Australian skipper Clarke resigns as a selector

CHLOE SALTAU
Last updated 18:00 24/06/2013
Michael Clarke
Getty Images
MICHAEL CLARKE: The Australian captain has relinquished his role as selector.

Relevant offers

Cricket

Vijay falls, India build solid first test platform Adam Milne makes NZ Cricket cut after surgery Differing fortunes for Matt Henry, Peter Fulton We could be seeing Vettori very soon indeed Six new players earn Black Caps contracts Adam Milne eyes more game time for Black Caps Daniel Vettori back in World Cup mix for NZ Skipper says Black Caps could be great side Black Caps love affair continues Centurion Vijay frustrates England in first test

Australian captain Michael Clarke has resigned as a selector in the aftermath of Mickey Arthur's sacking.

Fairfax Media understands the decision to relinquish his selection role is part of the coaching restructure that will be confirmed at a press conference in Bristol on Monday night (NZT).

The decision to grant the captain and coach selection powers was a key tenet of the Argus review in 2011. It's not clear whether the new coach, expected to be Darren Lehmann, will retain a selection role.

Clarke is known to have had differences of opinion on key selection issues with chairman of selectors John Inverarity. There is also a view among some influential people that having the captain as a selector can erode the relationship between players and their skipper.

Clarke's relationship with some of his senior players, most notably his former deputy, has been central to some of the cultural problems in the Australian team during a horror few months. 

Clarke has been part of the selection panel that made tough decisions such as leaving Brad Haddin out of the test team last summer, before he was re-drafted as vice-captain before the Ashes.

Ad Feedback

- The Age

Special offers
Opinion poll

Was a life ban from cricket a fair punishment for Lou Vincent?

Yes, he's admitted to match-fixing and deserves his punishment

It doesn't go far enough in my opinion

No, it's only going to deter whistle blowers in the future

It's too harsh. A two-year ban would have been fair

Vote Result

Related story: (See story)

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content