Steve Smith (2011 average 72). Clarke this year has averaged 37.

In 2010 tests, Watson, Katich, Hussey, Ponting and Haddin all had better averages than Clarke, who averaged just under 37 for the year. All the while there were plenty of runs being made in Shield ranks.

Clarke should definitely be in the one day team, where he continues to perform consistently, averaging around 55 this year and last. They are two different teams though, and based on his performance on the test field he should not be in the team, let alone be captain and selector. Most of all, and critically important, he should not be personally sponsored by the same company that sponsors the selecting body. There should be no obstacle to free movement in and out of the team based on form. Under the current scenario with Vodafone, CA and Clarke, Clarke has a massive advantage over all other players. He is Vodafone's man, and Vodafone wield financial influence over CA.

 

[Form Players Only]

Stability in the Australian cricket team through the convergent careers of now retired stars Shane Warne, Glenn McGrath, Adam Gilchrist, the Waugh twins, Matthew Hayden and Justin Langer was rarely questioned. Why would it be? It was in fact in the nation’s best interests to keep them all together in order to press a green and gold boot on the throat of world cricket.

It was during this period of dominance that the widely perceived boys’ club of Australian cricket drew the least criticism. No selection formula was required, because the formula of personnel in the team was arguably as close to perfection as has been seen in world cricket. The job of the national selectors would have been a walk in the park, and the selection panel meetings probably consisted of lunch at the local pub with a “cheers” to the then current squad.

But before and since this golden era, the policy of keeping chaps in the team until beyond the public’s tolerance for seeing their faces has limited Australia’s potential for success. The very human selectors fail to act decisively because the perception is that when the axe has been wielded, a career is over. And for a selector, close to the players, which good bloke deserves his career chopped? The selectors may well think “Surely one more chance should be given? After all, the next century for the poor guy could be made in his next innings, or the one after that, or the one after that. Plus, who could forget that big one he made last season?”

What we now need is a selection process, not selectors. We need a transparent formula for in-form state players to make the national team. Something tangible that lets them focus and set goals that once achieved, will see them presented with their baggy green test cap, or not-so-baggy one-day cap. Something that lets them know that they will be the next player called up. Or if they aren’t, they know exactly why by looking at a chart or table, and what they have to do to clinch the next spot. A formula that also allows omitted players to re-make the team once they are back in the mix of state competition, so being dropped simply isn’t considered the end at all – because it isn’t. Perform well under the formula and they will get back into the national team in a month or two or twelve, because it’s up to their numbers, their performance at state level, not up to a selector who had only just gathered the gumption to drop them under the weight of public outcry.

It is time for player turnover to be embraced as both vital to the ongoing success of the national team and to enhance the depth of available talent. Change to the team should not only be regular, it should take place at frequent scheduled intervals and be mandatory if the formula’s criteria are met. Human influence should be removed, with no message to an omitted player other than to buckle down and they’ll be right back in the team. There would be no need for players to face public wrath over their poor form and continued selection. There would be no need for a “rebuilding” phase after multiple retirements. The national team would always be choc-full of players in the peak of their form, and the pool of hungry Australian cricketers who regularly make the team will keep enthusiam and focus on the part of those who are actually competing in national colours on any given day nice and high.

So, what sort of system should be implemented? This will hopefully be debated and probably tweaked in order to get the formula right, and I don’t presume to have the perfect model, but for the sake of opening the discussion, consider the following proposal which truly embraces change as a positive.

After each specified period, say two international matches, one batsman and one bowler must be substituted or “cycled” out of the national team. Terms such as “dropped” or “demoted” are negative and should be avoided to aid player acceptance of the new culture of continual change. They will be “cycled” back in again soon enough if they perform.

The national team batsman with the lowest batting average over those two matches will be cycled out. He will be replaced by the batsman who stands at the top of the “form table” from the ranks outside the current national team. The form table should be a rolling average of each non-national batsman’s scores in their their last three batting innings. Since entry into the Australian team will be based on current hot form, it’s important that the average is over only a few innings.

