Related coverage
Brad Hodge has shut it down after 223 First-class matches at an average of 48.8. So long old boy, and thanks for the memories.
Thankfully we will no longer hear the nasally cries of Gerard Whateley and others on the issue. “What else does Brad Hodge have to do to make the Test team?”
I can think of one answer.
Be in the best six batsmen in the country.
A scan through the records shows that since Brad Hodge made his first class debut in 1993, 18 other specialist batsmen have made their Test debut, starting with Justin Langer in 1993 and ending with Marcus North in 2009.
Of these, only eleven have played more than 20 Tests. Of these eleven, only Greg Blewett’s average is below 40.
In terms of Hodge’s other contemporaries, Mark Waugh (128 Tests, average 41.8) debuted two years earlier and Damien Martyn (67 Tests, average 46.4) a year earlier. Two other batsmen that also played a decent chunk of their Test career after 1993 were Mark Taylor (104 Tests, average 43.5) and Steve Waugh (168 Tests, average 51.1).
So was Brad Hodge unlucky to have played only six Tests?
In the sense that his Test average was 55.9, that he may have held his own if given an extended run, and that he was arguably a better batsman than Greg Blewett (South Australia), the answer is yes.
On further analysis, however, the answer is a resounding ‘No’.
Firstly, strip out his unbeaten 203 versus South Africa at the WACA in 2005 and his Test average plummets to 33.3. Not so impressive.
Secondly, he wasn’t born in and didn’t move to New South Wales.
Ironically, this may have been a blessing for him. He may never have made the NSW Shield team given the vast pool of talent, meaning he would have played six less Tests.
Finally, for Hodge to have played significantly more Tests, at least one of the following batsmen would have had to have played significantly less: Langer, Martyn, Taylor, Michael Slater, Mathew Hayden, Ricky Ponting, Michael Clarke, Michael Hussey and the Waugh brothers.
So who’s it going to be?
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- Australian Cricket, Brad Hodge, Cricket
December 17th 2009 @ 11:03am
Andrew Sutherland said | December 17th 2009 @ 11:03am | Report comment
We’ll never really know will we?
Matthew Hayden looked like a leaden footed try hard when he first played at Test level and Steve Waugh would never haved played Test cricket if Aust wasn’t , at the time of his initial selection, a poor side in need of an all rounder. He had an average of 13 after his first 2 series and was dropped and recalled twice with a mediocre average.
December 17th 2009 @ 11:18am
Mark said | December 17th 2009 @ 11:18am | Report comment
Exactly Andrew. It took Steve Waugh what, four years to make a test century? How long did Symonds get? How long will Watson take? The arguments of was Hodge good enough can’t be known without him having played more. The arguments of was he unfairly dealt with by the selectors is pretty much proven. And of course the argument that his average was bumped up by one not out double hundred neglects to mention one thing – he made a not out double hundred! And that within his first few tests, which suggests that he perhaps was up to test standard, no?
Regardless of what his mum might say or when, he is still one of the best T20 batsmen in the world, let alone Australia. The fact that he’s not played more T20 cricket while Clarke, who seems to have no understanding of how to even play that form of the game, is now captain is beyond me.
December 17th 2009 @ 12:23pm
formeropenside said | December 17th 2009 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
Well, Jason Gillespie made a not out double hundred and got dropped too.
Hodge was probably a bit unlucky at times, and good enough for Test cricket, but not as good as others. Hell, Brendan Nash was averaging 30 in Shield cricket for Queensland, and he has a Test century against England to his credit now. Is he good enough for Test cricket?
Simply put, there are a lot of players turning out in Shield cricket that would not disgrace national selection (hell, one of them, Nathan Hauritz, is the country’s number one spinner – and a leggie from NSW is apparently the no.2!). Thats not to say they would excel at Test level.
Life is full of injustice, and cricket is as much a part of this as anything else. Personally, my major concern right now in Australian cricket is the next test captain, as I am not convinced Clarke is the answer, and while Cameron White is being groomed as an option, I simply dont think he is much good either.
