As with so many contests this year, the last days of December offered a classic exhibition of Test cricket. They also offered a classic exhibition of lazy, self-serving, and empty commentary from journalists and fans alike.
In the couple of weeks leading up to the India series, the same lines were trotted out like riding-school ponies.
That Ricky Ponting and Michael Hussey were in a form trough.
That they were ageing players.
That there were younger batsmen challenging for a place in the team.
Articles were written about managing their retirements. About who would replace them. Ponting, it was speculated, could rely on his career achievements to justify seeing out the summer. Hussey, said the general consensus, was batting for his career.
And when he was unluckily out first ball in the first innings in Melbourne, the mutterings around the stands all followed the cue. That that might be it for Mr Cricket. That India’s DRS aversion might have finished him.
Wait just a minute. Are these people stark blithering mad? Do they wear tea kettles on their feet and strap a fish to their heads to ward off rain?
Just how long had Hussey’s terrible, woeful, career-threatening Mariana Trench of a slump been going on? Four Test matches.
Four Test matches.
In case you missed it, that number again is four.
Ponting’s run of struggles can be counted in years. Hussey’s was about six weeks. His form in the series immediately preceding it could attract that most abused of cricketing adjectives, Bradmanesque.
Yet somehow the two batsmen were lumped together, almost treated as the same person, due to the only stat they do share at present: age. Ponting just ticked over to 37, Hussey will join him in May. Yet Rahul Dravid was Test cricket’s top run-scorer this year aged nearly 39. He has shown that the number in that column need not influence those in any others.
Hussey’s last 12 months have been similarly impressive. While the talk was about “a couple of lean series”, each of those series was only two Tests long. Seven innings. Four against South Africa away, and three against New Zealand at home.
For those who’ve blocked it from memory, two of those South African innings spanned the Cape Town Test, when Australia’s 22 individual innings returned 16 single-figure scores. South Africa managed 10 single-figure innings out of 15.
In the second Test Hussey made 20 and 39, helping add crucial runs with Brad Haddin in the fourth-innings chase.
His duck against New Zealand in Hobart came amid another collapse, and when wickets are crashing every second over, against good swing bowling on damp green pitches, it is simplistic to point to one batsman’s score amid the carnage as a personal failure.
That day Hussey got the proverbial peach from the day’s destroyer Doug Bracewell, a fast full inswinger that swerved late in the Tasmanian gloom and pinned him in front of leg stump. Any batsman in the world could get out to that first ball.
In any case, we can still agree that the record shows poor returns from four matches in November and December. But what happens when we go to the series before that?
Sri Lanka in August. In five innings, Hussey made 95, 15, 142, 118, and 93, at an average of 92.6 for the series. He was man of the match in all three Tests, an unprecedented achievement. And he brought Australia home a series win on foreign soil.
And before that? Last summer’s Ashes, another campaign many would like to forget. Except Hussey, perhaps, who scored 195 in Brisbane, 93 and 52 in Adelaide, and 61 and 116 in Perth to set up Australia’s only win of the series.
Four hundreds (one of them nearly a double), three 90s, and two other half-centuries, in the space of eight Tests. Australia’s leading Test runscorer in 2011.
Nor is it just the runs he makes, but how he makes them. His coolness in a crisis, his constant thinking. He bats brilliantly with the tail, adept at getting the best out of them. So many times, Hussey has masterminded the heist.
His second-innings 89 this week in Melbourne showed these qualities – the way he counterattacked so brilliantly when walking out at 4/27, the way he batted long with the bowlers to put the match out of India’s reach. The way he put aside thoughts of his first-innings first-baller to notch the match’s highest score.
But I was writing this article in my head even before Boxing Day began. Hussey didn’t need a big score in that match to show up the case against him for the bunk it is.
The frustrating part is how easily this bunk proliferates. A media outlet glances at a few low scores, and decides he’s under pressure.
They’ve already got that story running on Ponting, so it makes sense to add Hussey to the tale.
When you consider the vast amounts of copy assembled by outlets on a daily basis, it should be no surprise that the bulk of the process is done by rote. Martin Flanagan may write articles, but news-wire writers do not. Publishers increasingly see their sources not as journalists but as “content providers”.
There is little incentive to add extra effort. So in terms of stories, there are standard themes that these writers return to time and again. Like television chefs, they love turning to one they prepared earlier.
News writers are always searching for adjectives, too, to add some superficial interest to their prose. Those adjectives must follow the chosen theme.
Thus, phrases like “out of form”, “under pressure”, or “struggling” become obligatory appendices to a certain player’s name, just as “besieged” or “embattled” are attached to certain politicians. The more outlets take that line, the more others take their lead, simply because that fits what has now become the public narrative.