The batsman cycled out of the national team would automatically be in calculations for his immediate return if his form was not really that bad, and no standout replacement existed. International runs should be weighted, since it should be considered that international opposition is of a slightly higher calibre than state opposition. For example, let’s say the national batsman who has performed the least impressively in the two match period still averaged 50 in that time. His position must be reviewed due to the formula, but perhaps a 20% weighting should be applied to that international average of 50, making it worth 60 state runs. If no state player averaged higher than 60 in that period, the national player would retain his spot and no change made. If however, the state player at the top of the form table did average higher than 60 in his last three innings, he would come into the national team and the cycled-out player would take his place on the form table with his last three international innings, weighted by 20%, until his ensuing state performances were taken into account in replacement. He could be out of the team for a few months, or he could be the next player to come into the team a week or two later. There is no human influence in his omission, and no human obstacle to his return to the team.

The same idea would be applied to the bowlers. The international bowler with the least impressive average over the two-game period would make way for the highest placed state bowler on the form table. For the purposes of bowling averages for team selection, wickets should be replaced in this formula by the combination of both wickets taken and chances created (for example, catches dropped by others off their bowling would be worth the same as if the fieldsman had held the catch, as this is out of the control of the bowler and still created by his effort).

Once again, international wickets should be weighted by perhaps 20% over state wickets, so if the outgoing bowler took 4 in the two games, it would be increased by 20% to 5 in the calculation of his bowling average. This may save his place in the team if his performance was not particularly bad and no standout performer exists to replace him at that stage.

Under this strategy, no player would be in jeopardy of losing their national spot unless they put in the least impressive performance in the team for their discipline over a two game period. Those losing their places will still have their cricketing destinies well within their own power and will have every chance to return. Australian cricket will always be vibrant, fresh, exciting and competitive. It will envigorate the state competition. Let’s face it – it shouldn’t be easy to retain a place in the Australian cricket team. It is the pinnacle of world cricket and only those players in the best form should wear the national coat of arms.

As for who should captain under this formula, why put all of your eggs in one basket? The man who has retained his place the longest should be given first option, and rotate it to the next player if two losses have come since the last win, or if a series is lost. There is no reason that the captaincy should be gifted to a single individual for a period of years. It is mainly an ideas position and no individual at international level can claim to have all of the good ideas. Share the job around to see who has the best ideas the most frequently.

The Australian cricket team should not be the protected realm of a privileged few, but an accessible goal and realistic aspiration for all first class cricketers in Australia. It should be representative of the cream of Australian cricketing form. Mandatory player rotations are the answer, and a selection system based on form should be implemented. Fairness should reign, not egos. No more relying on selectors – let’s put the onus on the players themselves and let them steer their own destinies. Whether it’s because of the scintillating recent knocks of a volatile young gun, the maiden capping of a state competition journeyman or the return of a champion favourite, there would always be a reason to get excited on selection night.

 

[Ljp86]

Nice conspiracy theory you have here. Three other Australian players had averages lower than Clarke for the series, Ponting, North and Hughes with Katich's only three runs higher. Ponting should have been dropped before Clarke as his form was even worse than Clarke's was. But blaming Vodafone for incorrect team selection is pretty far-fetched.

 

[Form Players Only]

Nice conspiracy theory you have here. Three other Australian players had averages lower than Clarke for the series, Ponting, North and Hughes with Katich's only three runs higher. Ponting should have been dropped before Clarke as his form was even worse than Clarke's was. But blaming Vodafone for incorrect team selection is pretty far-fetched.

This is not a conspiracy theory though. Clarke is on Vodafone's payroll, receiving a million dollars for a three year deal which commenced in June 2010. Cricket Australia is also sponsored by Vodafone and controls selection.

You think it's far-fetched? There may not be a Vodafone executive sitting in on selection meetings, but do you really think Cricket Australia, going into the "Vodafone" test series, is going to drop Vodafone's spokesman from the team?

What I'm saying is that this pressure should be removed from team selection and nothing but the merit of performance be considered. Sponsor politics and sponsorship money should have no place in deciding who makes a representative team.

