Mike Hussey's woes

He averages 33 in his last 20 tests. How much longer can Aus keep carrying him in the side? Even if he fails in the second innings here, he'll probably play at Headingley, as Aus don't have any other reserve batsmen in their squad, and I doubt they'll bring Hughes straight back in after 1 test.

Looked in pretty good nick at Lord's.

Just in a bit of a rut, I'd say.

A rut that's lasted 20 tests?

Easy to forget he's 34, given his relatively recent introduction to Test cricket. While it's certainly not always the case, a fair number of players are well past their best by that age.

He's doing alright- he's just the Aussie equivalent of Jimmy Adams- ridiculously inflated average to begin with and now he'll settle down and play the odd valuable innings while struggling to average more than 30 something.

Mike Wussey's Hoes.

Eric Air Emu wrote:He's doing alright- he's just the Aussie equivalent of Jimmy Adams- ridiculously inflated average to begin with and now he'll settle down and play the odd valuable innings while struggling to average more than 30 something.

Not sure averaging 30 something is good enough any more.

Even Swanneeeee!!! averages 30.

He's rapidly turning into Australia's Ian Bell. Except he can't seem to get out of the team.

Sadly for as long as I care to remember the Aus cricket team has been like a elite club, picked on reputation and once you are in more likely than not your place is secure.

Unless he produces a miracle match winning innings in the run chase, the time has come for him to be dropped.

well, its fitting his average has dropped so much. it would be a travesty if he averaged 60+ at the end of his career

Hussey should have played in the 2005 Ashes series (at the expense of Hayden).

Unfortunately selectors are repeating the mistakes of the past, picking a very good player on the back of ancient results despite the fact he is hopelessly out of form.

I think only an Aust win with Hussey making a good contribution will save him. Even a ton in a losing effort shouldn't be enough.

Nath wrote:

That!

Hass wrote:Hussey should have played in the 2005 Ashes series (at the expense of Hayden).

Unfortunately selectors are repeating the mistakes of the past, picking a very good player on the back of ancient results despite the fact he is hopelessly out of form.

He was clueless with the delivery that took him out last night. Like on old pug trying to live on memory. Usain Bolt would have time to run 12 metres in the time elapsed between ball strking pad and hands arriving with bat.

Gideon Haigh in The Times on Mike Hussey:

"Hussey’s defence now resembles the Maginot line: outwardly impressive, but fundamentally flawed."

You know you're going bad when you're being compared to the French army.

It seems "Paris" has turned out to be a doubly apt nickname.

It seems "Paris" has turned out to be a doubly apt nickname..

aye! I called him as going big in that innings - a probability thing more than any sound reasoning. Hussey 00ed.

We've talked about Trev 'Trevving' players. What's this called?

Reverse Trev, brainfade.

Doubt Hussey's innings really answers questions re. the Ashes. He has struggled badly against pace in recent times but came in when the bowlers were flat and they decided to use donker droppers anyway for many overs during his innings. He cashed in well and expedited the scoring as was required but it was the easiest pickings for him against SA in a long time.

lardbucket wrote:We've talked about Trev 'Trevving' players. What's this called?

Vrettng?

Premature emasculation?