And the more that happens, the more punters start to convince themselves that it’s true, and that they came up with that opinion all on their own. They parrot the lines they’ve heard or read. Often it’s as innocuous as wanting to participate in a conversation.
Let’s be honest, not everyone follows the cricket with the geek-intensity of some of my colleagues, and perhaps that’s for the best. But everyone likes to proffer an opinion. As in many facets of life, those who know the least often have the loudest voices.
Hussey was never about to be dropped, any more than Australia was about to be invaded by Japan in 1942. But the alternate narratives are far more entertaining.
They contain drama, pathos, nostalgia, a reminder of the tenuous hold that even the good and the worthy have on so many things.
They contain tension and worry and strife, the vicarious thrill of a near miss.
They also show a disregard for the truth. It is grossly unfair that Hussey could be said to have a career on the line, and that he has had to cope with the added pressure that brings.
The problem with such narratives is that they can self-fulfil. Repeat the most basic untruth enough times and people will start to believe it. The Leader of the Opposition has made it an art.
This past fortnight, we saw Hussey become an easy column-filler. His innings yesterday will have donated the next segment.
Without having read today’s reports, I know they will assert that Hussey has just saved his career – a career that should never have been in question. A nice by-the-numbers narrative emerges: struggle, doubt, crisis, ultimate redemption.
Until the next match, when another name will be dropped in instead. Like flat-packed furniture, the story comes prefabricated.
Hussey has survived the campaign, and in a few months, most people’s memory of it will have withdrawn to that part of their brains where they keep car key locations and boring people’s names.
But it is important to note that narratives have power. Words describe the world in which they are formed, but can ultimately start to form the world they describe.
The lesson is simple, and worth inscribing over your heart. Simply, that any time you hear the accepted narrative, it pays to do a bit of thinking for yourself.
Bayman
Guest
I left that one there for you, Junior, well spotted!
Junior
Guest
'without a single typo'? well if you choose to spell buoyed as bouyed, then sure there are no typos. who knows, there may be more. while i clearly have lots of time on my hands, i don't have that much time. an excellent and considered response by the way bayman. i agree with Lemon on this one, but nice work.
Axelv
Guest
I see.
Junior
Guest
It seems ironic that Mr Lemon as a journalist has decided to write an article that is bagging other journalists/news-wire writers for hyping up a story. I get the difference between proper cricket writers (like Lemon) and news-wire hacks but for a writer to use the poor practices of his press box brethren as the basis of an article seems to me like poor form. News-wire people offer nothing. We know that. Stick to your mostly excellent cricket writing. Point II. Like somebody said earlier, the Japan 1942 thing didn't sit well with me either. A good analogy is priceless, but this one seemed unnecessary and contrived to me. Too many analogies (TV chefs, flat-packed furniture...etc) are also a turn-off. A final thought Mr Lemon: I don't always agree with what you write but I try to read what you write and normally respect your opinions. On this occasion a simple 'Hussey rocks and this is why' article would have sufficed.
Bayman
Guest
....Agreed!
Bayman
Guest
Brendon, If you look a bit harder I think you'll find several have mentioned Hussey's first innings misfortune. It is, however, irrelevant to the discussion at large unless you think runs, averages and strike-rates (in your case, not necessarily in that order) are the most important thing. For example, Hussey's second innings in which he made 89 while really being out four times (five if you accept the catch should have been taken) suggested that, perhaps, he wasn't in as good a nick as many want to believe. His first innings dismissal, while incorrect, gives no indication of what might have happened later - because for him there was no later. He was gone. He may just as easily nicked the next ball as hit it for four. The second knock, though, gave us a look at how he was batting because he had the time. As it turned out, a lot more time than he was entitled to but the BCCI have only themselves to blame for that - so no sympathy there. Good luck to him. On a more positive note, you will no doubt be pleased to note that our expectations of you have also been met.........