I don't mind players being sponsored and I don't mind CA being sponsored, but there is a huge conflict of interest if a sponsor has both a player, and the body that selects him, on its payroll.

I'm perfectly happy for Ponting, North, Katich and Hughes's fortunes to rest on their performances as well. In fact, spill the whole team, have them all play a few Shield games then pick the best performing eleven from the entire first-class pool. Give us players in hot form and we wouldn't have lost tests by an innings on home soil.

I actually believe that there should be no human factor in team selection, with regular, monthly or fortnightly scheduled substitutions where the worst performing batsman and bowler are automatically replaced with the highest performing Shield players over that period. But I've posted on that too.

Bottom line - don't let CA have a financial interest in selecting ANY individual player over another. This is not a club, it's a national representative team and only form should count.

 

[Ljp86]

This is not a conspiracy theory though. Clarke is on Vodafone's payroll, receiving a million dollars for a three year deal which commenced in June 2010. Cricket Australia is also sponsored by Vodafone and controls selection.

You think it's far-fetched? There may not be a Vodafone executive sitting in on selection meetings, but do you really think Cricket Australia, going into the "Vodafone" test series, is going to drop Vodafone's spokesman from the team?

Do you really think Australia would drop its vice-captain on the back of a poor series? Disregarding any deals and endorsements that Clarke has with Vodafone, he's the vice captain and is in a pretty much undroppable position regardless of what sponsorships he has. Clarke's form would have had to have gotten so bad that his form would have to demand he be dropped and while it was poor I don't think CA will get rid of their vice-captain on the back of a few poor innings.

Suggesting that Vodafone is having some sort of influence on who is picked is a tinfoil hat theory at best. You seem to be finding other ways to suggest that Clarke was kept in the team purely because of the dollars rather than the selectors showing some faith and picking a player who was the team's second in charge at the time.

What I'm saying is that this pressure should be removed from team selection and nothing but the merit of performance be considered. Sponsor politics and sponsorship money should have no place in deciding who makes a representative team.

I don't mind players being sponsored and I don't mind CA being sponsored, but there is a huge conflict of interest if a sponsor has both a player, and the body that selects him, on its payroll.

I'm perfectly happy for Ponting, North, Katich and Hughes's fortunes to rest on their performances as well. In fact, spill the whole team, have them all play a few Shield games then pick the best performing eleven from the entire first-class pool. Give us players in hot form and we wouldn't have lost tests by an innings on home soil.

I actually believe that there should be no human factor in team selection, with regular, monthly or fortnightly scheduled substitutions where the worst performing batsman and bowler are automatically replaced with the highest performing Shield players over that period. But I've posted on that too.

Bottom line - don't let CA have a financial interest in selecting ANY individual player over another. This is not a club, it's a national representative team and only form should count.

Sorry mate but I'm not buying your story at all, it's ludicrous to think that Vodafone is having some sort of impact on whether a player is picked or not. Clarke is a senior member of the team and his position is relatively safe given he was the vice-captain and is now the team's skipper. Several other player also endorse Vodafone whilst the Australian summer is on, some of whom aren't in team anymore as they have been dropped or have retired.

I seriously doubt financial interests would determine which players are picked to represent Australia, we aren't a "pay" team.

 

[Form Players Only]

Do you really think Australia would drop its vice-captain on the back of a poor series? Disregarding any deals and endorsements that Clarke has with Vodafone, he's the vice captain and is in a pretty much undroppable position regardless of what sponsorships he has. Clarke's form would have had to have gotten so bad that his form would have to demand he be dropped and while it was poor I don't think CA will get rid of their vice-captain on the back of a few poor innings.

Suggesting that Vodafone is having some sort of influence on who is picked is a tinfoil hat theory at best. You seem to be finding other ways to suggest that Clarke was kept in the team purely because of the dollars rather than the selectors showing some faith and picking a player who was the team's second in charge at the time.

