By Spiro Zavos
October 12th 2008 @ 12:12am
Why Michael Hussey is a great batsman
Michael Hussey has the second best batting average of batsmen playing more than a handful of Tests. And he is one of only four Test players with more than 20 innings who has averaged a century every five times he has batted.
These statistics confirm that Hussey must now be rated as one of the great batsmen in the history of the game.
Sir Donald Bradman averaged a century just on every third Test innings.
George Headley, ‘The Black Bradman,’ averaged a century every four Test innings.
While Clyde Walcott, another West Indian star, one of the Three Ws who were so devastating in the 1950s and 60s, and now Hussey, stand alone from the other hundreds of Test players over the years with their ratio of a century every five Test innings.
Bradman and Headley were before my time, but I once saw Walcott smash 160 or so against a strongish Wellington bowling attack.
The Wellington wicket-keeper, Frank Mooney, told me that Walcott occasionally relaxed from belting balls out of the Basin Reserve by asking him: “Mr Mooney, Sir, where would you like the next ball to go?”
Frank said that if there was an out-swing bowler on who was pitching the ball feet outside the off-stump, he’d nominate the ball going down to fine-leg.
Invariably Walcott did the impossible and hit the ball down to the nominated spot.
Although their Test century strike rates are the same, Walcott and Hussey have used very different batting styles.
Walcott was tall and beefy, hooked viciously and smashed the ball away to the boundary with a genius that was irresistible when he was in full flight.
Hussey is an artisan who has made himself into a great craftsman.
As Peter Roebuck pointed out recently in the Herald, Hussey spent years being regarded as a journeyman player in Australia and England.
Unlike other players of a similar limited talent or genius, Hussey always believed that he had it in him to be a very good Test player.
His triumphs since the selectors picked him for the Test side are a tribute to his force of character, which has tempered a limited genius into one of cricket’s most dominant, in terms of run-scoring, batsmen in the history of the game.
He has done this with application, determination, courage and a strong cricket intelligence.
I have a theory that batsmen excel when they have the courage of their restrictions to limit themselves to a couple of scoring areas and perfect their ability to score runs when the ball is in the slot for them.
So Hussey pulls short balls in front of mid-wicket, he drives with a full blade anything pitched up to him, and then he dabbles singles around the wicket, some of which are converted into twos by his energetic and speedy running.
More than anything else, though, there is a concentration to make as many runs as possible every time he bats.
As the bowler comes into bowl you can see Hussey mouthing the words to himself, “watch the ball.”
He has very soft hands, too, which enable him to negate balls that should have led to his dismissal.
He scores efficiently rather than quickly. But like Ken Barrington, whose approach to batting (although right-handed for Barrington) he has adopted - in that you can’t score runs back in the pavillon - he spends great chunks of time out in the middle.
Hussey has made a virtue out of not having a genius for batting.
Someone like Michael Clarke, for instance, has a dozen shots he can play to each ball. He often dismisses himself, rather than the bowler gaining his wicket by making a wrong choice of shot.
Hussey never does this. He plays the correct Hussey shot to every ball.
I love watching Clarke bat and I admire Hussey’s batting.
When you watch Clarke, you know you could never bat like that. But watching Hussey, the Everyman at bat, you have the feeling that you may just have batted the way he does if you’d worked harder and been more thoughtful about your play.
But if you had to have a contemporary player to bat for you to save your life, Hussey would be your man every day.
Former Test cricketers, Geoff Lawson and Stuart MacGill, write exclusively for The Roar Mondays and Wednesdays respectively.
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(11)
sheek said | October 12th 2008 @ 9:14am | Report comment
Spiro,
It’s interesting, isn’t it? I try to inspire my daughter, who is no natural at sport, or even the academics, that the most successful people aren’t always, or even usually the most naturally talented. It’s the person who has dogged persistence, & a good work ethic, who usually wins through.
Back in the mid-70s, two outstanding left-handed batsman (born within 2 months of each other in 1955) broke through into the Sheffield Shield ranks. One was a good looking blond who batted attractively, & possessed plenty of attitude. He made 5 centuries in succession, & was selected for the 1977 centenary test. His name was David Hookes.
