Should Mike Hussey have played in the Sydney Test?

Ryan O'Connell Columnist

By Ryan O'Connell, Ryan O'Connell is a Roar Expert

 , ,

117 Have your say

    Mike Hussey made a cameo in Switzerland. (Image: AP Photo/Rob Griffith)

    Related coverage

    Mike Hussey has played his final Test match. In a flood of emotion, the man affectionately dubbed ‘Mr Cricket’ bowed out in style with a victory, while also unselfishly refusing to hit the winning runs.

    It was a fitting farewell for a classy individual who has always put the team first.

    However, given that Hussey had announced he was retiring from international cricket, and had therefore voluntarily removed himself from Australia’s future Test plans, should he have even been playing?

    It’s a question that hasn’t been asked, but perhaps it should have been.

    Whether anyone at Cricket Australia wants to admit it or not, the Ashes are the primary focus for the Australian Test side.

    The number one world ranking is unquestionably important, but victory against the Old Enemy is really what matters most, across both Ashes series to be played in 2012/13.

    To that point, if Hussey was not going to be in the team for the heavily anticipated series with England, then why was he playing in a dead rubber against Sri Lanka?

    Would it not make sense to have a look at another batsman, or give the selectors an opportunity to blood his replacement?

    Not everyone gets the ‘Farewell Test’. Time and time again we’ve been reminded that there is allegedly no room for sentimentality in cricket.

    The most infamous example was Ian Healy reportedly requesting “one more game” in front of his home crowd at the Gabba, yet selectors coldly denying him and instead inserting Adam Gilchrist into his role.

    So, knowing that Hussey wasn’t going to play any further part in the Test team’s fortunes moving forward, one could argue that he should have been dropped for the Sydney game, and his likely replacement given a chance to audition for his role in a significantly less pressurised atmosphere than the sub-continent.

    Let’s be honest, four Tests against India on their home soil is no easy task, nor is it an ideal preparation for the Ashes, especially for an inexperienced batsman.

    However, a Test at home, in a dead rubber, against a weak opposition, could have provided a fantastic opportunity for Hussey’s replacement to be eased into Test cricket.

    At the very least, it would have provided selectors with one additional chance to tinker with the side for England.

    Yet as it stands, the selectors were fully aware that a player who won’t be on the plane to India – let alone England – would be playing in Sydney.

    That doesn’t seem like sound planning, nor would it appear to be putting the best interests of the team first.

    Ok, now that I’ve played the role of a very unpopular Devil’s Advocate, allow me to completely debunk my own argument. And yes, I realise I sound like a mad man by quarrelling with myself.

    First of all, Hussey had already been chosen for the Sydney Test before he announced his retirement, so I’m not sure the selectors could have dropped him anyway.

    With regards to the point about giving a new batsman an easy game against Sri Lanka to acclimatise to the step-up in standard, the counter-argument is that if you want Hussey’s replacement to be ready for Test cricket, then a meaningless Test against a vastly inferior nation – one already beaten and broken – is not the best preparation for what awaits in India and England anyway.

    The words ‘fool’s gold’ come into mind.

    Indeed, if there was a desire to provide Hussey’s replacement with the best opportunity to emulate his career, the chance to witness his preparation, patience, temperament, professionalism and technique one last time is probably not a bad thing.

    For those that agree that there is no place for sentimentality in cricket, it’s worth noting that Hussey was not a passenger in the side. In fact, on current form, he would have been the second player picked for the team.

    His playing in Sydney was not a gesture from the selectors that said “We’ll give you a goodbye Test as a thank you for past deeds”, nor was it a case of allowing emotion to make decisions.

    First or all, they didn’t know he was retiring. Secondly, from a purely rationale point of view – sheer weight of runs – Hussey deserved to be in the team. There was nothing sentimental about his selection whatsoever.

    In any case, even if it was an emotional decision, who cares?

    I actually believe Healy should have been given a Brisbane send-off, and I would have had no issue whatsoever if Ricky Ponting played one more Test so he could complete his career in his home state of Tasmania.

    I like the notion of a little bit of emotion coming into modern day sport.

    Even if you wanted to raise the often quoted cliché that ‘modern sport is a business’ and is therefore no place for emotion, consider this: Hussey playing probably boosted the crowd attendance in Sydney.

    Let’s face it, the Test was essentially a nothing game until we leant that Mr Cricket was declaring on his career.