Bayman
Guest
Geoff, I take your point about lumping Ponting and Hussey together - I too think Ponting's been a problem for some time and, despite the two half-centuries at the "G", still is. Hussey, clearly, has had more success in that time frame - and by a factor. However, as the two oldest, and most likely to disappear the quickest, it is inevitable that they are seen as something of a double act and the two biggest roadblocks to the next generation. As you said, Hussey has been a fine contributor for some time (as was Ponting). But, as Kerry O'Keeffe said the other day, in the last 12 months Hussey has as many ducks as Chris Martin. Yep, I know there's really no comparison......but that's not a record to brag about. Or a record on which to base a strong defence. Luck plays a part and while the first innings decision was incorrect it was not a "bad" decision. From the umpires end that looked a very likely outcome given the proximity of bat, gloves, ball, body and the late swing after passing the batsman. However, in the last couple of years our two "seniors" have succumbed to first ballers more often than I've had hot dinners. Given their records, and reputations, it is not a good look. I do agree about the "road" concept. In fact I said it in my earlier response. They all had the same chance but Hussey was the one to take advantage and, as you say, it was against Test match bowlers. I take the point, also, about the foundation the top order is setting for the likes of Hussey which, for the past several years, has invariably been not much. Go back way beyond the Ashes series and see how many times we've made 3-400 on the back of the last five batsmen - as opposed to the top six. Remember, too, Hussey's first Test centuries. From memory scored with only the tail for company and how well did he bat? I can only repeat what I said in the previous post - this time, in similar circumstances, it was Hussey who looked vulnerable on the last morning, not Pattinson. I don't think that would have been the case in his early days in the team.
sheek
Guest
True Bayman, But how many times have we seen a batsman scratch out a "lucky" 50 or 100 to save his career, which actually bats him back into form. Then he proceeds onto a 'purple patch'. Hussey's next couple of innings will tell us if he's back in the hunt.....!
Bayman
Guest
Sheek, I've no problem at all with the record showing Hussey scored 89. My problem, and this is the real point of my comments, is that the 89 is being seen as Hussey is back in town and all the knockers have been shown to be wrong. How so? He had three events whereby DRS would have upheld a review by Dhoni and another dropped chance courtesy of Dravid before finally being dismissed. On the final morning, with so much riding on it, he looked far more vulnerable than James Pattinson. In other words, he has not convinced me he's in any form at all. He might be - and I guess we'll see in Sydney but until then I reserve my judgement that Hussey has answered his critics. Likewise with Ponting. That first innings sixty was, in my view, a very scratchy knock. Good shots interspersed with the tentative. The issue being this is not how they batted five years ago. They're on a slope and it's heading down. Mind you, I also thought Sehwag survived as much my good luck as good management in the first innings but all the commentators kept saying how great he was. I didn't see it that way at all but I did understand that if he kept surviving we were in strife because he doesn't just hang around. As for history's view of Hussey's innings, and Taylor's, I agree. Ten years from now nobody will remember the glitches, just the final score. The final total doesn't mean it was a great innings though - but it was important in the scheme of things.
AndyMack
Guest
Well said Disco. Think we are so desperate to get to the top again, people grab at anything. Marsh, Cowen, Ferguson all have 1st class averages below 40 (well below in some cases) yet get spoken about in glowing terms. I'm happy that Marsh and Cowen have got some runs when brought in, however their career stats indicate they are not long term options. Khawaja on the other hand......
AndyMack
Guest
Well thought out logic there Ben W. Australian captain is not a popularity contest, just cos you have a personal grudge against Clarke doesnt mean he cant lead this team well, as he has shown repeatedly.
Ben W
Guest
I think Clarke should go. Haddin too.
AJ
Guest
Nice article. My favourite was the ch 9 news report about how pathetic NZ batting was in the first innings at Tassie,saying that only the Perth born and raised batsman was able to score runs.I was on the Black cap bandwagon after that insult and they didn't dissapoint. More power to this and other forums that highlight our mainstream TV media for what it is.Total Rubbish.Unfortunately it tends to reflect poorly on all of us.