Sorry mate but I'm not buying your story at all, it's ludicrous to think that Vodafone is having some sort of impact on whether a player is picked or not. Clarke is a senior member of the team and his position is relatively safe given he was the vice-captain and is now the team's skipper. Several other player also endorse Vodafone whilst the Australian summer is on, some of whom aren't in team anymore as they have been dropped or have retired.

I seriously doubt financial interests would determine which players are picked to represent Australia, we aren't a "pay" team.

Actually only Clarke has signed an ongoing deal with Vodaphone, apart from CA itself. The other players to appear in their ads receive one-off bonuses, which is fine. CA would have said "Who wants to go with Clarkey to do this ad? There's five grand in it for you", or something like that. Got no issue with CA being sponsored and those players under the CA blanket receiving cash for a one-off gig. Clarke's deal is very different. It's big bucks to be Vodafone's spokesman for a defined period of three years. You can bet that it was discussed between Cricket Australia and Vodafone, or at least hinted (and we're talking about a multinational company's marketing specialists here, not people who are just going to leave it to chance) that CA's own sponsorship would be a higher figure if Clarke were to be kept in the team, so he could remain visible and be better value for Vodafone.

If you're not convinced that's fine, I know I'm not going to convince everybody. But if you can't acknowledge the fact that CA's major sponsor having a financial interest in Clarke making the team places pressure on CA at selection time, you'd be missing the point of what I'm saying. Even if his form is bad enough to demand him being dropped, CA will not drop him until June 2013 at the earliest, at the expiration of Clarke's Vodafone contract.

Plenty of people thought that Clarke should have been dropped for the Ashes. Most of the nation was in uproar at the time. Polls were showing 80% of people wanted him gone. There was some pretty ugly stuff going around about him in forums and news article comments. It should have been easy for CA to drop him back to the Shield to pick up some form, as there was plenty of talent knocking on the door and the selectors had been ruthlessly targeted as being unable to make a tough decision. But they didn't drop Clarke.

Leading into the Ashes, in the series against Pakistan he averaged only 34. He then went to India and scored 14, 4, 14 and 3 as the Aussies crashed to defeat. He'd only hit two tonnes in the last five series, going back 16 months. You can argue whether he deserved the number 4 spot in the team or whether other batsmen in Australia would have done better. But most of Australia believed he was not deserving of his place in the national squad. With the ink on his new Vodafone deal still drying, Cricket Australia announced his selection in the "Vodafone Ashes Series".

Vice captaincy or captaincy should have no bearing either, as the leaders are selected from an announced team. You make a good point about that though. It's not the first time a player's captaincy/vice captaincy kept them in the team for too long. If you think back to the 90's, once Taylor / Healy went, it finally made room for the Waugh / Gilchrist domination period.

Whether or not CA think about Clarke's contract with Vodafone before they announce the team selection for a Vodafone test series is not really the point. The point is the potential is there. The rest is conjecture, sure.

Can you really disagree with any of these three statements though?

Clarke IS sponsored by Vodafone, Cricket Australia IS sponsored by Vodafone, and Vodafone WOULD be annoyed if their spokesman were dropped from the team.

 

[Beeswax]

Do you really think Australia would drop its vice-captain on the back of a poor series? Disregarding any deals and endorsements that Clarke has with Vodafone, he's the vice captain and is in a pretty much undroppable position regardless of what sponsorships he has. Clarke's form would have had to have gotten so bad that his form would have to demand he be dropped and while it was poor I don't think CA will get rid of their vice-captain on the back of a few poor innings.

Suggesting that Vodafone is having some sort of influence on who is picked is a tinfoil hat theory at best. You seem to be finding other ways to suggest that Clarke was kept in the team purely because of the dollars rather than the selectors showing some faith and picking a player who was the team's second in charge at the time.

Sorry mate but I'm not buying your story at all, it's ludicrous to think that Vodafone is having some sort of impact on whether a player is picked or not. Clarke is a senior member of the team and his position is relatively safe given he was the vice-captain and is now the team's skipper. Several other player also endorse Vodafone whilst the Australian summer is on, some of whom aren't in team anymore as they have been dropped or have retired.

