Jamie Pandaram, writing in Monday's Age, has bungled together a complete balls-up of an article:
MICHAEL Clarke declined to be interviewed for this article — on his leadership — because he does not wish to project the idea he is big-headed.
Judging by hundreds of blog postings since Andrew Symonds' dismissal from the team camp in Darwin, Clarke has accomplished little that should boost his ego. Rather, they wrote, he needs to explain his actions, describing the 27-year-old as a Cricket Australia clone and ruthlessly ambitious leader-in-the-wings, among other critiques.
Tabloid cheap shot intro best suited to TT or ACA:
Michael Clarke declined to be interviewed for this article.
Since when did journalists start taking their lead from (un-named) bloggers and posters:
Judging by hundreds of blog postings.
Or use un-named bloggers and posters to put the heat on players. Do your own whinging:
they wrote, he needs to explain his actions
And as for this:
It's hard to imagine Mark Taylor, Steve Waugh or Ponting having divided the public so early in their tenure, yet the differences between Clarke and any captain to come before him are so pronounced. The ear-bling, tattoos, cheeky on-field banter, right-handed batting and left-handed bowling, famous model for a fiancee and multimillion-dollar endorsements make him an ideal candidate for jealousy and criticism.
James. Mate. You cannot, in all honesty, write that even the sainted Tubby, and especially the oft-criticised Tugger, would have been immune to a shitload of sledging had they been captain in the here-and-now of mass cricket blogging. The internet barely existed when Tubby was skipper, and there were only about half-a-dozen cricket blogs when Tugger pulled the pin - none of which were in the Strayan online newspapers.
As for "early in their tenure". Well, Captain Tugger drew his first series in the Windies in 1999 and dropped Warne for the last Test. You cannot tell me that dumping Warne and keeping MacGill in the side wouldn't have generated performance-enhanced levels of "debate" had the internet coverage back then been what it is today.