Ricky Ponting On The Clarke/katich Incident

Top Contributors
Bluey Zarsoff

Bluey Zarsoff

Active Member
Ricky Ponting has a new book out called "At the Close of Play". In it he provides his account of the now infamous Michael Clarke / Simon Katich incident.

From an article in the daily newspaper on Ricky Ponting's book:

Michael Clarke's relationship with Lara Bingle put him at odds with his teammates and could have cost him the Australian captaincy according to Ricky Ponting in his new book.

"It never worried me if a bloke didn't want a drink in the dressing room, but I did wonder about blokes who didn't see the value in sticking around for a chat and a laugh and a post-mortem of the day's play. Pup hardly bought into this for a couple of years and the team noticed".

Ponting doesn't mention Lara Bingle by name in the book, but it's clear he believes Clarke lost his way during his relationship with her.

Ponting also puts his on the infamous dust-up between Clarke and opener Simon Katich in the change rooms after the 2009 Sydney Test, when Clarke wanted to leave early with Bingle.

Ponting says the outburst, where Katich is believed to have grabbed Clarke by the throat, "was indicative of an on-going frustration a number of the senior players, including me, were having with our new vice captain."


Comment: So it's apparent from the article and the book that Katich wasn't the only one getting pissed off at Michael Clarke, and the incident with Simon Katich can't have come as that great a surprise to those in the know.
 
http://www.cricbuzz.com/cricket-new...source=ig&utm_medium=news&utm_campaign=gadget

Yes saw that article too, link above.

My opinion on the Katich incident and Clarke are no secret around here. The things in the article are not really anything new and only re-inforce the situation that i still believe
Clarke is our premier batsman and a Kim Hughes captain. He did not have the respect of the experienced players so they either got dropped or left the team. The kids now there know no better and have been lead into failure by poor administration and weak team leadership. Clarke just ain't a people person, he's a ME person.
 
Hmmm interesting stuff. It's actually nice to see some actual evidence that Clarke didn't/doesn't have the complete respect of everyone in the side. A captain can't run a team if only half of them respect him.
 
futureblackcap said:
Hmmm interesting stuff. It's actually nice to see some actual evidence that Clarke didn't/doesn't have the complete respect of everyone in the side. A captain can't run a team if only half of them respect him.
Click to expand...

The feeling i got was they had all retired or as in Katich's case be knifed in the back so now all that is left are some inexperienced kids that don't know any better.
 
futureblackcap said:
Hmmm interesting stuff. It's actually nice to see some actual evidence that Clarke didn't/doesn't have the complete respect of everyone in the side. A captain can't run a team if only half of them respect him.
Click to expand...

This comment from Ponting of Clarke is fairly damming:

"It never worried me if a bloke didn't want a drink in the dressing room, but I did wonder about blokes who didn't see the value in sticking around for a chat and a laugh and a post-mortem of the day's play. Pup hardly bought into this for a couple of years and the team noticed".
 
Be very interesting to actually hear Clarke's side of the story on all this stuff when he retires and is free to say what he thinks.
 
Hey maybe it is all his fault but I think a lot a people a quick to rip into Clarke when nobody knows any of these people involved personally. The metro thing and flash lifestyle probably doesn't help because he's not perceived as 'blokey' :rolleyes:

As in Ponting's recent interview it's obvious that he and Clarke aren't 'mates' but he seems to at least respect him. Ponting also said that in dressing rooms naturally not everyone is going to get along and be best buddies 'going out to dinner together'.

Not sure what work you guys do but I'll give you a personal example of not fitting in when I usually get along well with people. One job I had with about 12 employees, one guy was in his 30s, 27, myself 25 and my apprentice 24. Everyone else was around 18-23. I swear one of the more popular younger guys that had been there a while took an instant dislike to myself and my apprentice mainly imo based off both not wanting to go out on the town on Friday night with the 'boys'. I said no, I only ever go out Saturday when not tired, Fri is pizza, beer and AFL football night at home with my flatmate. My apprentice had a party to go to. I swear from that moment on we were on the outer from their little 'clique'. I guarantee if we had a disagreement they would all side against us.

Point is just because more than one person had a problem with Clarke doesn't mean he is definitely a dick, but possibly just siding with their 'mates'. We don't really know for sure either way.

