By David Wiseman
August 5th 2009 @ 5:45am
The rise and fall of Michael Hussey
Australian batsman Michael Hussey plays a cut shot on his way to scoring 101 not out. AAP Image/Julian Smith
This Ashes Series just about marks the four year anniversary of Michael Hussey’s Test debut. Many people felt he should have been selected for the 2005 Ashes tour.
Following the fallout from that series loss, he received his Baggy Green cap and he has been wearing it with pride ever since.
For a while he appeared more cyborg than human. But in recent times, Mr Cricket has appeared mortal and fallible. No longer is he the assembly line of runs he once was.
His Test career is one of two halves and reflects the changing eras of the Australian cricket side. After 20 Test matches, he had amassed 2120 runs at the Bradman-like average of 84.8.
The 20 Tests since have only yielded 1066 runs at 30.5. Overall, his average sits at a more than respectable 53.1, which is nothing to be sneezed at, but not sitting in the rarified atmosphere it once resided in.
Hussey has eight centuries in the first half of his career, compared to a solitary one in the second
What is interesting is that Hussey has had ten more innings in the second half of his career. This is for two reasons: the Australian side is batting twice more than it used to and Hussey has less not outs than he used to.
In his first 20 matches, he was only dismissed 25 times, which is practically unfathomable.
When he was new on the scene, his intensity was a novelty and seemed quite quaint. But as his career has matured, it has become a yoke which uncomfortably sits on his shoulders.
While everyone gets anxious and nervous at times, the degree to which it affects Hussey isn’t healthy. Someone as talented as Hussey and someone so used to the English conditions shouldn’t be prone to being so tense.
Then there is the age issue.
Hussey is now 34 and it could be that it is catching up with him.
In this series, he has only scored 145 at 29 and should this continue, and should Australia lose the series, Hussey could be part of the fallout as he was four years ago.
Only this time, he won’t be the beneficiary of it.
Get Australia's best Cricket opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
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...
(44)
sheek said | August 5th 2009 @ 8:06am | Report comment
Hussey was never an 85 average batsman. His current 53 average is closer to his true ability. Although it’s difficult to believe on the basis of averages, he’s superior to both Border & Steve Waugh, & almost the equal of Greg Chappell.
Nevertheless, he is an outstanding cricketer, & fine human being.
Hussey’s extraordinary start to his career tends to happen to various players from time to time. One of my early heroes – Douggie Walters – was averaging around 74 after 16 tests. His average finally settled down to 48 after 74 tests, perhaps a true indication of his ability.
Dave said | August 7th 2009 @ 5:45pm | Report comment
& a fine human being?
I can’t comment on that because I don’t know him…… but he’s a good batsman
Spiro Zavos said | August 5th 2009 @ 8:22am | Report comment
When Michael Hussey’s Test average was in the 70s I predicted he’d start to fail so that his average would return to something in the high 40s which would be about right for the start he had to career. At one stage he had the second best Test average of any player. He wasn’t the second best batsman in the history of the game. He is now coming back to the field, just like Dean Jones who also started his Test career with an array of high scores and not outs that inflated his average.
Ricky Ponting is the best Australian batsman after Bradman, and still the best in the side. Michael Clarke is maturing into a fine player. At the beginning of his career he hit too many ball in the air. Hussey has reached the stage where he is solid but ona downward trajectory. But still worth his place in the side, for now.
The current problem for Australia is how to get 20 England wickets with the present attack.
Nick said | August 5th 2009 @ 9:14am | Report comment
I find the most interesting thing about the current situation is history repeating itself… just as Hussey emerged as our batting ‘hero’ in the solid Border mould, from a terrible Ashes loss… so another 29-or-30ish solid left hander seems set to become the new lower order hero, and in fact may take Hussey’s spot if we do lose the series – North.
vinay verma said | August 5th 2009 @ 9:15am | Report comment
Agreed that Hussey for now deserves his place. It is not as if someone is breaking the door down with compelling performances. Hodge is the same age as Husse,and though deserving,his misfortune was to be around the same time as Clarke and Hussey.
