Some of us are seeing the cold, not-dead-yet hand of Kerry Packer looming larger over the Australian summer of cricket than it has for a number of years. (Maybe we just lost concentration for a while, there.) It would make sense for Packer, and his so-called lieutenants at Channel Nine, to be taking an interest this year: the time seems to be drawing near when even the most die-hard Australian supporter must start to look at the constant stream of Aussie victories and say, "pass the remote".
Thus we have: the Michael Clarke Channel. All Michael, all of the time.
Okay, he is a fine young cricketer and all-round athlete; he is rarely without a smile; and he is a good-looking bloke in the style of, say, James Hird (to pick a name entirely at random). All of these qualities are enough to make someone like myself insanely jealous, so take what follows with a fair pinch of salt. But ...
He has performed well in the Test and One-Day arenas this past couple of months, sure, but does that justify awarding him the Allan Border Medal for best Australian cricketer of the past year? Think back to 12 months ago: his form had deserted him, he seemed to be losing Most Favoured status, the yin/yang star of Simon Katich was back on the rise. (Those must have been nervous times for the Channel Nine Establishment.) So: cricketer of the year? I don't think so. This could only have been the result of a direction from On High. Maybe you could have given him cricket's equivalent of the AFL's "Rising Star" award, but ... If it wasn't Clarke, it would have to have been some much less telegenic, less wholesome version of an international cricketer. And that wouldn't be the ratings killer that Clarke hopefully would be.
And: a few weeks ago the Australian side did something incomprehensible to those of us accustomed to the rigour of the Steve Waugh Years: at the tail end of a one-day game, which was admittedly well in hand, captain Ricky Ponting frigged around for two or three overs in order to give Clarke enough of the strike to (a) let the game run for a little longer, allowing That Channel to squeeze in a couple more high-revenue ad breaks than would otherwise have been the case; and (b) let Clarke score a hundred, giving him considerable exposure and photo opportunities.
Clarke will either survive this unprecedented Cult of Personality or he will not. Kim Hughes comes to mind, in admittedly entirely different circumstances: both were superb batsmen and designated Futures of Australian Cricket. It is a lot to ask of a young man. And the person who is (speculatively) doing the asking, well, he generally speaking doesn't accept underperformance with a smile and a shrug of the shoulders.
We wish Michael Clarke well. He may well be the future of Australian cricket. He is a fantastic batsman to watch; not yet a Mark Waugh, say, but we wouldn't rule it out in the longer term. But, please, let him have the breathing room to allow him to get there under his own steam.
This has been a public service announcement.