    It would have therefore been a shrewd business decision by Cricket Australia to give Hussey a farewell game and inflate the crowd numbers, even though that’s not what happened.

    Additionally, if you really want to talk business terms, then the fans are Cricket Australia’s customers, and what the customers want, they should get. I’m fairly certain fans wanted to say goodbye to The Huss.

    Finally, and most importantly, few players have deserved a farewell Test more than Mike Hussey.

    Here is a player that has given so much to Australian cricket. He played with dedication, commitment and passion, and no one was prouder to wear the Baggy Green. He was as classy off the field as he was on it, and played the game in the right spirit.

    He was, and is, universally respected.

    No one earned their shot at Test cricket more than Hussey, as no one had scored more first class runs before their Test debut.

    From a performance perspective, he was an all-time great and finishes with a fantastic batting average above the mystical 50 mark. His cover drive was among the best I’ve ever seen.

    His fielding was as rock solid as his presence in the middle order.

    Above all, he also played a major role in many important victories, and that is truly how greats should be judged: by winning.

    Does that sound like someone that deserved a farewell Test? I think you know the answer.

    However, if anyone wants to make the cold argument that he wasn’t going to be around for the Ashes and therefore someone else should have played, then I would agree that it makes for a compelling case, and I would therefore respectfully have to listen. . .

    Before telling them – and the nagging voice in the back of my own head – to pipe down.


    Ryan O
    Ryan O'Connell

    Ryan is an ex-representative basketballer who shot too much, and a (very) medium pace bowler. He's been with The Roar as an expert since February 2011, has written for the Seven Network, and been a regular on ABC radio. Ryan tweets from @RyanOak.

    Do you find yourself logged out of The Roar?
    We have just switched over to a secure site (https). This means you will need to log-in afresh. If you need help with recovering your password, please get in contact.

    This video is trending right now! Submit your videos for the chance to win a share of $10,000!

    Oldest | Newest | Most Recent

    The Crowd Says (117)

    • Roar Guru

      January 7th 2013 @ 7:23am
      sheek said | January 7th 2013 @ 7:23am | ! Report

      Good morning Ryan,

      It must REALLY be a slow day today!

      No, I see no problems at all with Hussey playing the new year’s test. Australia has a three test series with India in which to sort out their batting lineup before the Ashes.

      Even without an Indian tour, I would still have played Hussey.

      Anyway, we keep hearing today’s players are professionals, they should be able to fit in seamlessly!!

      As an aside, right now I’m more concerned with non-retired fast bowlers being omitted from the test team……….

      • Columnist

        January 7th 2013 @ 9:28am
        Ryan O'Connell said | January 7th 2013 @ 9:28am | ! Report

        Good morning Sheek, and a happy new year to you.

        I must admit, when I heard the eleven that would be playing in Sydney, specifically no Khawaja or Maxwell, I thought the selectors were missing a trick and should have taken the opportunity to look at someone new. Considering his retirement announcement, Hussey actually popped into my head as the logical choice to miss out.

        I dismissed it soon after, but I wondered if any Roarers had the same thought – and if they were sticking to it, hence the above argument with myself!

        • January 7th 2013 @ 1:56pm
          matt h said | January 7th 2013 @ 1:56pm | ! Report

          By simply picking three pace bowlers there was plenty of room to blood Maxwell or play Usman. That would have made much more sense. The selection of the 11 smacked of not knowing which bowler to leave out and not taking the hard decision

          • Roar Guru

            January 7th 2013 @ 5:29pm
            sheek said | January 7th 2013 @ 5:29pm | ! Report

            matt h,

            I reckon the selectors would have been ridiculed had they pointed the finger at one of the pacemen to be rested.

            They knew this so naturally they took the soft option of replacing Watson with Starc.

            I agree playing either Kawaja or Maxwell would have made much more practical sense.

    • January 7th 2013 @ 7:23am
      Red Kev said | January 7th 2013 @ 7:23am | ! Report

      Hussey’s replacement at no.6 was tested – Wade. Watson was out, the selectors could easily have played Khawaja, but they instead played 5 frontline bowlers against a batting lineup that has struggled to last 100 overs in an innings. It was a joke. Four quicks on a turning SCG pitch and deliberately batting last … if the first innings lead was halved I think Australia would have lost (although Hussey might have been able to guide the tail home).