Watson is a dilemna. He was picked as the fourth seamer and his three overs were described by Jim Maxwell as ” half rat power”. So the theory of adding balance to the attack is superflous. With good batting tracks you need five specialist bowlers. Both Clark and Lee have to come in. Lee for Watson is a straight swap and Lee can bat. Clark comes in for Hauritz because Hauritz at this stage of his career is a bottling bowler and not a match winner. I would open with North or bring back Hughes and drop North. The time to be conservative is over. Australia have to attack and go for a win. If they lose fair enough.
Jameswm said | August 5th 2009 @ 9:24am | Report comment
I’d bring in MacDonald for Hauritz, and Clark for Siddle. Let them underestimate MacDonald at their peril. He and Clark keep it tight wehich adds pressure, and we all know how pressure is released from the batsmen, and moved to the fielding captain, once runs are leaked.
Keeping Johnson is the luxury but he can bowl wicket-taking balls at any time. I didn’t see Watson bowl but I can’t see the logic dropping him now, even if he plays as a specialist batsman. Bringing Lee in on such limited preparation is a big gamble. And vinay you can’t even consider playing 5 specialist bowlers unless Haddin is there to bat at 6. Having said that, having MacDonald in does deepen the batting a bit, so with Haddin there maybe you can consider batting Haddin at 6, Johnson at 7 and MacDonald at 8. I agree though that we have to go all out for the win in this test and opening with Clark and Hilfy makes the most sense.
So my team would be
Watson
Katich
Ponting
Hussey
Clarke
North
Haddin/Manou
Johnson
MacDonald
Clark
Hilfenhaus
RickG said | August 5th 2009 @ 9:28am | Report comment
Vinay, I’d lobve to see Hughes back rather than sit around and watch the remaining two Tests but somthing tells me the selectors won’t go back on their decision for fear of appearing to have been wrong. Unless Clark still has some kind of injury it’s unfathomable that he hasn’t played yet. Watson’s selection is a mystery – covering the batting from 1 to 7 and supposedly there to add to the bowling stocks, but he’s got very little to offer. Playing him as opener was an experiement and should be treated as such; if he opens ona regular basis it’s aslap in the face to all aspiring specialist openers.
Re Hodge, he wasn’t just unlucky to be around in the era of Ponting, the Waughs, Clarke, etc, something much deeper and personal has to have happened to keep him out of the side.
sheek said | August 5th 2009 @ 10:11am | Report comment
There is sense in having Watson in the side. Our bowling is mis-firing. 4 frontline bowlers can’t be trusted at the moment. 5 front-line mis-firing bowlers isn’t an improvement either, but at least it provides an extra option.
I like James selection. McDonald seems to be the bowler for English conditions. Although I would still like to see Hauritz there for variety, & grabbing the opportunity if there’s any spin. perhaps keep Hauritz instead of Clark. Agree about Johnson. He can bowl the wicket-taking ball anytime.
Australia has to win one of the next two tests to retain the Ashes, without losing any more. So the team needs to reflect a good balance of depth in both wicket-taking & run-scoring.
Jameswm said | August 5th 2009 @ 10:15am | Report comment
sheek I think it’d be a luxury to have both Hauritz and MacDonald and Clark simply HAS to play.
RickG said | August 5th 2009 @ 10:47am | Report comment
Yep, we ignore SClark again at our peril!
Brian said | August 5th 2009 @ 11:04am | Report comment
What I don’t understand is why Hughes was the man dropped. To win games you need 20 wickets and to score quickly so you give yourself time to do it. Rain contributed but Australia crawled for a large part of their innings in Cardiff and that’s why they are now chasing. It won’t happen but I would play Hughes for his ability to speed the run rate. Hussey will not score runs quickly at Leeds, he will either fail or score them slowly, just as Hayden did in 2005. I would play
Hughes
Katich
Ponting
Watson
Clarke
North
Manou
Johnson
Hauritz
Clark
Hilfenhaus
If Haddin was fit to bat 6 I would bring in Lee instead of Hughes and open again with Watson
adam said | August 5th 2009 @ 1:05pm | Report comment
Hussey should be dropped and hughes reinstated with lee dropping down to 3rd drop and clark moving one place up the batting order. Further, siddle should be replaced by clark and hauritz by either lee or macdonald depending on the formers fitness. What a disgrace that two years good form buys you two years very bad form; a legacy passes down from mark taylor to mark waugh and now to the insipid hussey.
