M. Hussey = GONE?

[mjp]

After a remarkable 3-4 years, is his time done?

The season before he made his (supposedly) long awaited debut for the national team, he was dropped from WA's 4-day side (though had been making an absolute mountain of runs in England). His averages in shield criicket went something like this:

2000-01 - 30
2001-02 - 35
2002-03 - 34
2003-04 - 41
2004-05 - 55

His first test was due to injury and pretty average if I recall - but he won a respite due to extended injury / horses for courses selection policy that I seem to remember cost Jacques his spot after a good first test as an opener (in the same game). From that point, coming in against average attacks in a team that was often 'set' his performances have been quite remarkable...no longer. Is it more than a temporary fall from grace though? Is it a return to type after 3 or 4 exceptional seasons when he seemed to do whatever he wished.

At the very least he needs to swap spots in the order with Clarke - but if it is time to rebuild then what place does a 33yo Hussey play in that plan?

[MrMahatma]

Re: M. Hussey = GONE?

I think the team needs a re-build, but this isn't footy - this is the national cricket team. We can't throw everyone out and just play kids for experience's sake. Footy fans may cop 3-4 lean years with the view to later success, but cricket is another story.

Hayden will go soon, meaning we need to fill that gap - so the opener pair and our bowling line up will all be green. We need Hussey, Clarke, Ponting, and Symonds to sure up the middle order for the next couple of years and then blood guys when the opportunity arises. But can't see Hussey getting dropped at this stage. He's still a major weapon in our arsenal, if currently a misfiring one.

[FrediKanoute]

Re: M. Hussey = GONE?

I think Hussey, like Ponting has suffered from Haydo's form slump. Too often he finds himself in at 2 down for not much and in this series in the first innings its been a case of him being in after 2 go down in quick succession. I really think that sorting out the problem with Haydo (ie bringing in a replacement) will also fix the problem with Hussey. That said moving him down the order to 5 is not a bad option.

[dog town]

Re: M. Hussey = GONE?

I dont think we are in a position to be dumping guys who have the ability to play like Hussey. He needs a refresh though IMO. If we had any middle order players I trusted to come in then my move would be to open with Hussey in place of Hayden. Klinger is the only in form middle order player in the country and I dont think he is up to it.

Tom Moody was sooking about Marcus North not getting a spot yesterday and he is only avergeing 43 in what is supposed to be a huge season for him. Hodge and co have really gone quiet at the wrong time.

Biggest thing with Hussey is he needs to start playing a bit more positively. He is a very good bat but he is batting too far within himself.

[ledge]

Re: M. Hussey = GONE?

[QUOTE=dog town;66892]I dont think we are in a position to be dumping guys who have the ability to play like Hussey. He needs a refresh though IMO. If we had any middle order players I trusted to come in then my move would be to open with Hussey in place of Hayden. Klinger is the only in form middle order player in the country and I dont think he is up to it.

I thought he opened 99% of career.

[ledge]

Re: M. Hussey = GONE?

Hodge has 2 problems.... his age and he is a VIC.

[dog town]

Re: M. Hussey = GONE?

[QUOTE=ledge;66903]

I dont think we are in a position to be dumping guys who have the ability to play like Hussey. He needs a refresh though IMO. If we had any middle order players I trusted to come in then my move would be to open with Hussey in place of Hayden. Klinger is the only in form middle order player in the country and I dont think he is up to it.

I thought he opened 99% of career.

He can do both but he is predominantly a middle order player.

[dog town]

Re: M. Hussey = GONE?

Hodge has 2 problems.... his age and he is a VIC.

We really need to get out of this Victorians dont get picked thing. I thought maybe 5 or 6 years ago it was an issue but certainly isnt these days. Hodge has been unlucky during his career but I dont think the state he plays for had much to do with it.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: M. Hussey = GONE?

We really need to get out of this Victorians dont get picked thing. I thought maybe 5 or 6 years ago it was an issue but certainly isnt these days. Hodge has been unlucky during his career but I dont think the state he plays for had much to do with it.

I don't think it's an anti-Vic thing, it is definately a pro-Sydney thing, though.

[mjp]

Re: M. Hussey = GONE?

So...back to my point. Who is the real Mike Hussey? The one who averaged mid-30's for WA for 5 years, or the one who has played the lights out on the international stage for 3?

As an aside, I kind of understood Moody's point about Marcus North - it was more in the 'weight of runs over several seasons' nature than 'he is braining them right now'. I dont really have an issue with McDonalds selection - I am just fascinated that the selectors never wanted to bat Gilchrist at 6, and had a succession of 'batsman' fill that spot (Martyn, Clarke etc), yet since he has retired (and I admit, for the last 12-months or so he was around) an all-rounder has batted in that spot.

[dog town]

Re: M. Hussey = GONE?

So...back to my point. Who is the real Mike Hussey? The one who averaged mid-30's for WA for 5 years, or the one who has played the lights out on the international stage for 3?
.

I would like to think he is somewhere in between the two. Its unrealistic to expect him to average over 70 for a long time but I think he is a better player than what he is showing right now. You dont lose that ability so I am thinking he will come through this and start making runs at a semi regular rate. I think he still has a coupleof 1,000 run years in him. He probably just needs to get his head right.