As for Katich why doesn't he cop more heat for being a tool and grabbing a teammate by the bloody throat? I'm generally a very placid person but if someone did that to me there is a decent chance I'd punch them in the face..
 
Kram81 said:
Hey maybe it is all his fault but I think a lot a people a quick to rip into Clarke when nobody knows any of these people involved personally. The metro thing and flash lifestyle probably doesn't help because he's not perceived as 'blokey' :rolleyes:

As in Ponting's recent interview it's obvious that he and Clarke aren't 'mates' but he seems to at least respect him. Ponting also said that in dressing rooms naturally not everyone is going to get along and be best buddies 'going out to dinner together'.

Not sure what work you guys do but I'll give you a personal example of not fitting in when I usually get along well with people. One job I had with about 12 employees, one guy was in his 30s, 27, myself 25 and my apprentice 24. Everyone else was around 18-23. I swear one of the more popular younger guys that had been there a while took an instant dislike to myself and my apprentice mainly imo based off both not wanting to go out on the town on Friday night with the 'boys'. I said no, I only ever go out Saturday when not tired, Fri is pizza, beer and AFL football night at home with my flatmate. My apprentice had a party to go to. I swear from that moment on we were on the outer from their little 'clique'. I guarantee if we had a disagreement they would all side against us.

Point is just because more than one person had a problem with Clarke doesn't mean he is definitely a dick, but possibly just siding with their 'mates'. We don't really know for sure either way.

As for Katich why doesn't he cop more heat for being a tool and grabbing a teammate by the bloody throat? I'm generally a very placid person but if someone did that to me there is a decent chance I'd punch them in the face..
Click to expand...

Sorry Kram, all work places are tough, but the reality is that MC is the boss and as such he sets the tone for the entire team, from the very first one day game he captained where he was whistling at his players to get their attention, spoke volumes of his respect for his team mates.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, the team performances have got worse under his leadership.
The team morale was shot under MC and Mickey A.
The guys that are performing for the one day team are not involved in the test team.
For all people talk about his tactical captaincy, it's only been senior bowlers that have the strength of character to do what they want that have thrived, our young bowlers are bowling crap and so is Nathan Lyon, and they're the guys that do what MC wants. Peter Siddle should be the opening bowler but is being used to rescue situation when Starc and Pattinson have wasted the new ball, even to the ridiculous level of being used as fourth change in one test. I know Siddle's a vegetarian, (which would make me very unhappy), but I've never seen him so miserable at the bowling crease.
In India, batsmen were petrified of batting.
We're busy selecting Haddin, because he provides some senior leadership, because MC can't.
Guys like Warner are getting a game because they are shellfish pricks, and they have to be, because anyone else gets lost under MC.
For all the time I've watched Nathan Lyon, I've yet to see him bowl a top spinner, an arm ball, or have any idea where to bowl to a batsman's weakness is that because he has no idea himself or because he is bowling to instruction?

honestly I could go on and on and on and on and on etc. etc. etc.

In short MC is the worst captain I have ever seen. bar none.
 
Moral Decay said:
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, the team performances have got worse under his leadership.

In short MC is the worst captain I have ever seen. bar none.
Click to expand...

You don't think that might have something to with having the most inexperienced and arguably the least talented side since Border in the 80s? As captain he has lead from the front on-field pilling on the runs and imo tactically he is a far superior Captain to Ponting. Where the big question mark over his leadership is of course is with his man management skills which is hard to evaluate properly unless you are on the inside.
 
Kram81 said:
You don't think that might have something to with having the most inexperienced and arguably the least talented side since Border in the 80s? As captain he has lead from the front on-field pilling on the runs and imo tactically he is a far superior Captain to Ponting. Where the big question mark over his leadership is of course is with his man management skills which is hard to evaluate properly unless you are on the inside.
Click to expand...

I'd question the least talented, and suggest that they are very poorly performed and MC has inherited a lot of problems, but has to be judged on how he is responding to those problems, refusing to bat at 3 for example, his need for Brad Haddin in the team at all. How much of captaincy is man management and how much is tactics any way?
Should a captain be selected at all if he is a divisive force on the field and in the clubrooms?
How long can any cricketer be a part of the team if he is just a batsman, and oblivious to team moral and interpersonal relationships? Are we seeing in MC the same results that Dean Jones would have had if he were made captain?