The other left-hander was a brooding, dark-haired fellow who looked awkward at the crease, but possessed a tight defence & no fuss technique. His name was Allan Border.
Hookes failed to ever satisfactorily sought out the technical faults in his batting, especially against quality spin. His test career was disjointed & unfulfilled. Yet he was a joy & pleasure to watch in full flight. Border, on the other hand, developed a wonderful technique against all types of bowling on all types of pitches, in all types of circumstances.
His batting was underpinned by an uncompromising, unyielding, bulldog spirit. Border went on to become one of our greats, much admired & loved by many in the cricket community. When Australian cricket was on its knees in the mid-80s, it seemed only Border was there to hold it together.
Hussey is like Border. Sometimes you have to pinch yourself that Hussey is actually this good. But it’s not what’s on the outside that counts, it’s what’s on the inside. Hussey has that same iron will as Border, & an understanding of playing within his limits, to extraordinary effect.
Border & Hussey. Australia can sleep well when men like these two are patrolling in the trenches.
LeftArmSpinner said | October 12th 2008 @ 12:33pm | Report comment
gentlemen, I can only agree with you about both Hussey and Border. I am a big fan of both and admire their grit, be it on the field or in the way they conduct their lives. They influence and are sustained by the teams they were in. Sorry to bang the same old drum, but where are their equivalent in the current Wallabies? Burgess’s grit to hang in while those lesser players around him got all the opportunities may qualify. I know his family well and believe that they provided the ideal environment and have been a massive influence on the young half back. 2nd grade at school, years of nothing behind Gregan at Brumbies, then consistent brilliance at Easts, the bench at the tahs for almost half a season and then, after all that, to perform so well in his first outting in the Tahs starting team. While its not the 10 year apprenticeship of Hussey, it is similar.
Cultural change in the Wallabies is overdue.
LeftArmSpinner said | October 12th 2008 @ 12:39pm | Report comment
And, of course, both Burgess and Hussey, off the field, are both a little eccentric but also very mildmannered and humble, unlike their on field attitude and competitiveness. Border didn’t manage this “schizophrenic” but admirable behaviour.
dasilva said | October 12th 2008 @ 5:33pm | Report comment
I think sometimes people underrate the difficulties of concentration, work ethics and decision making/shot selection. To me they are just as “talented” and just as gifted as someone who has flair as a player.
dasilva said | October 12th 2008 @ 5:42pm | Report comment
There are also physiological basis for decision making to be a natural gifts as well (that also could improve is you work on it). Studies have been shown that people who have poor decision makers (they were investigating people who are excessive gamblers, alcoholics etc) have been shown to have impaired frontal lobes activity.
Perhaps the inverse are true where people are naturally gifted in those attributes such as decision making, work ethics and concentration even though the attributes aren’t particular sexy and arent’ normally recognise as “talent”
dasilva said | October 12th 2008 @ 5:44pm | Report comment
So I would argue that Border was more talent then Hookes. Steve Waugh more talent then Mark Waugh. Hussey more talent than a Michael Clarke.
Greg Russell said | October 13th 2008 @ 2:31pm | Report comment
1. I once heard Peter Roebuck say on radio that Hussey demoralizes opponents by having no weakness, which is something that cannot be said of even the greatest players (think Ponting, Lara, etc.). At a team meeting to discuss plans on how to dismiss Hussey, there would simply be nothing to say. There is not even any obvious way to stop him from scoring, as he seems to have an area for singles no matter what the line of the ball and the field placing. As Roebuck said, opposition sides simply feel that all they can do is wait for him to get himself out.
2. I don’t believe it is correct to imply that Hussey only possesses a limited range of strokes. Anyone who has seen him bat in the final overs of a one-day innings knows that this isn’t true: he can hit all around the wicket and he can improvise. He can also hit the ball extremely hard: swallowing some pride, Adam Gilchrist admitted a few years ago, when Australia was practising for the one-dayers against the ICC World XI at the Telstra Dome, that Hussey had been the only Australian batsman who had managed to hit the roof. If Hussey’s stroke-play appears limited at times, it is simply because he has the discipline to make it limited as necessary. Michael Clarke could learn a lot from this, as it is the ingredient to his game that he lacks. It is why, as things stand, Hussey is a great player but Clarke never will be.