He has batted himself into a hole a little bit by being a touch cautious. He is a quality player that has become too conservative IMO. I love guys who place value on their wicket but he has taken it too far at the moment. He needs to put the onus back on the bowler a bit more. At the moment he is not intimidating and he is just letting them bowl at him.

As an aside, I kind of understood Moody's point about Marcus North - it was more in the 'weight of runs over several seasons' nature than 'he is braining them right now'. I dont really have an issue with McDonalds selection - I am just fascinated that the selectors never wanted to bat Gilchrist at 6, and had a succession of 'batsman' fill that spot (Martyn, Clarke etc), yet since he has retired (and I admit, for the last 12-months or so he was around) an all-rounder has batted in that spot.

With out looking at his stats I dont think North has had really huge years. I am not against him just think other guys have done it better for longer. I am hearing you regarding the all rounder. We are of similar thinking on that one.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: M. Hussey = GONE?

I am just fascinated that the selectors never wanted to bat Gilchrist at 6, and had a succession of 'batsman' fill that spot (Martyn, Clarke etc), yet since he has retired (and I admit, for the last 12-months or so he was around) an all-rounder has batted in that spot.

This was a hobby horse of mine for years - one that I was really vocal about back as far as the Indian tour in 2001. Gilchrist was easily good enough to hold down no. 6, we should have played 5 bowlers in India on that tour. It's hot and humid, the pitches are roads, how on earth were 4 bowlers supposed to get out Tendulkar, Dravid, VVS Laxman and Ganguly?

In Manchester in 2005, Gillespie was bowling rubbish and Old Trafford was turning in lead-up matches. Gilchrist could have batted 6, Watson (who wasn't in the touring party but I can't see how that mattered) made a 200 in County cricket the week before could have batted 7 and bowled 1st change and McGill could have partnered Warne.

[ledge]

Re: M. Hussey = GONE?

This was a hobby horse of mine for years - one that I was really vocal about back as far as the Indian tour in 2001. Gilchrist was easily good enough to hold down no. 6, we should have played 5 bowlers in India on that tour. It's hot and humid, the pitches are roads, how on earth were 4 bowlers supposed to get out Tendulkar, Dravid, VVS Laxman and Ganguly?

In Manchester in 2005, Gillespie was bowling rubbish and Old Trafford was turning in lead-up matches. Gilchrist could have batted 6, Watson (who wasn't in the touring party but I can't see how that mattered) made a 200 in County cricket the week before could have batted 7 and bowled 1st change and McGill could have partnered Warne.

It all comes down to our selectors by the looks of it.
Interesting that John Benaud came out and said Hilditch, Cox and another selector (whos name escapes me) should be sacked, but it wasnt Merv Hughes, he also said Warne should be on selection.
I think its all coming out in the wash now that the selectors are terrible and causing a lot of problems with their choices and reasons for choices.

[Sedat]

Re: M. Hussey = GONE?

As an aside, I kind of understood Moody's point about Marcus North - it was more in the 'weight of runs over several seasons' nature than 'he is braining them right now'. I dont really have an issue with McDonalds selection - I am just fascinated that the selectors never wanted to bat Gilchrist at 6, and had a succession of 'batsman' fill that spot (Martyn, Clarke etc), yet since he has retired (and I admit, for the last 12-months or so he was around) an all-rounder has batted in that spot.

The obsession with finding an all-rounder capable of holding down the No. 6 batting position has contributed to the current problems. Unless you have a ready-made Flintoff (and I personally have serious reservations on McDonald's ability to end up a quality test all-rounder), No. 6 should be a batting position first and foremost. Symonds has made 2 measly centuries (both extremely lucky) in almost 50 test innings - that is a pitiful return for your 4th drop. The reality is that if you give a talented player enough opportunities, of course they are going to eventually post some decent runs - Symonds has benefitted enormously from the generosity of the selectors in that regard. Watson is a great No. 6 option in theory, but he clearly has problems getting on the park - and it is also debatable whether his batting will ever be of a standard that is required of your No. 6. Either D Hussey or North would be the ideal No. 6 batsmen to bring into the current test side IMO, or when conditions suit, bring Haddin up to No. 6 and bring a genuine 5th bowling option.

The all-rounder position is fast becoming obsolete anyway with the talent that Johnson possesses with the willow - he is fast developing into a quality bowling all-rounder in the Wasim Akram and Hadlee mould that removes the necessity to bring in a bits and pieces type at No. 6. Are we going to see a bunch of "next Ian Botham" types being trialled in the national test team? Was an unmitigated disaster for England with the likes of David Capel, Chris Lewis, Mark Ealham, the Hollioake brothers, Ronnie Irani, etc...(probably missed a few more besides)

Back onto M Hussey, he is in one of the 2 most important batting positions in the line-up. The No. 4 needs to score both heaviily and freely and he has been doing neither for a few months now - the Australian tail (with Clarke's assistance) has been saving the top order's arse during that time. He has racked up enough credit points to be given the opportunitiy to stay there until the Ashes, but at 33 he would want to make every post a winner between now and then otherwise he should be very closely looked at IMO: it could end up be a brother-for-brother swap in the Steve and Mark Waugh vein, which didn't hurt either player in the long term.

[Twodogs]

Re: M. Hussey = GONE?

Hodge has 2 problems.... his age and he is a VIC.

That and the fact that he just isnt good enough to play test cricket. Good bowlers find you out and they have found him out.