So Australia have lost the Ashes and whilst this might be synonymous with the end of the world for Australians, a series of problems await their attention.
Mike Hussey, also known as ‘Mr Cricket’, began 2008 with a Test Match average of 80.56. To put this in context only 4 players in the history of the game have finished their careers with an average of over 60 and only one of them (Donald Bradman) had an average of over 90.
Currently, Hussey’s batting average has slumped to 52.65, which suggests his cricketing powers are in terminal decline. His fall from grace has been punctuated by the occasional Test Match hundred, his most recent coming in his last innings at the Oval . The Australian selectors will be debating his place in the side and I believe there are three points of concern.
Firstly, at the age of 34, Mike Hussey does not have time on his side. Anything the selectors hope they can get from the batsmen must be achieved in the here and now. Technical deficiencies that may have been exposed in his game over the last few years must be addressable with slight tweaking.
Secondly, Hussey’s poor batting form is not an isolated problem. Currently, Michael Clarke is batting at number 5 and is widely regarded as one of the world’s premier batsmen. His phenomenal displays in the Ashes, whilst his side were capitulating around him, are testament to this.
However, at number 5 you are simply responding to events rather than dictating the terms. Clarke cannot bat at number 3 since Ponting is a class act in this position, so that leaves number 4? When Mike Hussey was hitting a hundred every innings, exempting Clarke from this batting position was justifiable. Since this is no longer the case, Australia are at serious risk of not fully utilising their most in form player.
Finally, and most importantly, the enormous faith the selectors have given to Hussey is contrary to Australian cricketing philosophy. Australia are renown for their hard line with players, most famously when the legendary Waugh brothers were dropped from the one day team in 2002.
Hussey is now perilously close to living on reputation and any closer will certainly undermine the messages the selectors try to send out to players. If it were up to me, Hussey would go. This may be harsh but Australia need to think long term.
Well Hussey has finally came to form. Though it was not enough to make it a win for the Australians, Hussey’s century was great.
Not really, it’s easier to come up with the goods when the ashes had all but slipped away.
[...] This post was Twitted by TheBinocular [...]
The Australians should have dropped him earlier instead of giving him one last opportunity to make good.
Ok then they drop Mike Hussey, but who comes in that is better than him?
Well Phillip Hughes is part of Australia’s long term plans.
Move Watson to 5 and Clarke to 4.
Hussey is player who had not seen out of form.Certainly this is a hard time form him.He will come back to form in all forms of the game.
Since this was written Mike Hussey has scored 834 runs at an average of 55.6, including 8 fifties, and set to make his first century tomorrow.
since his dead rubber innings at the oval where he scored 121 he has contributed in test matches
66, 41, 29, 81* … against the west indies!
long way to go for mike hussey