3. Why does David Hussey not play more for Australia? His first-class record in both England and Australia more than matches that of his brother, he has always been outstanding for Australia A (including just a few weeks ago in India), and most observers regard him as having at least as much talent as his brother. From Michael’s success one would have thought the Australian selectors would have learned a lesson.
4. I write the above as someone who doubted that Michael Hussey would make it as a test player. How wrong was I!
JohnB said | October 14th 2008 @ 5:25pm | Report comment
Greg,
David Hussey is obviously a good player (higher first class average than his brother) and is probably next cab off the rank (after the 6 specialists on the current tour), but who do you put him in front of now? He may be a better bat than Symonds or Watson (Symonds would be entitled to argue the toss there) but they’re not going to pick 6 specialists, so he’s got to get in as an opener (where he hasn’t batted for Victoria) or in front of Ponting, his brother or Clarke. Barring injury (and admittedly Clarke’s back might go again if he keeps bowling a fair bit) or severe form loss, that isn’t going to happen - Ponting’s an all-time great at his peak, his brother’s almost as good and Clarke is the anointed successor (and to be fair a pretty good player also). Time isn’t on his side to any great extent either - only 2 years younger than Ponting and his brother (and Katich). But it would certainly have a solid look about it with him there - so could he open? While I think it’s premature to be writing Hayden’s obituary, he just about has to be the next batsman to go, and while both Katich and Jaques have done pretty well, I wouldn’t have thought of either of them as fixtures, so that’s where any vacancy would be.
Greg Russell said | October 15th 2008 @ 2:46pm | Report comment
JohnB,
If Australia still had two bowlers of the quality of McGrath and Warne, then there would be no need for an all-rounder at 6, and David Hussey would be in the current team. Of course we just have to accept that McGrath and Warne play no more. Nevertheless, one might still ponder whether David Hussey should be played at 6. Recently he batted beautifully for Australia A in India. One wonders how deflated the Indians would have felt in Bangalore to see another Hussey striding to the crease. Also, it should not be forgotten that in one-day and T20 cricket, David bowls useful part-time off-spin. (That said, his flat style is not suited to 4- or 5-day cricket.)
Yes, Clarke is the anointed one, and I understand that he is here to stay (and I prognosticate that as a captain he will be like Kim Hughes, whom he also resembles very much as a batsman). But as a critic one may still ask whether David Hussey might be a better test player than Clarke. I mean, look at Clarke’s second innings dismissal in Bangalore: he hits an uppish drive that falls short of the fielder, so the very next ball he hits it directly to that fielder. I don’t think any commentary on this is necessary.
Finally, I agree that David Hussey is not an opener. As I have commented before at this website, the future in that regard lies with Shaun Marsh, who will replace (and replicate in style) Matthew Hayden, and Phillip Hughes, who will be Langer to Marsh’s Hayden. Marsh can expect to start in 1-2 years, Hughes in 3-4.
Having written all the above, I admit it is largely irrelevant. Our batting is our strength, and bowling is the burning issue.
JohnB said | October 15th 2008 @ 4:50pm | Report comment
Greg, I don’t disagree with you, either on how deflating it would be to have to get through 2 Husseys, or on the relative merits (at least hypothetically) of Clarke and Hussey D - just saying it won’t happen. I do however disagree that the bowling is the burning issue. Yes, it’s not as good as it was - but you can’t just produce all-time greats, no matter how good your system is. However, while not as good as it was, with the possible exception of playing Sri Lanka on a raging turner, it’s at least as good as anyone’s.
Mick of Newie said | October 15th 2008 @ 5:11pm | Report comment
Greg
nice closing observaton. We do like to talk about Batsmen but we all know that as annoying as Zaheer Khan is, he does have a point, the burning issue for Australia in the next 5 years is taking 20 wickets. It will be interesting to see what wickets we start to see overseas in coming years and what wickets we start to see at home. What chance cdurators at MCG and Gabba relearn how to prepare wickets with pace.