I seriously doubt financial interests would determine which players are picked to represent Australia, we aren't a "pay" team.

I don't think it's that far-fetched an idea except that if Clarke is as unpopular as Form claims he is, why would Vodafone want him fronting their brand?

Don't like the idea of a 3 innings cycle for any player in and out of the test team, it sounds unreasonably extreme and would lead to players like Liam Bloody Davis opening round about now in the tour match. Sod that.

 

[Form Players Only]

Vodafone chose Clarke for 3 reasons. Firstly, he was seen as having a good connection with Gen Y, with all his photo shoots, tats and use of Twitter. Secondly, he likes to keep himself in the centre of attention, with all his photo shoots, tats and use of Twitter. Thirdly, he was vice captain, which implies, but in itself does not guarantee, stability of selection.

You're right though - I think Vodafone screwed up in signing him, since his unpopularity means Clarke is just as likely to turn someone away as attract them to the brand.

Regarding the 3 inning cycle, it's just a suggestion for a formula. Change it for 4, 5 or 6 or whatever, just as long as everyone knows what they have to do to make the national team, aim for it, and have no human obstacle to getting in. The cycle time should be reasonably short though, as the point is to bring in someone in hot current form, rather than someone who got a ton 5 weeks ago. Someone averaging 70 or 80 in the last 3 weeks deserves to represent Australia more than someone averaging 10 in their last series. Clarke averaged 9 in India prior to the Ashes.

My view is that representing Australia should not be easy, not an ongoing status without merit. Being in the Australian team already should not give a massive advantage to one player over other prospective players, no matter what they scored on debut 7 years ago. We need to turnover players and not make it such a big deal to be dropped. We need to test more players at international level. Remember that Clarke himself only averaged 40 at state level when picked to play for Australia and he instantly did well. All other cricketers deserve that chance too, if they are the highest performer in the country when a representative national team is picked.

 

[nairbe]

My view is that representing Australia should not be easy, not an ongoing status without merit. Being in the Australian team already should not give a massive advantage to one player over other prospective players, no matter what they scored on debut 7 years ago. We need to turnover players and not make it such a big deal to be dropped. We need to test more players at international level. Remember that Clarke himself only averaged 40 at state level when picked to play for Australia and he instantly did well. All other cricketers deserve that chance too, if they are the highest performer in the country when a representative national team is picked.

I really wonder how much team sport you have played never mind cricket. Team makeup and how the team performs together and for each other is vital to long term outcomes. what you suggest will leave us in the bin for a long time as was England as they chopped and changed. All the good teams are stable. You do your best for you mates if you would bleed for them when you are close. Not when they will be out next week because they had a few bad knocks. What about the hard overs they ground out on a dead pitch, how about the gutz to bat through the new ball, the energy in the field, to use an old saying "there is no I in team"

Your vodafone crusade is all well and good but over played, Kim Hughs is the comparison i most used for Clarke. they have been determined he is the man no matter what for a long time. The real mistake is making him a selector. This is poor thinking, the capitan has always had a big influence but not a vote unless on tour but he does not select the touring party.

 

[Form Players Only]

Yeah, I've played team sports. Cricket, hockey and football, but these were for clubs. I payed my fees and had my dose of competition for the weekend. The difference with the Australian cricket team is that it's supposed to represent the best of Australia. It's not a club, and selection in it should be a realistic outcome for the best performers in Australia. Continual selection of under-performers plus continual team failure will always put pressure on team morale. Team spirit is awesome, and it's more likely to be felt in a team where everybody knows that they all deserve their place. Not to mention the whole nation can all get behind the team. I've never seen so much division in the Australian cricket-watching public as exists today over Clarke's captaincy. If he deserves his place so much, I'd like to know how the vast majority formed an opposing opinion.

