It seems poor Clarkey just can't pick the line of the ball. A few years back, Simon Katich nearly strangled him when he (Clarke) had the temerity to request that Australia's celebratory song be brought forward in the schedule so that he might be able to attend a family-related function. Very un-Australian of him, apparently. And now, when he does probably the most Australian thing he's ever done, he gets crucified once more. He must be wondering what on earth it takes to be an Australian cricket captain these days. Indeed, it's a question worth asking.
In the 70's and 80's, Australia played some of its best cricket, and some of its very worst. And throughout most of it, players were getting on the sauce. Doug Walters' drinking prowess was legendary. He once made 254 following a bender that lasted virtually the entire night. David Boon averaged in the sixties after almost drinking his average in cans on the flight from Sydney to Heathrow. There was, at any given time, more residual alcohol in Rod Marsh's moustache than there was in a can of Swan Gold. In fact, according to Richie Benaud, the great Australian all-rounder of the 1950's, Alan "Davo" Davidson was quite partial to having a snifter of port on chilly afternoons during the final session of certain test matches. So, it seems there's no clear relationship between player success and player drinking.
So what's Clarke done wrong? Was it unprofessional for him to drink prior to losing a test in a series already lost? I'm not sure how. He could have strapped a couple of cans to his baggy green and sucked them down for the duration of that final day's play, and it wouldn't have made a lick of difference to the final result, because Australia was batting, Clarke had already batted, and unless the English were going to re-write laws of the game, Australia were not going to be taking the field again for any other reason that to shake hands with the victors.
I think that some folks have criticised Clarke for his drinking because it signified his belief that the game was a lost cause. No, the scorecard did that. He just endured it. If he'd not been firmly convinced that the game was a lost cause, then I should think he should have been tested for hallucinogenic drugs, rather than alcohol.
But if he can be criticised for anything, it should be for using the (pending) result as an excuse to drink. Some folks (like Dean Jones - that clarion voice of reason) have suggested that Clarke (and the current crop of players) aren't good enough to drink whist playing. I think this misses the point entirely. Off-field actions should not be determined by on-field performance, because it is simply too dangerous to create an atmosphere where successful players can operate under the belief that they can do whatever they like in their own time, as long as they keep winning. One only need look at Tiger Woods, Ben Cousins and Rugby League for evidence of this.
So, it's much safer for all concerned if Clarke begins to drink constantly from now on. Personally, I think Clarke should be dropped until he finds some form, but he wants to recover it in a bar, and fill his bat with whiskey once he finds it, then I reckon that should be his call. And to be honest, given that the next few years are basically going to be a living hell for all involved in Australian cricket, he might as well experience them in a foggy haze of booze. And if we start winning, he should bloody well keep drinking. You know, for good luck.
Australian cricket needs a bit of a kick in the head. A big night on the sauce will certainly give it that. And let's face it, if Clarke can one day back up a bender with with a ton, people might finally leave him alone. Unless of course he's on the white wine, in which case he's only got himself to blame.
No comments:
Post a Comment