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.
mactheblack
Guest
I fully understand the writer's angle ... selectors, especially the Aussies should be more strict with this type of thing. It actually sets a precedent. But could you ever deny Mike Hussey one final swansong at SCG? And a 3-0 winning send-off?
Bearfax
Guest
Appease the media Disco? If anything the media has been oh so silent about Khawaja. Its been the general public such as these forums, who have been arguing for his selection. The Media, comentators, ex players etc were too busy building up players like Quiney, Haddin, Shaun Marsh, Maxwell, David Hussey, Cowen et al.. The media was suspiciously silent about Khawaja, and for that matter Hughes before him (until Hughes got selected and hit a couple of 80s and now he's the golden head boy again). There's a discrimination going on here and its related to 'best mates club', state politics, etc
A1
Guest
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.
Rob
Guest
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!
A1
Guest
Everyone praising Hussey for his unselfishness in not taking the hitting the winning runs is ridiculous. If he was really unselfish he wouldn't have played in the test.
Jonny Boy Jnr
Guest
Copeland, Hastings & McDonald are 1st Class cricket journeymen at best in the red ball game They've all been tried and exposed at the Elite level and proven to be no more potent than part timers with their skiddy slow pies.
Disco
Roar Guru
Yes! Nevill is being stuffed about.
Disco
Roar Guru
I predict Johnson will go to pieces in England.
The Bug
Guest
Cricket, even Mr Cricket, like real life, is full of contradictions, not all of them logical. The whole SCG test was a glorified PR event and served no real benefit for the Australian team's upcoming tours of India or the UK for the Ashes, as they'll never seriously go with the structure of four pace bowlers and one spinner against any serious opposition.
Disco
Roar Guru
Indeed. As such his selection in the squad was just to appease the media.
Disco
Roar Guru
Well, I've always wondered about Khawaja not being perceived as a 'good bloke' in the way that those who bang on about crap like mateship seem to be. The Anyone-but-Khawaja selection policy has sure benefited the likes of Ponting, Watson, Cowan, Smith, Marsh, Forrest, Hughes, Quiney and now even Johnson.
sheek
Roar Guru
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.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
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.
Rob from Brumby Country
Guest
Instant success AND the future. What's the point of having your cake if you can't eat it too?
Rob from Brumby Country
Guest
*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.
The Bush
Roar Guru
I doubt it is straight out racism, but I suspect that not being from an Anglo-Celtic background can make it difficult for you to be "one of the boys". The Australia team is nothing if not obsessed with "team culture"... As an example, I doubt it's a race thing - think of A. Symonds - not white, but had the necessary, blokey, Aussie nature they seem so in love with (fishing, drinking and the necessary Aussie drawl to the extreme).
Rob from Brumby Country
Guest
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!
MadMonk
Guest
long bow that one. DOn't think Katich was ever in the Huss class.
Matt F
Roar Guru
I know they've done it for a while, I've just never been a fan of it. If we take Ben Cutting as an example, he has a fantastic first-class record but a very mediocre List A record (and hasn't been great in the Ryobi Cup this summer) yet is picked for the ODI squad. Apart from the fact that a more deserving one-day bowler like Faulkner or Coulter-Nile misses out, what happens if Cutting mirrors his Ryobi Cup performances in ODI cricket? Many people will probably assume that it means he's not up to international standard when it's more likely that he simply isn't that great in the format. I should clarify that I would have no issue with Cutting getting a test call-up, in fact I think he deserves one. I'm just not convinced what his performances in a few ODI's will tell us about his test prospects
Redb
Roar Guru
Find a mirror and a sprig of wattle and give yourself an upper cut!