 

[Ljp86]

Actually only Clarke has signed an ongoing deal with Vodaphone, apart from CA itself. The other players to appear in their ads receive one-off bonuses, which is fine. CA would have said "Who wants to go with Clarkey to do this ad? There's five grand in it for you", or something like that. Got no issue with CA being sponsored and those players under the CA blanket receiving cash for a one-off gig. Clarke's deal is very different. It's big bucks to be Vodafone's spokesman for a defined period of three years. You can bet that it was discussed between Cricket Australia and Vodafone, or at least hinted (and we're talking about a multinational company's marketing specialists here, not people who are just going to leave it to chance) that CA's own sponsorship would be a higher figure if Clarke were to be kept in the team, so he could remain visible and be better value for Vodafone.

The bold part is where your argument falls down. Vodafone don't have control over Cricket Australia nor do they have control over team selection of any sort. Big companies such as Vodafone and others would be falling over each other to become a major sponsor of Australian cricket simply because of the exposure that CA provides and the amount of marketing they can get done through a variety of mediums. To suggest that Vodafone executives would almost blackmail CA into having Clarke in the side is just pure conspiracy theory, they'd be laughed at and told where to go if anything was even suggested or hinted by Vodafone.

If you're not convinced that's fine, I know I'm not going to convince everybody. But if you can't acknowledge the fact that CA's major sponsor having a financial interest in Clarke making the team places pressure on CA at selection time, you'd be missing the point of what I'm saying. Even if his form is bad enough to demand him being dropped, CA will not drop him until June 2013 at the earliest, at the expiration of Clarke's Vodafone contract.

Yep, you're not going to convince me of anything and I don't think you'll convince many others either.

Plenty of people thought that Clarke should have been dropped for the Ashes. Most of the nation was in uproar at the time. Polls were showing 80% of people wanted him gone. There was some pretty ugly stuff going around about him in forums and news article comments. It should have been easy for CA to drop him back to the Shield to pick up some form, as there was plenty of talent knocking on the door and the selectors had been ruthlessly targeted as being unable to make a tough decision. But they didn't drop Clarke.

Leading into the Ashes, in the series against Pakistan he averaged only 34. He then went to India and scored 14, 4, 14 and 3 as the Aussies crashed to defeat. He'd only hit two tonnes in the last five series, going back 16 months. You can argue whether he deserved the number 4 spot in the team or whether other batsmen in Australia would have done better. But most of Australia believed he was not deserving of his place in the national squad. With the ink on his new Vodafone deal still drying, Cricket Australia announced his selection in the "Vodafone Ashes Series".

Vice captaincy or captaincy should have no bearing either, as the leaders are selected from an announced team. You make a good point about that though. It's not the first time a player's captaincy/vice captaincy kept them in the team for too long. If you think back to the 90's, once Taylor / Healy went, it finally made room for the Waugh / Gilchrist domination period.

Whether or not CA think about Clarke's contract with Vodafone before they announce the team selection for a Vodafone test series is not really the point. The point is the potential is there. The rest is conjecture, sure.

The words you are looking for are faith and vice-captaincy and they are the reasons Clarke is still playing for Australia. Vodafone's money is easily replaceable and there would be a line a mile long of other companies looking to fill that void if CA dumped Vodafone as a sponsor. Vice-captaincy may not have a bearing according to you but the reality is that it does have a bearing and has for a very long time. Captains don't get dropped from sporting sides, no matter what sort of sport is being played and the level it is being played at.

Can you really disagree with any of these three statements though?

Clarke IS sponsored by Vodafone, Cricket Australia IS sponsored by Vodafone, and Vodafone WOULD be annoyed if their spokesman were dropped from the team.

Yes, yes and no. I don't see Vodfone jumping up and down at Clarke not playing T20I's and being rested from occasional ODI matches.

 

[Form Players Only]

Clarke still deserves one-day selection. I'm not talking about the fifty over game. He can captain that for as long as he's in form as far as I'm concerned.

Apart from Clarke personally, Vodafone only sponsor the test matches. The one-dayers and T-20s are sponsored by VB and KFC respectively, so Vodafone has no interest in them. It would be embarrassing for Vodafone if they constantly cut to a Michael Clarke Vodafone ad between test overs, but Clarke hadn't been selected by CA to pay those tests.