Worlds Biggest said | August 5th 2009 @ 2:12pm | Report comment
Mr Cricket was always going to come back to the pack over time. He is still a fine player that has had an indifferent 12 months. He has only been on the Test scene for 4 years. He is a guy that treasures the Baggy Green and will want to play for Australia into his late 30’s which I hope he does if form allows. Everyone acknowledges our bowling is the main issue in the team. My team for Headingly would be,
Katich
Watson
Ponting
Clarke
Hussey
North
Haddin – if fit
Johnson
Lee
Clark
Hilfenhaus
This 4th Test is a must win or the Ashes are gone. Go Aussie !
FIsher Price said | August 5th 2009 @ 2:14pm | Report comment
Hussey’s decline and poor form were apparent BEFORE this series*. This begs the question: should he not have been dropped ahead of the tour or at least been supplemented by another middle order batsman in the touring party?
It’s all very well citing that first half of his Test ‘career’ (more like a stint, surely) and his inflated average, but I’d have thought it clear he’d become a weak link at the crucial position of number four and, after all, Australia should be doing everything it can to win the Ashes, not pandering to established players/mates.
*See also: Matt Hayden’s dreadful form against Pakistand and NZ prior to the 2005 England tour.
adam said | August 5th 2009 @ 3:08pm | Report comment
thanks… i forgot about hayden… just thinking of him now is making me ill…
FIsher Price said | August 5th 2009 @ 2:22pm | Report comment
James – I’d have thought McDonald would have been the go from the start of the series, but all the PuntNielsen/media hype soon surrounded Brett Lee, who frankly didn’t deserve a spot on the tour. There was talk of not upsetting the winning combination from the first two Tests in South Africa; well, wasn’t McDonald part of that?
I wonder whether Punter deems McDonald to lack one of his favourite traits: mongrel. It strikes me that Ponting better handles and places greater faith in types like Siddle, Hayden and Symonds than complicated (read: multi-faceted) types like Hodge, MacGill, Bracken, and McDonald. Allied to his tactical limitations I wonder whether his series defeats to date can in part be attributed to his over-reliance on having what he perceives as good blokes in the team.
Farmer said | August 5th 2009 @ 2:34pm | Report comment
There is often mention of Lee being almost ready to resume, with an inference that if fit , he would be straight in and solve all our bowling problems of taking 20 wickets.
Lee has not played for yonks. He was in ordinary form (even ineffective) prior to this tour. His selection was more on hope than anything else.
Why do we think Lee is going to save us.
It would be like putting down one blunt knife and picking up another one.
FIsher Price said | August 5th 2009 @ 2:44pm | Report comment
Lee was a dreadful selection. Bollinger or McKay would have been more deserving tourists.
adam said | August 5th 2009 @ 3:18pm | Report comment
bollinger indeed… lee never amounted to the hype in my opinion… australian cricket is still waiting for someone to takeover from mcgrath and spearhead the pace attack… i never believed johnson to be the answer as so many of his wickets to date have come from bad shots by batsman rather than great bowling…
vinay verma said | August 5th 2009 @ 4:13pm | Report comment
I cant see them dropping Watson. Lets treat him as a specialist replacing uges. His bowling is not upto it. If Haddin is fit he comes back. Then the only changes tht can be made are Lee for Siddle and Clark for hauritz. The bowling of Lee,Clark,johnson and hilfenhaus looks our best bet to taketwenty wickets. Katich and North have to bowl some overs.
I see Johnson coming good. He needed the work in the legs and sorting out in the mind. I believe he is right now.
But on form you would have to say the England bowlers look better as a unit. Onions and Anderson are bowling better than any of our pace guys. That is not to say Johnson and Hilfenhaus cannot match them.
vinay verma said | August 5th 2009 @ 4:14pm | Report comment
replacing ” Hughes”
Brian said | August 5th 2009 @ 4:54pm | Report comment
I mostly agree but what makes Hussey a sacred cow, I’m sure Watson could bat at 4 and make a slow 20 or 30. The attack yo suggest does look a good bet but if Watson’s playing it seems unneccesary to also have 4 paceman. The variety of Hauritz could be better. Why not take a chance, back the form of Clarke, North & Co and if Haddin plays go with 5 specialist bowlers irrespective of Watson. After all the oppossition have made only one century in the whole series thus far and Australia has made 6. It seems to me that if the ball doesn’t swing England can’t bowl Australia out if there were 4 specialist batsman and if it does swing then Hussey is not going to add much to the total.
vinay verma said | August 5th 2009 @ 5:34pm | Report comment
i’m sorry but I like sacred cows!