I'd say that MC if all he is going to be is tactically astute, would make an ok vice captain but should never be allowed to lead. Have you ever been in charge of a group of senior men who have no respect for you, ala Kim Hughes?
 
But how hell do you personally know for sure that the current group of players don't 'respect' him? You are just guessing.

Also I know it was a great like Ponting's opinion recently that you best player should bat at 3 but imo this is ridiculous, a batsman should be in the position that benefits that team the most whether it be opening or number 6 (although with the batting so fragile he should've at least moved to 4 earlier) One could speculate that there is a possibility that the reason behind Ponting's comment was that he batted at 3 himself and just wanted to say something negative about Clarke and Waugh.
 
Kram81 said:
But how hell do you personally know for sure that the current group of players don't 'respect' him? You are just guessing.

Also I know it was a great like Ponting's opinion recently that you best player should bat at 3 but imo this is ridiculous, a batsman should be in the position that benefits that team the most whether it be opening or number 6 (although with the batting so fragile he should've at least moved to 4 earlier) One could speculate that there is a possibility that the reason behind Ponting's comment was that he batted at 3 himself and just wanted to say something negative about Clarke and Waugh.
Click to expand...

Of course I'm just guessing, but it's a guess based on my experience as a junior and senior cricketer, and if you like an observer of people, leadership and sport which I have absolutely no qualification in. Surely that's what a public forum is about.

I agree with Ponting's opinion but would say that he doesn't go far enough, the part of a senior cricketer is also of responsibility and leadership requires that if you are the senior player you play and behave like one, MC, and Ponting both had the opportunity to bat at 5 and 6 when they came into the team, and this is most important with young players coming in to allow them the opportunity to establish themselves as test cricketers. When the younger player hits is straps and is cemented in the team then he can bat is his best position.

How many young cricketers under Clarke have the opportunity to bat at 6? Under Ponting while he took responsibility on and batted at 3 a youngster was then batted at 4 while MC and Huss batted at 5 and 6. When Haydos and Langer retired Huss should have opened with Katich, Clarke should have gone to 3 Punter to 4 and the youngsters, Smith, Ussi, Watson, and anyone else starting up should have been given the 5 & 6 spots until they were sure of their value.

I do agree with you that all things being equal people should bat in the spot that best suits the team on any given day, I'm talking about the best result over many years, how to grow a team and perform and allow every one to perform at their best, no only for one day but for their entire career.

MC not batting at 3 when he is the best in the team is poor man management, poor team management, and bad for his reputation within the team, how does Ussi feel about being sacrificed at 3 so that MC can make easier runs at 5?

I can assure you that as an old man in a bunch of kids I did open the batting even though I was best suited to 5, and I did adapt the way I played to allow younger players a better opportunity, when even in my late thirties I was still the best bowler, I was more than content to give the young blokes the new ball, it was better for the team, better for results and better for the development of the kids, but it didn't do me much good.
 
Moral Decay said:
I'd question the least talented, and suggest that they are very poorly performed and MC has inherited a lot of problems, but has to be judged on how he is responding to those problems, refusing to bat at 3 for example, his need for Brad Haddin in the team at all. How much of captaincy is man management and how much is tactics any way?
Should a captain be selected at all if he is a divisive force on the field and in the clubrooms?
How long can any cricketer be a part of the team if he is just a batsman, and oblivious to team moral and interpersonal relationships? Are we seeing in MC the same results that Dean Jones would have had if he were made captain?

I'd say that MC if all he is going to be is tactically astute, would make an ok vice captain but should never be allowed to lead. Have you ever been in charge of a group of senior men who have no respect for you, ala Kim Hughes?
Click to expand...


I appreciate your spirited defence but really? He like Hughes has an inexperienced team because everyone deserted him. Anything but play with them as captain. At least Hughes had the good grace to retire but clearly Clarke is determined to stay to the bitter end and it will be bitter. The biggest hope the team has is that dicky back. A real leader is required, Border was that leader with Simpson and Benaud giving great support and wisdom. These are all lacking at this time, panicy selectors that drop Lyon for some kid and refuse to settle a batting line up and stay with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top