Clarke was dropped from the T-20 team because he was no good at scoring more than a run a ball, and didn't have a million dollars worth of KFC contract to save him. Some people believe Clarke "resigned" from the T-20 team, since that what he and CA announced. He said he was leaving to "focus on the other forms of cricket". If that's not an admission that his performances at test level weren't good enough, I don't know what is.

Why do you think the sponsorship thing is a conspiracy theory at best? It's player sponsorship, it happens everywhere, and it's out in the open here. It's got nothing to do with conspiracy, it's right in front of your eyes. Of course Vodafone would be annoyed if CA dropped their spokesman when they're sponsoring the test series. Whether or not CA acknowledge it, it's in their head. It has to be. They sat with Vodafone, negotiated with Vodafone, and signed the naming and signage rights over to them. CA want sponsorship, and they want to be seen to do the right things by their sponsors, so they get more in future. At the very least the additional sponsorship of Clarke is a conflict of interest, because CA's major sponsor stands to lose if they don't select Clarke. Vodafone lose out if their spokesman isn't selected to play by CA. How can you argue against this point? It's perfectly reasonable and others here have acknowledged that.

 

[nairbe]

Clarke still deserves one-day selection. I'm not talking about the fifty over game. He can captain that for as long as he's in form as far as I'm concerned.

Apart from Clarke personally, Vodafone only sponsor the test matches. The one-dayers and T-20s are sponsored by VB and KFC respectively, so Vodafone has no interest in them. It would be embarrassing for Vodafone if they constantly cut to a Michael Clarke Vodafone ad between test overs, but Clarke hadn't been selected by CA to pay those tests.

Clarke was dropped from the T-20 team because he was no good at scoring more than a run a ball, and didn't have a million dollars worth of KFC contract to save him. Some people believe Clarke "resigned" from the T-20 team, since that what he and CA announced. He said he was leaving to "focus on the other forms of cricket". If that's not an admission that his performances at test level weren't good enough, I don't know what is.

Why do you think the sponsorship thing is a conspiracy theory at best? It's player sponsorship, it happens everywhere, and it's out in the open here. It's got nothing to do with conspiracy, it's right in front of your eyes. Of course Vodafone would be annoyed if CA dropped their spokesman when they're sponsoring the test series. Whether or not CA acknowledge it, it's in their head. It has to be. They sat with Vodafone, negotiated with Vodafone, and signed the naming and signage rights over to them. CA want sponsorship, and they want to be seen to do the right things by their sponsors, so they get more in future. At the very least the additional sponsorship of Clarke is a conflict of interest, because CA's major sponsor stands to lose if they don't select Clarke. Vodafone lose out if their spokesman isn't selected to play by CA. How can you argue against this point? It's perfectly reasonable and others here have acknowledged that.

Your conspiracy theory has the credibility of the theory that the CIA dropped the twin towers, NONE. there are some coincidences that are good for your idea's and yes there is lots of money involved but please australian cricket has more important issues like flagging crowds.

Yeah, I've played team sports. Cricket, hockey and football, but these were for clubs. I payed my fees and had my dose of competition for the weekend. The difference with the Australian cricket team is that it's supposed to represent the best of Australia. It's not a club, and selection in it should be a realistic outcome for the best performers in Australia. Continual selection of under-performers plus continual team failure will always put pressure on team morale. Team spirit is awesome, and it's more likely to be felt in a team where everybody knows that they all deserve their place. Not to mention the whole nation can all get behind the team. I've never seen so much division in the Australian cricket-watching public as exists today over Clarke's captaincy. If he deserves his place so much, I'd like to know how the vast majority formed an opposing opinion.

Then you really don't seem to have gained much from the experience, you talk with a capital I not a we. It matters not the basics of team play are the same be it the u12's at Taylors Arm or Australia. Another old saying "A champion team not a team of champions". This thread is ment to be about Katich and whether he was dealt a poor deal by undue influence, this runs to the heart of the team, many fell out with Steve Waugh because of similar issues to do with hid over controlling manner with the team. You should start a separate thread for this subject.