Worlds Biggest said | August 5th 2009 @ 5:08pm | Report comment
I agree with Vinay regarding the bowling changes. Binga did get 5 wickets against the English Lions in the lead up game before the 1st Test, his first 5 wicket haul in England. Beggers can’t be chosers when it comes to our bowling ranks at the moment. It may be a case of ” there is no one else ” but I would take an 80% fit Lee over Siddle at the moment and Clark to come in for Hauritz. I hope Haddin is fit as Mannou doesn’t fill me with confidence with the bat. We MUST win this game to save the Ashes.
FIsher Price said | August 5th 2009 @ 5:08pm | Report comment
Let’s not forget that swing is a valid and integral skill to bowling – it’s not some black art that England are unfairly deriving advantage from.
Mushi said | August 5th 2009 @ 5:17pm | Report comment
I love a little statistical analysis of the old batsmen’s stats and I’m starting to lean strongly towards Clarke actually having surpassed Ponting as the best Australian batsman.
Since the start of the last ashes series ponting has averaged 49, and if I remember correctly the standard deviation on this is in the 50s meaning he is a big hit and miss contributor (no shock there). Clarke on the other hand has averaged 60 and (this is from memory) a much lower standard deviation so not only does he generally contribute more he does it with far more consistency.
Whiteline said | August 5th 2009 @ 8:01pm | Report comment
Mr Cricket will score runs if the sun is out (as will everyone else!). Perhaps you guys should start to call him Mr Snickit or indeed “Missed my Ticket”.
Stuart Clark must be below pace or something or unless the selectors are working on the old age theory of rewarding for past performance in regards to Siddle, who has been embarrassing – especially on the odd occasion when he has actually got a wicket!!!!
vinay verma said | August 5th 2009 @ 8:31pm | Report comment
Here’s something to ponder. The two best balls in thi series have been bowled by spinners. Swann to Ponting second innings lords and hauritz to Flintoff,first innings. Anderson got five in the first innings but the batters were culpable. The two in succession that Onions got were good balls but not unplayable. Line and length may be oldfashioned but it works.
The fact remains Englands bowlers use the conditions(when available) better than their Aussie counterparts. Hold Cooley and Neilsen responsible.
Whiteline…you’ve got to laugh otherwise we can only cry.
Greg Russell said | August 5th 2009 @ 9:41pm | Report comment
Sheek and Spiro are correct.
To try to put another angle on what they have said, there’s a good reason why Hussey wasn’t selected for test cricket until age 30: because his Australian first-class record didn’t warrant it. First-class statistics are a matter of open record, and if one consults cricinfo one can see that Hussey, although he scored heavily in English county cricket, and although he made some big scores in the Pura Cup, he never AVERAGED such that he demanded inclusion in the Australian side and such that he appealed as one of the great batsmen of the game.
In fact in many ways Hussey was lucky that he even got a start in test cricket. He never scored with the consistency of Bevan or Elliott or Hodge or Blewett (any more?) in Pura Cup cricket, however he established a reputation as an excellent fielder and “finisher” in one-day cricket, so he got a chance in the Australian one-day side, did well in that arena, and so when Langer was injured for a few tests against the West Indies in 2005-6, Hussey was given a chance. He made a couple of centuries, was retained, and the rest is history.
It’s statistically unusual that rather than having a test career of many ups and downs, Hussey has had one of a massive two-year up and then a massive two-year down. But the end result is that the law of averages is catching up with him, and his average is finding its true level, which is probably going to be in the 40s (given his recent form, who honestly believes that he will keep it at the current level of 53?).
I recommend Sheek’s point about Dungog Doug.
Whiteline said | August 5th 2009 @ 10:32pm | Report comment
Vinay and Greg – well said to you both. Let’s watch with interest.
FIsher Price said | August 6th 2009 @ 11:33am | Report comment
Vinay – I rather liked Anderson’s ball to Manou in the first dig.