      • Columnist

        January 7th 2013 @ 9:31am
        Ryan O'Connell said | January 7th 2013 @ 9:31am | ! Report

        Hey Red Kev,

        I tend to agree with you. Siddle had already been rested once in the summer, Starc too. Meanwhile Johnson didn’t play in Hobart and Bird had only played one Test. So I think the selectors had painted themselves into a wall with their infamous rotation policy – who exactly could they rest? So they chickened out and picked all 4, instead of taking the chance to look at Hussey’s replacement.

        Needless to say, I think it was error.

        • January 7th 2013 @ 11:53am
          JC said | January 7th 2013 @ 11:53am | ! Report

          agree 100% with the selectors chickening out and picking all four quicks

        • January 7th 2013 @ 1:57pm
          matt h said | January 7th 2013 @ 1:57pm | ! Report

          Absolutely. Probably should have read this before posting above 🙂

      • January 7th 2013 @ 10:02am
        Rob Barrow said | January 7th 2013 @ 10:02am | ! Report

        I think Huss is a legend and desrved his send off. What was dissapointing was not to see Khawaja play at 6 given he should play there in India, we didn’t need 5 bowlers for a dead rubber.

    • January 7th 2013 @ 8:06am
      The no. Three said | January 7th 2013 @ 8:06am | ! Report

      That would of been a travisty of justice had Huss missed this test. I liken that to Greg Chappel’s underarm or being a bouncer at a nightclub who allows all your friends in but not you.That’s a kick in the guts.

    • January 7th 2013 @ 8:15am
      jamesb said | January 7th 2013 @ 8:15am | ! Report

      “The number one world ranking is unquestionably important”

      They selected a real bolt from the blue in John Hastings and an entirely different bowling attack for that Perth test.

      Hindsight suggests the selectors should had picked Jackson Bird for that test to decide who was going to be number 1.

      Now for the SCG test, they picked five bowlers. The number six position was filled by Captain Hook himself, Matt Wade. They should have picked Khawaja. Opportunity missed. Australia didn’t need two erratic left armers. One is enough.

      If any, when you pick five bowlers, the workload does get reduced. If it was four bowlers, Bird and Siddle would have bowled more overs. If they did that, this test match would had been over inside three days.

      • January 7th 2013 @ 10:04am
        Rohit said | January 7th 2013 @ 10:04am | ! Report

        Agree with James, they should have played Khawaja instead of the extra bowler, what better time to give him exposure at 6 then in a dead rubber against quality spin attack similar to what we will face in the Ashes.

      • January 7th 2013 @ 12:46pm
        James said | January 7th 2013 @ 12:46pm | ! Report

        Disagree with you on “Hindsight says” that Bird should have been picked.

        A lot of people were saying that (at least on this site) very loudly before the Perth game

        • January 7th 2013 @ 2:00pm
          matt h said | January 7th 2013 @ 2:00pm | ! Report

          Yes, it was said before, and hindsight has shouted it out

      • January 7th 2013 @ 1:59pm
        matt h said | January 7th 2013 @ 1:59pm | ! Report

        If Siddle and Bird had bowled more overs the selectors would possibly have rotated them both out of the entire Indian tour …

    • January 7th 2013 @ 8:16am
      A1 said | January 7th 2013 @ 8:16am | ! Report

      He shouldn’t have played in Sydney…..Because he should have been dropped 2 years ago. The selectors gambled on him and Ponting playing in the Ashes and now both of them won’t be there and all the planning for England is stuffed because the selectors won’t make the hard calls.

      • January 7th 2013 @ 8:23am
        The no. Three said | January 7th 2013 @ 8:23am | ! Report

        You are right about those hard calls. That was Hussey then later Ponting, by memory who constantly fell over cheaply. They were Hilditch and co that were selecting.

      • Columnist

        January 7th 2013 @ 9:00am
        Cameron Rose said | January 7th 2013 @ 9:00am | ! Report

        I agree with A1 to a large extent. Taking out any sentimentality about Hussey being the ultimate team man, and the rest of the nonsense that usually gets thrown around in times like these, from a future planning perspective, the worst thing that happened was Huss getting dropped 23 times on his way to that century against Pakistan.

        I was one of the people saying he should have been dropped with a view to 2013 Ashes.

