PANDARAMSHACKLE

Jamie Pandaram, writing in Monday's Age, has bungled together a complete balls-up of an article:

Clarke's ambition put to test

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.

Comments

[RT]

Clarke is the captain in waiting, that's obvious. His "I did it to him because I was looking to save a mate" sounded Spanky school prefect type stuff however.

Indian tour squad announced this week. Should be very interesting.

Hayden, Jaques, Ponting, Clarke, Hussey, Haddin, Lee, Clark, Johnson (9) are automatics.

All-rounder slot (1)- Watson, Hopes the only hopes with Symonds looking shot for the tour. A pity because his spin would be very handy, and those small Indian grounds for his batting would help. Paper Cut a certainty.

Spinner (probably take 2) - Cassin, McGain are the only ones to pick from by default it would seem. Both being injured in the A tour is a blow. Maybe Cam White but he won't trouble the Indian surely.

Fast Bowler backup (2)- Bracken, Bollinger, Noffke seem the only ones. Tait won't waltz back in. I'd take Bracken and Noffke. Hilfy is too hilfy.

Batsmen backup (2) - Katich, D Hussey, Marsh, Hodge the options. Kat a cert and I'd take D Hussey, he looks readymade test material.

Bolters? That NSW fastie Cameron impressed last season and Krejza is getting a chance for Aust A at the moment.

They may take 2 keepers. Ronchi and cert if that's the case. Haddin hasn't set the world on fire yet and looks suspect against spin.

Can't wait for early Oct. Our spin bowling looks very dodgy but Warne and others never set the world on fire over there. We'll have to rely on swing and pace and hope the batsmen can rattle up some imposing totals.

[Tony T]

Bowling:

The old Windies always did well without spin, and judging by the way we approached it in 2004, we will try to win in 2008 by containment rather than blasting them out.

Batting:

If Instant Karma, RP and Zach Khan bowl as well as they did, at times, last summer we will struggle. Even more so if Kumble and Monkey Rollerboy find a couple of pitches to their liking. And lets face it, there WILL be the odd minefield.

Fielding:

Are we over our dreadful fvcken catching? Fingers fvcken crossed!

[Adsy]

I'd be shocked if they didn't add in the regular NSW bolter. Bollinger will get a backup spot I reckon, and Krazy Krejza could be another smokey.

For all the spots mentioned, this is Adsy's Analysis (and non anal-ysis in terms of that guy from the bucks party - what was he doing down there anyway?):

Allrounder (1): Watson (Hopes ODI)

Spinners (2): As above. Casson, McGain, (Whitey ODI)

Fast Bowlers (2): Noffke, Bollinger (Bracken ODI)

Batsmen (2): Katich, D.Hussey (Marsh ODI)

Keeper (1): Ronchi

[Tony T]

Surely, Braddin has some time up his sleeve to establish himself. They'd only ditch him if another Gilly came along, and the Ronk's not that good... is he?

From what I've seen of him, Hussey D. is a gun.

[Adsy]

Haddin is the incumbent until Ronchi dominates with the bat in 20/20 or one dayers, and Haddin fails once or twice. He's quite a good bat, but not sure about his glovework, dunno if he's good as Haddin or not. Both of them would surely be better than Gilly towards the end of his career.

D.Hussey is needed because he can do the lot - good in the field, right arm tweakers that are no worse than M.Clarke, and would more than hold his own with the bat, especially against the spinners.

[Russ]

Surely, Braddin has some time up his sleeve to establish himself. They'd only ditch him if another Gilly came along, and the Ronk's not that good... is he?

Depends if we win doesn't it? Even Gilly had to wait, but Heals was gone once we drew against the Windies in '99. Moreover, if the batting fails, Ponting, Clarke and Hussey.M are immune from being dropped for now anyway. So depending on who is at no.6, and how they go, Braddin might end up taking the fall for a general problem. They'll take Ronk in case Braddin injures himself the morning of a match though, not to potentially drop the latter.

We'll see anyway. These are big tour parties you blokes are selecting. Normally you'd take 15 (16 with a spare keeper). An all-rounder obviates the need for two spare quicks, and both Casson and Noffke (and Clarke and Katich) are all-rounder-ish, if Paper Cut twangs his hamstring eating breakfast.

Having said that, the real problem is we are worrying that one of the batsmen, the keeper, two quicks, and one spinner could turn out to be shit-house. And unless they combine shit-house with injured there is no justification for calling up the reserves from back home. Given that, Adsy's analysis looks about right, but unless Ponting or Hussey.M are still suspect, Hussey.D will probably be on call, rather than in the squad.

[the Don Has Risen]

Mr Symonds has a lot of form putting himself first and his teammates last. Most of this alcohol is involved.

Darwin was considered the last straw.

My understanding is that all his teammates were gratified Clarke took such a principled decision.

I think any other player would now not be playing for Australia given the amount of warnings involved.

Australia will struggle in India. Their pacemen have improved immeasurably and they have very good and proven spinners who will make monkeys of us.

[Big Ramifications]

Great post.

[Tony T]

You mean Risen Don?

I agree.

[Big Ramifications]

Erm, My comment was directed at Tony's original post, but that was a damn fine post too, Mr Don.

Jamie Pandaram's bit about the bling, hot girlfriend, banter etc is true, but for some reason he still doesn't come across as a fat head to me. He strikes me more as a super talented Forrest Gump type, just going along for ride.

Remember Forrest's slightly exasperated and bemused comment… "And I met the President of the United States… AGAIN." That's how I reckon it is with Clarke's squeeze.

"And I had to root a good looking bird… AGAIN." There's no doubt who the predator is in that relationship.

[Tony T]

Well, actually, I woz bein' sarcastic.

(Don't tell me you were, too.)

Reckon you are spot on about the bling. On Clarke it doesn't seem to say "lair". In fact, I never even noticed it apart from the ear-stud.

It was a different kettle of kippers when Slogger Slatts purchased a Ferrari, or whatever hot sportscar it was he got when he could still bat.

[Big Ramifications]

I agree. Going off on a tangent, I thought to myself as I quoted Pandaram "geez, it's hardly bling, it's an ear ring." And if I want to be a super picky wanker, I'd also point out that bling is an onomatopoeia for the jewellery that actually goes bling. Like necklaces.

/but yeah, it's sorta taken to mean all jewellery nowadays – even ear studs, it would seem
//wanker

[Tony T]

Ads, I'll just change that over to the post where I've posted the Test team.