Australian chairman of selectors Andrew Hilditch may have given a clue to the mystery of Brad Hodge last month.
In hinting that he now regarded international limited-overs cricket as a better indicator of Test readiness than the domestic first-class arena, Hilditch opened up the possibility that Hodge’s mediocre record for Australia in one-day matches had a bearing on his brief Test career.
For years to come, indignant Victorians will quote Hodge’s Test stats – six matches, 503 runs at 55.88, one double century – and claim he was robbed of a longer stint at the top.
But his one-day digits, 575 runs at 30.26 with one century from 25 appearances, are less impressive, despite a greater number of opportunities.
Hodge has wondered at length at the point of staying on because he was only ever going to be Ricky Ponting’s deputy.
But in truth, there have been plenty of players who started out as injury replacements then forced a permanent place for themselves by simply doing too well to be dropped when they had the chance.
This is something that, in one-day cricket at least, Hodge never quite did.
In his first three one-day series between 2005 and 2007, playing as a substitute or rotation player in the Australian domestic tri-series, he averaged 24 from three matches, 3.50 from two, then 38.50 in five.
He picked up better returns in New Zealand in 2007, averaging 65.50 including an unbeaten 97 despite a rare Australian series loss, and that was enough to give him a support role at the 2007 World Cup, where he made one century and averaged 76 from limited opportunities.
However Hodge’s next series in India later in 2007 was a disaster, featuring just 59 runs at 9.83 across seven matches.
For once he had been given an extended run and could not make use of it.
After that Hodge only played once more, as Ponting’s Test deputy in the Caribbean, and he was never again given an extended chance.
Hodge was treated harshly at Test level, but had he made more of his one-day appearances, things could easily have been quite different.
Factbox on Victorian batsman Brad Hodge
DOB:
December 29, 1974
First-class debut: 1993-94
Test debut: 2005-06FOR AUSTRALIA
Tests: 6: 503 runs @ 55.88, HS 203*, one century
One-day internationals: 25: 575 runs @ 30.26, HS 123, one century
Twenty20 internationals: 8: 94 runs @ 31.33, HS 36FOR VICTORIA
First-class matches: 145: 11,278 runs @ 47.39, HS 286, 33 centuriesCAREER
First-class matches: 222: 17,012 runs @ 48.88, HS 302*, 51 centuries
Greg Russell
Roar Guru
"MClarke for T20 captain when he ... struggles to hit it off the square" Praise the Lord, someone else has noticed this. Why do so many people not? If I had a dollar for every time Clarke has been caught at long-on trying to hit a 6, I'd be far from the poorest person in Australia. Why does he continue to take on long-on fielders when his odds of winning the battle are so low? This makes it doubly bad: not only can he not clear the man, but he can't even recognize that he has this limitation. Having said the above, I've been extremely impressed with Clarke's T20I and ODI captaincy when given the chance (e.g. the 3 successive wins to start off the recent ODI series in England). I like the way he whistles to Australian fielders as if they are cattle dogs - that seems to fit the ethos of T20 cricket. So I personally see a bit of a dilemma here with Clarke and T20I cricket: he's an excellent captain but he's not a good enough batsman. Solution? Easy, because in Australian cricket the philosophy has always been: first of all choose the best 11 players, and then choose the captain. Unfortunately Clarke is not in the best 11 players, so ... For ODIs he's fine though, because he can play the accumulator role at no. 4, which does not require big aerial shots, just 4 or 5 singles for every 6 balls faced.
M1tch
Roar Guru
We lost the Ashes and our team is basically the same.. Its got 2005 written all over again with hayden 05 and hussey 09 having poor first 4 tests, but the selectors not choosing a backup so they pick him for 5th and he scores big runs.. They all smile and say 'look he scored a century so that justifies us picking him'. But Hughes gets 2 matches and is gone! We had a team of champions on the ashes tour but not a champion team, simple decisions made by Ponting cost us the series.
Fisher Price
Guest
It's arguably this type of selection policy that's helped net Australia 3 series defeats in its past 5 series. Watson has a massive technical flaw and his bowling is limited but Ponting views him as fit... so he must play.
Fisher Price
Guest
It's true Hodge had a couple of Shield seasons where he performed pretty poorly. You could also say that the likes of Hayden, Lehmann and Bevan went through times of struggle also - it's just that theirs' were at Test level; a form of the game where Hodge has barely had a chance to perform in.
M1tch
Roar Guru
Its all about who 'fits' in..symonds was a larakin so he got picked time after time, did he deserve to goto 2003 world cup? Hell no, but he was funny so Ponting got him. I heard Malcolm Conn say last year that it seemed Hodge didnt get along with some of the players, so after that last test in 2005-06, even though Martyn hadnt done that much he was picked for team morale.
Fisher Price
Guest
'Special Project' = 'X-Factor' = usually rubbish but occasionally successful
Fisher Price
Guest
Sorry, I don't go along with this argument. Hodge's card was marked by the in-club. Symonds didn't score a 50 in his first 29 ODIs... and he still had a long ODI career and played far too many Tests. Why? I suspect because Punter likes him.