December 17th 2009 @ 12:42pm
Mark said | December 17th 2009 @ 12:42pm | Report comment
Quite true, as we’ve said there’s plenty who fall into Hodge’s position and there are only ever 11 spots in the national team and at most 6 batsmen. He did play 6 tests though and performed admirably which is nothing to sneeze at.
As for Nash, you’d have to suggest that having a ton against the Poms and his fighting 90-odd against the best that Australia has to offer (albeit on a bit of a road), that yes, he is good enough for Test cricket. He’s doing okay, sure he’s not going to set any records (apart from those for being white) but then again, most players don’t.
Here in Australia we’ve gotten very used to having extraordinary players filling our team for quite a while and we set our standards incredibly high. I’d suggest we get over that pretty quickly, it’s not going to be like that for a while.
December 17th 2009 @ 11:43am
Andrew Sutherland said | December 17th 2009 @ 11:43am | Report comment
Mark, you’re right about Clarke and T20. With his bulging disc, slight build and even slighter bat he doesn’t have the inclination or power to hit over the field. When he does attempt it he hits it straight to the fieldsman as we saw yesterday.
December 17th 2009 @ 12:11pm
Jeff Dowsing said | December 17th 2009 @ 12:11pm | Report comment
Chop, the lack of relevance is that Hodge wasn’t the one talking himself up! I’m sure he wasn’t exactly thrilled either – and in context, a journo probably asked her the question and she just responded honestly what she thought.
Good post Mark, it’s nice to have ordinary fill-ins that can knock up double tons! To me he seamlessly played at the highest level without requiring an ounce of the selectors’ patience.
And don’t get me started on Clarke’s Twenty/20 credentials.
December 17th 2009 @ 12:33pm
Brett McKay said | December 17th 2009 @ 12:33pm | Report comment
I’ve just thought of Martin Love, for no particular reason…
December 17th 2009 @ 12:49pm
Michael C said | December 17th 2009 @ 12:49pm | Report comment
right now, Marcus North is a bit lucky to have made some bid but pretty meaningless runs and failed a few too many times when he’s really been needed, (as well as being an all or nothing player)
Merv Hughes recently justified the faith in Hussey, in that in England, he did his best work at the most dire times,
for example
the 2 losses – Hussey made 199 from 4 vs North 24 from 4.
the 2 drawn matches – Hussey made 67 from 3 vs North 233 from 2 completed
and the win – Hussey 10 and North 110.
Out of that, who had the best series? I guess, a match winner, given Hussey’s best was in lost causes where he was unable to ‘save’ the match.
but – we Vics can claim Marcus North, he was born in Pakenham.
December 17th 2009 @ 4:51pm
Fisher Price said | December 17th 2009 @ 4:51pm | Report comment
Hodge’s face didn’t fit, pure and simple.
Unlike Symonds (who was barely a district batsman, such is his dreadful record in Shield) but would probably still be in the team if not for his off-field issues.
The in club is embarrassing.
December 18th 2009 @ 10:43am
formeropenside said | December 18th 2009 @ 10:43am | Report comment
Which of course explains why Symonds averaged over 40 with the bat and took some handy wickets. He could field a bit too. Doubtless it was the search for an allrounder (and injuries to Watson) that created an opportunity for him, but to call him a “district batsman” is overstating the case against him, just a little.
December 18th 2009 @ 1:16pm
Fisher Price said | December 18th 2009 @ 1:16pm | Report comment
He cashed with a big ton against a tired, listless, beaten England attack at the MCG, and then again with a few 50s in the West Indies…
His returns for Qld were rubbish.
And, besides, an average of 40 is no great shakes for a batsman in this day and age. Especially when you’re playing for a dominant team.
Handy wickets, yes, but he was not an allrounder.
Worth noting is that Symonds didn’t score a 50 for his first 29 ODIs but wasn’t axed and averaged under 20 for his first 10 Tests; ample evidence of his golden boy status.
December 18th 2009 @ 10:59am
Huffy said | December 18th 2009 @ 10:59am | Report comment
Couldn’t disagree more with this. You can’t say that if it weren’t for a big score that his average wouldn’t be any good, especially after only a handful of tests, the fact is he scoreed the runs. I can only wonder what B Hodge might have been if he were given the same run that other’s like S Waugh, Watson and Symonds were given.
