What is the truth about the different groupings in the Australian team?

[Haseeb 22]

Michael Clarke talked about the different camps in his team but only specifically mentioned Shane Watson.

Which other players were/are involved?

 

[Junaids]

Michael Clarke talked about the different camps in his team but only specifically mentioned Shane Watson.

Which other players were/are involved?

[MENTION=132373]Convict[/MENTION] can answer, but in short:

1. Everyone hated Michael Clarke.
2. Dave Warner and Michael Clarke hated Shane Watson
3. Shane Watson and Mitch Johnson were close friends.

If you go back and recall the Test series between Australia and Sri Lanka in 2012-13, it becomes sickeningly obvious that Mitchell Johnson hadn't "lost it" at all.

At Melbourne in the First innings he took 14-2-63-4 but in the second innings he took 8-0-16-2 and broke Sangakkara's hand too.

The fact of the matter is that the skipper (Clarke) didn't like Shane Watson's friend. That's why both were then marginalised and ostracised in India, culminating in Homeworkgate.

 

[Haseeb 22]

[MENTION=132373]Convict[/MENTION] can answer, but in short:

1. Everyone hated Michael Clarke.
2. Dave Warner and Michael Clarke hated Shane Watson
3. Shane Watson and Mitch Johnson were close friends.

If you go back and recall the Test series between Australia and Sri Lanka in 2012-13, it becomes sickeningly obvious that Mitchell Johnson hadn't "lost it" at all.

At Melbourne in the First innings he took 14-2-63-4 but in the second innings he took 8-0-16-2 and broke Sangakkara's hand too.

The fact of the matter is that the skipper (Clarke) didn't like Shane Watson's friend. That's why both were then marginalised and ostracised in India, culminating in Homeworkgate.

Wasnt Steve Smith close to Michael Clarke? I wont be surprised if Warner is eyeing the captaincy.

Plus Clarke talked about a few players

 

[Pete Rose]

I think there's a suspicion that the folks with the big t20 contracts don't quite have the same mongrel as the teams of the past.

 

[Convict]

[MENTION=132373]Convict[/MENTION] can answer, but in short:

1. Everyone hated Michael Clarke.
2. Dave Warner and Michael Clarke hated Shane Watson
3. Shane Watson and Mitch Johnson were close friends.

If you go back and recall the Test series between Australia and Sri Lanka in 2012-13, it becomes sickeningly obvious that Mitchell Johnson hadn't "lost it" at all.

At Melbourne in the First innings he took 14-2-63-4 but in the second innings he took 8-0-16-2 and broke Sangakkara's hand too.

The fact of the matter is that the skipper (Clarke) didn't like Shane Watson's friend. That's why both were then marginalised and ostracised in India, culminating in Homeworkgate.

As someone who watched Johnson live in both series, Johnson was a much better bowler in 2013/14. There was a massive step up.

I remember his first shield match that season, would have been against South Australia because Phil Hughes played. Johnson only got 1-2 wickets but he was bowling pure heat.

Some posters might remember here is that after seeing that I got onto the Johnson selection bandwagon.

 

[Junaids]

As someone who watched Johnson live in both series, Johnson was a much better bowler in 2013/14. There was a massive step up.

I remember his first shield match that season, would have been against South Australia because Phil Hughes played. Johnson only got 1-2 wickets but he was bowling pure heat.

Some posters might remember here is that after seeing that I got onto the Johnson selection bandwagon.

I agree with every word, but middle phase Mitch was still a decent bowler who could bat.

 

[Pantani]

This just makes Clarke's captaincy even more impressive, he achieved all that he did even though all his subordinates hated him. By win percentage he is one of the greatest captains of all time, despite having for most of it a pretty ordinary team and one that hated him at that.

 

[Ashraful_Rox]

This just makes Clarke's captaincy even more impressive, he achieved all that he did even though all his subordinates hated him. By win percentage he is one of the greatest captains of all time, despite having for most of it a pretty ordinary team and one that hated him at that.

Well even though his subordinates hated him, his players cared more about winning for Australia. In subcontinent players like blaming the captain and underperforms because of lack of motivation. Clarke's captaincy was good, but nowhere near Steve Waugh or Mark Taylor.

 

[Pantani]

Well even though his subordinates hated him, his players cared more about winning for Australia. In subcontinent players like blaming the captain and underperforms because of lack of motivation. Clarke's captaincy was good, but nowhere near Steve Waugh or Mark Taylor.

Surely he is better than Steve Smith and Ponting

 

[Convict]

I think there is certainly an argument for Clarke purely from a cricket point of view being better than Waugh as a Captain.

 

[Ashraful_Rox]

Surely he is better than Steve Smith and Ponting

Don't think Smith is captain material

 

[SandyB]

I think there is certainly an argument for Clarke purely from a cricket point of view being better than Waugh as a Captain.

I'll second that . Waugh never had to play with a team as weak as Clarke has . And the take-no-prisoners approach of Waugh's captaincy which is what he was best known for was for a good reason due to the sheer quality of his team .. I remember Clarke making aggressive decisions on the horror tour of India last time . It took balls to do that even with a team not that good ...

 

[Hasan123]

Clarke is one of crickets most underated captains. Most of his team didn't like him yet he achieved great things with them.

 

[Haseeb 22]

Alot of irrelevant posts in this thread

Didnt ask for a discussion on Clarke's captaincy

I want to which players belonged to which camp!