        While Hussey’s weight of runs since that time have vindicated the decision to not let him go back then, it was at the expense of planning for the future and we’ll pay the full weight of that penalty in the Ashes, when we lose 4-0 or something close to it.

        • January 7th 2013 @ 9:28am
          Christo the Daddyo said | January 7th 2013 @ 9:28am | ! Report

          I agree with the theory, but I would have dropped Ponting long ago, and before Hussey. But regardless, we’re now on the verge of a double Ashes series period and have just lost the two most experienced batsmen in the team. I find it immenselt frustrating because the selectors failed to learn from previous situations – i.e. Lillee/Marsh/Chappell in the 80s and McGrath/Warne/Waugh/etc in the 90s.

          I have no problem making mistakes, but I really object to the same mistake being made repeatedly.

          • January 7th 2013 @ 9:39am
            Matt F said | January 7th 2013 @ 9:39am | ! Report

            Yep. It was always a massive risk to try and get Ponting, Haddin and Hussey through to the end of the 2013/14 Ashes, particularly given two of them were in poor form. It seems that everybody else saw this coming except for the people who actually pick the team and now we’re 6 months out from the Ashes and our team has very few players who could be considered “locks” in the XI

            • January 7th 2013 @ 9:45am
              Red Kev said | January 7th 2013 @ 9:45am | ! Report

              It is a big concern that we all saw this coming and the guys paid to select the team didn’t.

              • January 7th 2013 @ 9:58am
                Matt F said | January 7th 2013 @ 9:58am | ! Report

                It’s a gamble that I could almost, almost, understand if all three were in fantastic form but the only one who was playing well enough was Hussey. Even ignoring their ages and going on form it’s hard to see why Ponting and Haddin were persisted with for so long (particularly Ponting)

            • January 7th 2013 @ 10:25am
              Disco said | January 7th 2013 @ 10:25am | ! Report

              Totally agree.

      • Columnist

        January 7th 2013 @ 9:42am
        Ryan O'Connell said | January 7th 2013 @ 9:42am | ! Report

        Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but by the same token, it’s pretty hard to argue with A1’s point. We banked on Ponting and Hussey going to the Ashes – but how many teams carry two 37 year olds in their team? Australia planned to do have both firing for the Ashes, and that strategy/planning has now been proven to be heavily flawed.

        • January 7th 2013 @ 10:43am
          Disco said | January 7th 2013 @ 10:43am | ! Report

          But whose strategy/planning was it? Howard’s? Invers’? More likely Uncle Arthur. And where’s the accountability for it? For all Clarke’s individual excellence, the team is a bit of a mess at the moment because of some very strange and harmful selection decisions/indecision.

          • Columnist

            January 7th 2013 @ 11:09am
            Ryan O'Connell said | January 7th 2013 @ 11:09am | ! Report

            Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan.

      • January 7th 2013 @ 12:22pm
        Rob from Brumby Country said | January 7th 2013 @ 12:22pm | ! Report

        How can anybody take this line of reasoning seriously?! I can’t believe so much credence is being given to logic of the “steaming pile of bovine excrement” variety.

        If Hussey had been dropped two years ago like many of you seem to perversely wish, he would have been replaced by one of four players – Phillip Hughes, Ed Cowan, Usman Khawaja, or Bobby Quiney.

        Every single one of those players has over the last two years been in and out of the Test team, “getting valuable exposure before the 2013 Ashes series”.

        Well they got exposed, alright. The stays of three of them have been short because their form wavered between mediocrity and outright incompetence. The fourth is still in the Test team in spite of being widely derided as self-absorbed and lazy. Many of you actually want him dropped before we go to the 2013 Ashes.

        Have you all forgotten the English bowlers joyously targeting Phil Hughes right shoulder; the “Caught Guptill, Bowled Martin” saga; Khawaja’s not exactly inspiring Test average of under 30; and Bobby Quiney’s polished average of 3? Have you all forgotten where you were standing in the mob when you were rapturously screaming for their heads as they wandered out to the middle like men headed to the gallows?

        Because what I’m seeing here in this thread of discussion is a bunch of armchair experts saying that, in retrospect, we should have dropped arguably our best and most consistent Test batsmen of the last two years so that one of these fellows could be allowed a charmed and extended stay in the TEST SQUAD before the 2013 Ashes. One of these fellows who, quite frankly, could not cut the mustard when they got their opportunities.

        You’re unbelievable. You really are.