December 19th 2009 @ 3:24pm
Tom said | December 19th 2009 @ 3:24pm | Report comment
Nice to see the old Victorian conspiracy theorists out in force here. The question must be asked, can it be said with any certainty that Hodge would have been as good/better than the players mentioned in the article as having to make way for him? I I would answer ‘absolutely not’. Hence, he was not unlucky apart from being of an age where there were almost limitless supplies of batting talent in this country. Someone unfortunately had to miss out, and unfortunately it was Hodge. He doubtlessly would have been a very solid test player, but there is nothing to suggest he would have been any better than the team that was selected. The selectors’ choices can be justified by the success of the teams selected during these periods.
December 19th 2009 @ 5:35pm
Mark said | December 19th 2009 @ 5:35pm | Report comment
According to the Wikipedia, a conspiracy theory “has come almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning”.
Now I for one am not suggesting that the NSP has either superhuman power or any form of cunning whatsoever, in fact my comments generally tend to run along the lines of stupidity and luck in their department. I would also suggest that their was no secret plot to groom Symonds or Watson into some sort of Flintoff mark II, that in fact this plot was well and truly out in the open.
Of course there is no guarantee that Hodge would have been a better player than the others, the point is that he was rather harshly treated and dropped or not re-instated at the expense of players with a poor record at the time. And there is something to suggest that Hodge would have been a better player than Symonds for example – his state record. Even his brief test record suggests it!
And yes, the selectors choices can be justified by the success of the teams during these periods, as it can also be justified by the inability of our opposition to play better cricket. In fact, you can twist the figures to represent anything you want. Symonds made 100 and we won the test, therefore, selection was correct. As you’ve said though, there is nothing to suggest that another player wouldn’t have made 200 and won the test, in which case his selection would have been correct.
Anyway it is quite obvious that you, sir, are a New South Welshman and so clearly your views are obviously incorrect. Good day!
December 20th 2009 @ 12:22pm
Tom said | December 20th 2009 @ 12:22pm | Report comment
Great logic there – I, a New South Welshman, would be happy that Symonds, a Queenslander, is in the test team…Just to clarify, the players I were referring to as having to drop out for Hodge were the ones quoted in the article: “Langer, Martyn, Taylor, Michael Slater, Mathew Hayden, Ricky Ponting, Michael Clarke, Michael Hussey and the Waugh brothers.”
Who out of those players would you have dropped for Hodge?
December 20th 2009 @ 2:21pm
Mark said | December 20th 2009 @ 2:21pm | Report comment
My leap of logic that you were a New South Welshman was made to point out the flawed logic of your argument – that we are all Victorian conspiracy theorists.
I believe Martyn was dropped for Hodge. Of course, Hodge was then dropped for an under performing Martyn. Damo was a good bloke, good for the team and just missed his mates I guess. Not enough to pull the pin mid series though.
During Hodge’s recent era (the only time when I’m suggesting he could have picked), Hayden & Langer were opening, Taylor & Slater weren’t playing, he did fill in for Ponting, and you can’t possibly suggest that Michael Hussey’s record of the last 2 1/2 years speaks for itself??
Clarke got in instead of Hodge, as Ponting et al have said, and who’s to say that if Hodge was picked then and not Clarke, that Hodge wouldn’t have gone on to play more tests and done as well as Clarke in that time? Again all I was saying is that we’ll never know and that there was more than one instance of him being the better performed player in state cricket and not being picked.
The thing is that in the last 10 years only 11 batsmen have made their Test debut: Katich, Love, Symonds, Clarke, Watson, Hussey, Hodge, Jaques, Rogers, North, & Hughes. So no-one is doubting that it’s bloody hard to do and that there are many more players we could add to the hard done by list. The argument though that Hodge wasn’t good enough is necessarily true. With a couple more chances he may well have become a permanent member of the team. His card was marked though, that much is obvious.
And I’d have dropped any one of them when I felt their form wasn’t good enough. But I’m not on the NSP.
December 20th 2009 @ 5:26pm
Mark said | December 20th 2009 @ 5:26pm | Report comment
Sorry Tom, I know you did say that Hodge would probably have done okay if selected, I’m not directing all of that at you, just pushing the barrow in general.