Isaac
Guest
Geoff Lemon, what a lovely article, so absorbing and intelligently written. As a West Australian I would relish you as a local sportswriter over here. You make valid points regarding the way many Australians - some who don't even know who Victor Trumper or Clarrie Grimmett are (meaning: not cricketing enthusiasts or players – however most people playing cricket may actually not know these guys either so lets forget that analogy) – just think we should discard the experienced greats of the game. As a West Australian I will of course have my biased mindset on Mike Hussey, he’s a legend in my mind, and in the mind of a majority of sandgropers. As Brett McKay has said those may never change their minds about the necessity to drop Hussey or Ponting, and they have every right to argue for their omission, but they are not selectors (I hope Red Kev isn’t John Inverarity’s alias). Anyway since the comments here have brought playful bickering about the Japanese Invasion, and then also mentioning Billy Hughes’ our most beloved statesman and also many other arguments, I see no harm in mentioning my own opinion. Firstly about the fact Hussey’s 89 wasn’t glorious batting, but rather a collection of luck from dropped catches and LBW’s that were clearly out but the BCCI don’t allow… (well we know they hate UDRS). I watched that innings of 89 and well it was magnificent, that pull-shot and those cover drives were brilliant. Lets look at some great innings of Hussey’s past: 195 versus England at the Gabbatoir: Hussey was lucky to escape at the start of his innings when he edged just short of Graeme Swann. Then on 82 runs he was plumb LBW to James Anderson but was given not out by Aleem Dar and England had no reviews left to challenge. He went on to make 195 and we forget all the moments when he was ‘out’ and remember the innings. 134* versus Pakistan at the SCG: Dropped by Kamran Akmal many times (he was match fixing supposedly but lets forget that). Went on to make a century with Siddle, Australia won. Good match, great innings. 122 versus South Africa at the MCG: a favourite of mine, remember the century stand with Glenn McGrath, what a beauty of an innings. However early on in his innings I believe Hussey was dropped (a sitter for second slip), but no-one remembers, no one cares about that - they remeber those huge sixes he hit though. The point is all great individual innings’ will have chances offered to the fielding side, but it is the batsman who moves on from a lucky break to make such a good score which will be remembered. So please anyone who thinks that an Umpiring non-decision when you were clearly plumb/out or if you were dropped by a fielder means your innings was lucky and has little merit change their attitude please to the game of cricket - and the effort and concentration required to compile runs. Secondly another personal opinion is that S. Marsh, Cowan and Christian are not blistering young legendary youths. They’re solid cricketers but no match for greats like Ponting or Hussey, all are nearly 29 years old (in Cowan’s case he is 29) and still their First-Class averages with the bat are under in the 30’s, some close to 40. Hussey was averaging over 50 with the bat at First-Class when he was 29 years old and debuting for Australia – that’s why we could tell he was special and skilled. However I agree with Red Kev. Kahwaja is a talented man, he is just 25 years old and averaging 45 in First-Class, definitely a man for the future, maybe spending more time in First-Class to perfect his game for the international scene will be required since his dropping. Also Dave Warner is 25 years old and a potential talent, his strike power is unique and that’s what will make him a great player and his First-Class stats may settle a bit but will still be superior.
Geoff Lemon
Expert
Fran, I think (or hope) that with Cowan and Warner both showing promise, we'll stick with them as openers for a decent run (and not panic into dropping them if one has a few poor innings). Watson did fairly well as an opener, but would be more damaging coming in late in the day against tired bowlers. We don't need two aggressors at the top of the order.
Geoff Lemon
Expert
Bayman, I'm with Lolly - great response. And probably the record for the longest post without a single typo. Well played. In brief, I'd say I still don't like this habit of putting Hussey and Ponting together for the purposes of assessment. Ponting has been unconvincing for a very long time, even when scoring. I watched his first innings live, and his balance and timing looked awful, even though he survived for 60. Hussey has had a few great balls early, and a few ducks, after a brilliant run. His good fortune at Melbourne came in the morning session after he'd already put a good score together. It's easy, and common, to discount a batsman's innings because the pitch was "a road". But they still have to score the runs, and against Test bowlers. If it were that easy, the whole side would score hundreds. They don't, because getting out early can happen to anyone at any time. On Hussey's "road" at Brisbane, his side was 5/143. The rest of the top six made 1, 9, 10, 36, and 50. In each of Hussey's Sri Lankan innings, three to four of the top six fell cheaply. Having a good track is one thing. Taking that opportunity, as you've mentioned, is quite another.
lolly
Guest
Hey Bayman, that is a damn fine read. An excellent response to Geoff's article. Both are far better written and reasoned than anything I could have done.
Red Kev
Guest
Do I really need to post Khawaja's stats again on this site? And for the record while I regard Watson as more important to the side than Hussey and a vessel of sufficient "experience" to allay the pantywaists' fear of being without it, I would (as I have posted many many times) be perfectly happy if Ponting was dropped and Hussey retained (or the reverse although that would defy all logic and sense) but retaining both is a mistake.
sheek
Guest
Bayman, If my memory serves me correctly, when Mark Taylor (playing Pakistan) equalled the great Don Bradman's best test score of 334, he was dropped 3 times before reaching 20, & a 4th time in the 90s. Thereafter, he appeared "undismissable". The records will show his score of 334, long after we've forgotten the dropped catches. i guess you could say the same about Hussey's 89 & a million other innings. Hussey was cruelled in the 1st innings, but rode his luck in the 2nd.....
Geoff Lemon
Expert
Thanks Lancey. The key question in your comment was "Do you have to past 50 in every dig to be safe?" That seems to be the prevailing attitude - that anything less than 50 is a failure, 50 to 89 is acceptable, 90-99 is unlucky, and only 100+ is a "good" innings. (I've seen some gutsy, difficult, match-winning 30s in my time.) Starting an innings is a difficult business, and batsmen will as often as not be out early. It's just hard to make people remember that.