        • January 7th 2013 @ 2:05pm
          matt h said | January 7th 2013 @ 2:05pm | ! Report

          Ouch. I guess the question is, are we prepared to sacrifice the future for instant sucess, or be forever a mediocre rebuilding side.

          I’m an instant success and future be damned man myself. Probably why I’m not a selector.

          • January 7th 2013 @ 5:13pm
            Rob from Brumby Country said | January 7th 2013 @ 5:13pm | ! Report

            Instant success AND the future.

            What’s the point of having your cake if you can’t eat it too?

        • January 7th 2013 @ 2:30pm
          Rod Barrow said | January 7th 2013 @ 2:30pm | ! Report

          Rob i take your point on Hussey, i am not arguing he should not have played the SCG test, i am arguing that he should have played in Wattos’s spot in the test. Khawaja has been very consistent and has the best technique out of all the young batsman coming through. He was unlucky to be dropped last year after top scoring against South Africa 2 games before in a record 300 chase and getting run out the game before at 40 when Punter called for a risky run first ball after tea. You
          have to feel for him but a classy player such as him can’t be kept out for too long as he is hitting some good runs in shield cricket this year. He now deserves a shot at Hussey’s spot and should get a series to prove himself as he has previously only had 1-2 games a time to prove himself.

          • January 7th 2013 @ 4:35pm
            Rob from Brumby Country said | January 7th 2013 @ 4:35pm | ! Report

            Oh, don’t get me wrong, Khawaja is the future. I have high hopes for him. Phil Hughes too.

            But they are not the same players as they were two years ago; they’re much better now. Hughes has ironed out the kinks in his approach to short-balls and Khawaja has upped his scoring rate and is converting his starts. I think they will both prove valuable additions to our squad over the next few years.

            What I was vehemently damning was any suggestion that one of them should have come into the side permamnently two years ago in Hussey’s place. What a ridiculous notion!

        • Columnist

          January 7th 2013 @ 2:42pm
          Ryan O'Connell said | January 7th 2013 @ 2:42pm | ! Report

          It’s a fair enough point of view, Rob.

          One thing I would point out is that the sample sizes for Khawaja and Quiney remain far too low to unequivocally say they’re not up to Test standard. There is every chance that given an extended run in the side they may have had success, and been the ideal replacement for Hussey.

          Hughes, I think, needed to be dropped, because I think it’s provided the catalyst for a successful resurgence. So I agree that dropping Hussey for Hughes two years ago wouldn’t have been wise.

          As for Cowan, he wouldn’t have been in the frame two years ago, I don’t believe. More than likely, a David Hussey, Shaun Marsh, etc may have come into calculations.

          As for your overall point, it depends on your outlook – would you prefer to have two years to get the Test team right for the Ashes? Or do you take two years of Hussey scoring runs, but pulling out before the Ashes?

          There is no right or wrong answer, really. Some would argue you choose your best team every time. Others put a heightened importance on the Ashes over everything else.

          • January 7th 2013 @ 4:57pm
            Rob from Brumby Country said | January 7th 2013 @ 4:57pm | ! Report

            *I* put a heightened importance on the Ashes over everything else. It’s a marvellous tradition of friendly animosity, and I’ll be damned if I’ll be happy to see those damnèd poms get another one over us this year!

            To be clear, Ryan, I don’t actually think those batsmen aren’t Test standard. But let’s face it, Phil Hughes and Usman Khawaja were vastly inferior batsmen when they were each first selected compared to what they are now. Ed Cowan’s always been there or thereabouts, and poor old Bobby Quiney was thrown to the lions. At his age, you don’t get second chances.

            As to my overall point, I think it could use some elaboration. I think it is much better to have a balance of experience and young talent mixed together in the build-up to any important series.

            And in truth, I think we just about had it right – the only way that I think things could have been better would have been if Ricky Ponting had retired at the end of last summer. That way, Phil Hughes could have restarted his career in the West Indies, and he’d have had some more time to get some big scores under his belt. He’d also have had a South African series to test himself against.

            It’s impossible to know how much effect Hussey has had on the other players in the team, but I reckon the time he has spent playing alongside Warner, Cowan, and Wade will have done them a lot of good. Notably, they are all left-handed batsmen and they could do much worse than to attempt to emulate Mr Cricket’s technique. I have scant evidence to advance as proof, but I reckon they have all improved measurably as batsmen since coming into the Test side, and I am not convinced that they would have made such progress if Hussey hadn’t have been around. Their temperaments in particular seem to have become a bit grittier.