Jameswm
Guest
I don't see katich as one of Ponting's mates, though. With Hodge there was the perception that he was a flat track bully. He's unlucky I guess, but for the last 2 years he's been too old. I agree Watson shouldn't open, but I would have him in the middle order. Hussey has been scratching out test runs for 18 months, but they won't drop him. And I also agree Symonds had a charmed life in the test team. I think they wanted him for force of character, as much as anything. As for Hilditch...pffft. He just doesn't read the game and his T20 selections are an ongoing farce. MClarke for T20 captain when he's barely played the game, struggles to hit it off the square and is too selfish to hit out anyway? Great call.
Mark
Guest
Good points Greg, all valid. The only thing I would suggest is that Hodge's overall average is lower because he had a definite low period during his career where his performances were less than stellar. Totally off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure his recent Shield averages per season have been above his current average by some margin and his form since his last appearance in the test team has been incredibly consistent. I certainly agree that it was not a justified decision to drop him at the time, a minor limitation perhaps in his technique which was still good enough to get him a double century against a fully fledged test team. Age is obviously a factor in all of this because if he was dropped in his 20s with the same flaw he would no doubt find a way back. On his one day career, he did also get a 99 and 97 not out against NZ to got with his world cup minnow bashing century. Of course this discussion must all take place against the backdrop of the special projects Symonds and Watson. I would argue that project Symonds as a test player did not come to fruition and Australia would have been much better off allowing better performing players a chance to establish themselves in the team. Watson has a massive technical flaw as evidenced by his string of LBW/bowled dismissals and yet, with no evidence to suggest he might do the job as an opener, is still opening, let alone still being in the test team. That can't be good selection. Mike Hussey has now been terrible for longer than he's been good in his test career, and yet holds down a spot in the middle order as though it was his birthright. People are suggesting that dropping him now will end his test career so we can't, yet this is exactly what happened to Bradley. These are the inconsistencies that cause us poor Victorians to bemoan Hodgey's lack of opportunity in the test arena. There is not doubt that personality comes into play here and there is a definite issue with Ponting's personal picks being favoured as well. Either way Hodge is not the first well performed Shield player to be hard done by and given the current selection policies, will absolutely not be the last. We were fortunate to see him walk out for one boxing day test, although nerves seemed to get the better of him that day, but we'll always wish he'd had the opportunity for more. p.s. Cracker Hohns was also mildly insane but had such a pool of talent to keep the team winning that it didn't matter!
Greg Russell
Roar Guru
Hodge was dropped from the test team because of a technical limitation: when the ball is short outside off stump, he does not move his back foot across enough, and thus he is highly vulnerable to being caught behind the wicket. This had already started to happen in the series against South Africa. The above is not to say that it was justified to drop him (probably it was not), but I'm just saying what the reason was. It's important also to note that he was dropped at the end of the 2005/6 home series against South Africa, when Hohns (who was very good) was still chair of selectors, not Hilditch. One might wonder how Hodge prospered at first-class level if he has such a serious weakness. To this I would say: (1) Test cricket is a step up - as good as Australian first-class cricket is, there is no Dale Steyn or Ishant Sharma (guys who can really expose the above sort of weakness) in it. (2) Hodge's career average of 48 in Pura/SS is excellent but it is not nearly in the league of Lehmann (55), Hayden (55) and Bevan (60), players more of his era than the current one. If Hodge were 25 or even 28 now then he would be straight into the test team. But when he was these ages he was competing with players like Lehmann and Bevan for a spot, and he wasn't in their league. These are just a few reflections for thought rather than arguments one way or the other on Hodge. What I will unreservedly agree on is that even at his current age he should be a first pick for Australia's T20I side, but due to Hilditch's inadequacies he is not. I have heard that the Indians are amazed that Hodge is neglected in this way. On Hodge in ODIs I have an open mind, although I tend to agree with the article - Hodge did not receive as many opportunities as others but he still received enough to stake a claim. Even his ODI century is a bit misleading in that I'm pretty sure it was against a minnow at the 2007 WC. Many other Australian batsmen have been able to step into the Australian ODI side and prove themselves winners straight away - Martyn, M Hussey and C Ferguson are a few examples who spring to mind. D Hussey has failed in ODIs in a similar way to Hodge, and he too is being killed for it. I have to agree that Watson and Symonds were given far more chances, but they had age on their side and that they were perceived as "special projects", i.e., immense and all-round talent. Whether or not it was justified that they got so many chances is questionable, but it is undeniable that the selectors ended up being fruitfully correct in both cases.
Mark
Guest
I guess that's why players like Katich are still in the test team then, all of that international one day experience huh? As for Hodge's extended run, I hardly think it was as extended as the run offered to players like Symonds or Watson. Hodge's state record speaks for itself. It stands head and shoulders above a player like Watson. When it comes down to it though, he was harshly done by mostly because of who he was, not how he played. He was dropped from the test team to make way for Martyn's return, presumably because Martyn was good mates with everyone else in the team, not for a lack of form. He did get some opportunities in the one day format before being dropped but despite going back to state matches and making a bucket of runs, like Katich did, he has never been given further opportunity. And the fact that he hasn't been a regular member of the T20 squad has absolutely no explanation. He is one of the best T20 batsmen in the world, let alone in Australia. Hilditch is clearly insane anyway. His selection policy statements are nothing more than the utterings of a mad man. The sooner he goes the better.