The England team is currently littered with stories of comeback triumph and instant success. Andrew Strauss saved his Test career at the last possible moment, then went on to lift the Ashes as captain. Graeme Swann is still less than a year old as a Test cricketer, and has enjoyed the most remarkable 2009, and Jonathan Trott has experienced the sort of immediate success that eludes many a career. But what of the flipside? What happens when a reversal in fortune collides with a short time frame?
Just ask the world’s sixth best bowler. On the 9th August earlier this year, things couldn’t get much better for Stuart Clark. He was on the verge of the second Ashes triumph of his career, having contributed three wickets from his ten overs during England’s dismal first innings 102 at Headingley.
Two weeks later and he was facing a long flight home to contemplate both series defeat and the reality of his name being the answer to a question that will inevitably be drunkenly asked in Aussie bars for years to come: “who did they bloody pick instead of Hauritz then?”
And now it seems that Clark might never wear the baggy green again, following the call-up of Clint McKay - a man eight years his junior – to the Australia squad for the second Test against the West Indies.
Admittedly, he”ll fight for his place, and it’s hard to feel too sorry for a man who, as it stands, would finish his Test career with an average of 23.86, and who is, after all, Australian. But is it just me, or would it not seem quite right if he never broke the 100 wickets in Test cricket mark?
As an England supporter, I was relieved Stuart Clark barely featured in the Ashes. However, I cannot fathom the logic of the Australian selectors in leaving him out. Did he sleep with a teammate’s wife or something?
He’s in the top 10 bowlers in the world, and is the most economical. He also has a Scottish name. Why, after the retirement of McGrath and Warne, when the rest of the bowling attack was being flayed for 5 an over, did Punter and the selectors not call for Clark’s control?
Australia continually produces the best players in the world. They lost the 2005 Ashes series because of selectorial blunders, and the same goes for 2009.
Confidence — it’s all about confidence. And the most important confidence — the captain’s.
You bowl Mitchell Johnson, and because you think he’s going to be wayward you put the man back to deep point, and put in a man deep at fine leg. Two slips and its only 10 overs gone. He gets hammered for 5 an over.
You bowl Ben Hilfenhaus. You think he’ll swing it, so you give him 3 or 4 slips. You set the field for full bowling, because you think he’s going to bowl full. You think every short ball is an attacking surprise so one of your leg side fielders is in close. He only goes for 3 an over, he takes wickets regularly, and he looks like the most dangerous bowler in the series.
You bowl Stuart Clark. He’s accurate, but you think he’s slow and unlikely to beat the bat. You treat him like a medium pacer with little leg cutters, and small little swingers. Two slips max, and lots of men in front of the bat. You try to contain as if he’s Paul Collingwood.
The Ashes is lost as Johnson the strike bowler is hammered into the ground. Hilfenhaus, the weakest fast bowler coming into the ashes series, ends up the best bowler taking wickets at 30. And Stuart Clark the medium pacer doesn’t contribute to the 20 wickets required — he’s just there to slow it down.
That’s the power of the captain’s actions, the captain’s perception, and the captain’s confidence in his bowlers. Until Ponting retires — Clark will not play another test match.
| 
Posts and words
Loading ...