            But I think what’s most important with young batsmen is that they are blooded into a team with a winning culture. If a player feels like he is in a winning team, he’s far more likely to play for the team rather than just for his place in it. And this team has more or less achieved that; they’ve won a series in Sri Lanka, tied a series in South Africa, crushed India in Australia, defeated the Windies in the Carribean, and only narrowly lost a home series to South Africa that they will feel like they should have won. They have now just completed an obliteration of Sri Lanka. This is the kind of recent history that will give the new players confidence.

            I can’t prove that Hussey’s presence was integral to the success of our team in any given series, but his presence was certainly more helpful than another greenhorn’s would have been. I am very glad that he played as long as he did, and in truth, I tip my hat to him for the timing of his retirement. I think the team is ready to move on, and it is Khawaja’s era now.

            Let’s hope his first tour of India is just as successful as Michael Clarke’s was.

            • Columnist

              January 7th 2013 @ 5:14pm
              Ryan O'Connell said | January 7th 2013 @ 5:14pm | ! Report

              I don’t strongly disagree with anything you’ve written, and in fact, whole-heartedly agree with the vast majority of it. I think you’ve nailed it on the head when you mentioned Ponting though.

              The selectors were banking on both Ponting and Hussey going to the Ashes, but now neither will be – one through loss of form, one through a voluntary retirement. The fact neither of them is going isn’t the drama though, it’s the fact that both left essentially on the eve of the Ashes – with only a tough series in India beforehand.

              That’s not ideal timing. In a perfect world, the replacements would have been given a little bit more time than that, I think – particularly Hussey’s replacement. I’m not suggesting Huss should have been dropped two years ago, but by the same token, he was out of form at the time and if the selectors knew what they know now, you could understand them sending Huss packing – even if you don’t agree with it.

            • January 7th 2013 @ 6:49pm
              A1 said | January 7th 2013 @ 6:49pm | ! Report

              The players not in the team would have preferred two years in the test team rather than ‘learning’ from Huss by watching him on tv. How does that help their development and preparation for the ashes.

        • January 7th 2013 @ 6:46pm
          Rob said | January 7th 2013 @ 6:46pm | ! Report

          Great response Rob from Brumby Country!
          My thoughts entirely! What a an absolute disgrace some of the comments about Punter & Huss.
          Gee, you guys are all eitherl from NSW, have very short and selective memories, or have a very limited understanding of what the real situation has been in the past few years!
          Great article Ryan.
          Huss will down as one of the all time greats, who excelled in every facet of the game.
          That he upheld the fine traditions of our magnificent game at all times, is a credit to a gentleman, as well as a fine sprortsman and team-man.
          Well played Huss!

    • Roar Guru

      January 7th 2013 @ 8:28am
      Atawhai Drive said | January 7th 2013 @ 8:28am | ! Report

      As Ryan says, if someone has been selected for a Test, he can hardly be unselected simply because he announces his retirement. I find it hard to believe that the selectors seem to have been taken by surprise by Hussey’s decision.

      Greg Chappell, Dennis Lillee and Rod Marsh all pulled the pin together in 1984. I can’t remember how much notice the three of them gave, or if anyone seriously suggested they should not have played in that final Test against Pakistan,.

      Shane Warne, Glenn McGrath and Justin Langer also went out as a package, in 2007. Again, I can’t immediately recall whether we knew in advance if all three of them were going, or if there were any calls for omission. There was an Ashes whitewash to complete.

      Retirements used to be a much less dramatic affair, even though retiring players generally left the cricket scene altogether. Unlike now, when they can carry on for years in less demanding T20 tournaments _ until they get to 43 and even that lucrative source of superannuation is no longer viable.

      • January 7th 2013 @ 8:57am
        Jason said | January 7th 2013 @ 8:57am | ! Report

        Lille and Chappell announced their retirements during the test.

        Marsh played the one day series before deciding that 10 consecutive tests against the Windies at the age of 37 didn’t sound like a lot of fun.

        • January 7th 2013 @ 9:00am
          Atawhai Drive said | January 7th 2013 @ 9:00am | ! Report

          Thanks, Jason. A shrewd man, Rod Marsh.

    , ,