 

[Form Players Only]

There are a few respondents to this site who should seek a definition on what a conspiracy theory is. CA is not trying to read Australia's brainwaves. If they were, they would have returned Clarke to the Sheffield Shield prior to the Ashes to work on his form.

The national selecting body being paid by the same company that sponsors Clarke is a conflict of interest, whether you acknowledge it or not.

You mention the phrase "a champion team not a team of champions". Perhaps you could point out the champion team? Clarke isn't leading one, and hasn't been involved in one since, coincidentally, our champions retired.

And to address the flagging crowds issue, what do you expect when CA ignores such overwhelming public opinion? I'm sure in a cricket discussion forum like this you've found a hardcore group of fellow Michael Clarke screen-saver owners, who fully believe a place in the team is his, come what may, but the rest of Australia were utterly fed up with him by this time last year. And to all of those people who were baffled by his continual selection, the sponsorship dollars he brings for CA will stand out as the clear defining factor.

 

[Ljp86]

Clarke still deserves one-day selection. I'm not talking about the fifty over game. He can captain that for as long as he's in form as far as I'm concerned.

Apart from Clarke personally, Vodafone only sponsor the test matches. The one-dayers and T-20s are sponsored by VB and KFC respectively, so Vodafone has no interest in them. It would be embarrassing for Vodafone if they constantly cut to a Michael Clarke Vodafone ad between test overs, but Clarke hadn't been selected by CA to pay those tests.

So even though Clarke is personally sponsored by Vodafone, him missing ODI's and not playing T20I's and therefore having no exposure or a reduced exposure for those forms of the game is not bad for Vodafone now? Or it still is? Or what you're saying is just completely ridiculous. Lock in option C.

Clarke was dropped from the T-20 team because he was no good at scoring more than a run a ball, and didn't have a million dollars worth of KFC contract to save him. Some people believe Clarke "resigned" from the T-20 team, since that what he and CA announced. He said he was leaving to "focus on the other forms of cricket". If that's not an admission that his performances at test level weren't good enough, I don't know what is.

He was crap at T20 cricket and decided to retire before he was pushed.

Why do you think the sponsorship thing is a conspiracy theory at best? [?QUOTE]

If you really think Vodafone has an influence on team selection then you obviously have some very misplaced thoughts on the entire selection process.

It's player sponsorship, it happens everywhere, and it's out in the open here. It's got nothing to do with conspiracy, it's right in front of your eyes. Of course Vodafone would be annoyed if CA dropped their spokesman when they're sponsoring the test series. Whether or not CA acknowledge it, it's in their head. It has to be. They sat with Vodafone, negotiated with Vodafone, and signed the naming and signage rights over to them. CA want sponsorship, and they want to be seen to do the right things by their sponsors, so they get more in future. At the very least the additional sponsorship of Clarke is a conflict of interest, because CA's major sponsor stands to lose if they don't select Clarke. Vodafone lose out if their spokesman isn't selected to play by CA. How can you argue against this point? It's perfectly reasonable and others here have acknowledged that.

Sorry mate but I can't take you seriously when you keep sprouting theories like this. You've obviously given this a lot of thought which is good but I believe you're reading far too much into the Vodafone/Michael Clarke/Cricket Australia sponsorship arrangement.

 

[Form Players Only]

You disagree with all my points - I get it. They're all ridiculous. Do you do that with all the opinions here, or just the ones that aren't exactly the same as yours? For an admin on a discussion site you sure aren't big on promoting open discussion.

 

[futureblackcap]

I admire your level of determination FPO, I have noticed that reading your posts that you haven't lost your cool when others have. That's admirable however, I can't agree with your Clarke/Vodafone theories. It's a good point you bring up, telling someone they are wrong is not exactly promoting open discussion, it's basically saying. Don't even comment because what I think is right.

 

[Form Players Only]

Thanks for that mate - good luck against Zimbabwe. Cheers!