Clarke hits back at critic
EX-AUSTRALIAN Test captain Michael Clarke has rejected any suggestion he was responsible for declining cultural standards in the lead up to the ball-tampering scandal in Cape Town.
Clarke unleashed a social media tirade on Wednesday night, labelling sports broadcaster Gerard Whateley a “headline chasing coward” for criticising his leadership.
In the scathing open letter, the 37-year-old listed several “facts” pointing to his stellar resume as skipper all while playing “by the rules”.
Clarke didn’t take a backward step yesterday, saying claims tracing the team’s downward spiral to his captaincy were “completely out of line”.
“Trying to blame me for cheating in South Africa is an absolute disgrace,” he told Macquarie Sports Radio.
“I’ve been able to cop my fair share of criticism. But when somebody questions or insults my integrity and my credibility, that’s not for sale, that’s not on.”
Clarke said responsibility for the scandal ultimately rests with Steve Smith, David Warner and Cameron Bancroft and no one else.
“You can blame culture, you can blame chairman of the board, you can blame the CEO,” he said.
“At the end of the day, three people made a decision that they have to live with for the rest of their life.”
The war of words was initially sparked when Clarke suggested the Australian team should prioritise playing “tough” cricket over being liked, with the view splitting former teammates Simon Katich and Matthew Hayden.
“We as cricketers call it the ‘Australian way’,” Clarke said when asked to clarify the ethos. “What it means is playing the style of cricket with good attitude, with good intent … good aggressive body language. But always playing within the rules.
“That tough, aggressive, competitive, never take a backward step does not mean cheating is fine. Does not mean taking sandpaper onto a cricket field is fine. Does not mean sledging people and personal abuse is fine.”
Australian skipper Tim Paine said the plan was to win back the public’s respect without compromising on their traditional “hard” approach.