FIsher Price said | August 6th 2009 @ 11:37am | Report comment
Quite so Greg – it seems as though a lot of fans aren’t aware of Hussey’s travails for WA. He was struggling as a Shield opener, so moved into the middle order from where he was dropped at some stage. It goes to show that working hard (and long) on your game in both hemispheres can pay dividends. I’m mighty pleased for him; that I think Hodge is much better batsman than him notwithstanding.
Jameswm said | August 6th 2009 @ 11:59am | Report comment
Fisher Price – swing is not that dark an art. I have always been a swing bowler and the dynamics are pretty simple. So Anderson swings it both ways? I always have too, and without any practice. It’s not that hard. The practice is for it to be consistent and for your action to change as little as possible.
And Wasim Akram remains the best swing bowler I’ve ever seen. If the Aussies struggle with swing, they’re lucky he’s not there.
adam said | August 6th 2009 @ 12:40pm | Report comment
youre upyaself
Colin N said | August 6th 2009 @ 11:11pm | Report comment
“swing is not that dark an art. I have always been a swing bowler and the dynamics are pretty simple. So Anderson swings it both ways? I always have too, and without any practice. It’s not that hard. The practice is for it to be consistent and for your action to change as little as possible.”
Is this just a huge ego trip? I think you described yourself as batting like Shane Watson before and now you er…..swing both ways. The ball that is.
FIsher Price said | August 6th 2009 @ 12:09pm | Report comment
What I was alluding to is this silly accusation that England unduly rely on swing bowling. In fact, Australia’s bowlers would be advised to learn and apply it properly themselves.
Jameswm said | August 6th 2009 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
Agreed. And the kookaburra ball swings in Australia too, don’t you worry.
All the coaches over here seem to worry about is hitting the pitch.
FIsher Price said | August 6th 2009 @ 12:18pm | Report comment
It seems that way. Damien Fleming used to manage it on our pitches.
Whiteline said | August 6th 2009 @ 7:16pm | Report comment
Jameswm
You are cracking me up. Perhaps you are the answer. Big Troy Cooley see ya later, the guru is in town.
Dave said | August 6th 2009 @ 7:26pm | Report comment
I think 34 miaybe the age wich batsman start to decline.
Allan Border
David Boon
Hayden
Greg chappell
Gilchrist
.
However the Waughs seem to have been about 36 when the decline set in .
William F Woods said | August 7th 2009 @ 8:50am | Report comment
Hmmm..interesting comments.
I firstly refer to Colin’s words regarding Jameswm, who was comparing his own batting to ‘Fabio’ Watson. All I can add is that if I were describing my own batting on an internet site like this, I would at least opt for a proper test batsman with a proven test and 1st class record.
Now – in reference to the ‘Dark Art’. Well, I could go on to say that I used to be able to bend it both ways with a worn 4-piece ball on a flat concrete strip in hot temperatures on a dusty field beside a river – but I would be telling porky pies. The reality is that not everyone CAN swing a ball AND get it to land where they want. Obviously, we are all not as gifted as Jameswm.
QuickJohnny said | August 7th 2009 @ 9:05am | Report comment
I see Jameswm is coming under fire, and I must say ‘rightly so.’ Swing bowling is an art, and bowling in the backyard with half a tennis ball taped up is far from bowling in a test match. If Jameswm you can indeed swing the ball at will, why on earth hasn’t Hilditch and Co called on you? The bottom line is that England’s bolwers are bowling better, and Australia’s batsman are so used to playing with V-8 bats on flat decks on small grounds that even badly-timed defensive prods can make the boundary. Now, they actually have to display some technique, and their flaws are being found out. I wonder what would happen if today’s batch of batsmen were put on a Gabba green top and had to face the likes of Hadlee, Alderman, Lillee??? No contest.
William F Woods said | August 7th 2009 @ 9:16am | Report comment
Spot on, Quick Johnny, nice-play! And I couldn’t agree more with Whiteline – move over Cooley……
Whiteline said | August 7th 2009 @ 9:27am | Report comment
Ah yes Quick Johnny and Mr Woods, glad to see a bit of intelligence here today. But let’s remember, sometimes the half cut tennis ball can swing too much but obviously James has mastered that too – would have been a tough comp the under 12b’s.