Mike Hussey to retire at end of summer.

[Howe_zat]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

The only guy who was seriously in line to replace Hussey was Andy McDonald maybe? I know Khawaja took a double off SA but, well, it was against SA so don't think he was seriously in the frame.....

I think the fashionable fan idea at the time was to drop Hussey for Watson instead of Hughes for Watson.

[Top_Cat]

Call me crazy (was away from the country at the time) but I don't think Hughes lined up at The 'Gabba?

[Cabinet96]

Think he's talking about the 2009 Ashes. I know quite a lot of people wanted Watson in the middle order instead of Hussey with Hughes at the top of the order in the 2009/10 season.

[Top_Cat]

Ah yeah, of course.

I know I was one of those bagging Watto's selection as an opener but, in my defence, he had a fairly hilarious run of ducks when first trying it for QLD. I didn't think he was up to scoring big tons as an opener and, well, that's sort-of been borne out...

[Howe_zat]

Yeah sorry, thought we were talking about '09. I'm pretty sure that's when McDonald was around the squad anyway.

[Top_Cat]

It's sorta the point in some ways; Watson had just come back in the side and shoehorned into the opener's spot so obviously the best thing for the team was to drop Hussey, shove Watto down the order and recall a rattled Hughes. Going the way they did at least gave the Aussies a chance of having a stable order for the next home summer and something to build on.

[Spark]

Originally Posted by the big bambino

Its not my go to be swept into the ever decreasing circle of another's pettiness. I am generous in allowing people at least a gram of smarts. However you have me reviewing my policy on charity.

I did not say as you claim. However it should be easy for you to prove. You said I made comment about it being Hussey's fault that Eng scored 1/517. Or that runs scored after being dropped are useless... I presume you can use the quote function? Then find where I said it then quote it.

Not a fan of this logic business, eh?

The word you're looking for is implication. Learn about it. It's interesting. In case you aren't aware, which you quite patently aren't, it means that words can have meaning beyond the literal. I guess this subtlety is lost on you, though, since you seem very quick to resort to little childish insults. Grow up, kid.

But alright. Let's look at what you actually said.

Save the 116 at Perth in 2010 Hussey hasn't played a meaningful innings stretching back to his el nino like drought of runs up to the Oval in 09.

So we're moving the goalposts slightly, eh? Figures.

Or shush up.

The examples of Hussey scoring runs when the team needed it are miniscule when spread over the almost 5 yrs he was carried by the team.

Miniscule? On what yardstick? Compared to whom? Or are we dealing in assertions without evidence here, which I'm sure suits you nicely? But let's go through the examples.

Even if you accept a ton against the suss match throwers of Pakistan.

Leaving aside the idiotic throwaway line about match fixing, so you think it would've made no difference to the match had Hussey scored a duck? Or do you think that runs scored against Pakistan or where catches are dropped are automatically null and void? Because if you don't make those two arguments, this is an example of an innings where his runs helped the team.

Or an ultimately useless hundred against Eng when the side should have been rebuilding since 2009 and Hussey one of the 1st to go.

Right, so events that happen way after the fact have a bearing on the immediate value of an innings, do they? So Australia's batting in Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney is a factor in determining the value of Hussey's innings in Brisbane? This is one of the worst pieces of cricketing logic I've ever seen and I've seen some shockers if so. Or instead do you think that Hussey's hundred somehow contributed to England scoring 1/517, hence taking away from the inviolate fact that his runs were made from a precarious position in the first innings of the most important Test in the Australian calendar?

Like I said. It served him more then the team.

Agenda-driven bull**** based on no evidence whatsoever.

Hussey's runs at Galle were scored in the 1st innings against SL btw. When conditions were easiest.

Yes, it was easier than the most difficult batting conditions the team had encountered for over five years. Must be a road, then. By the way, the conditions on Day 3 were indeed easier than Day 1, because the pitch had slowed down. But you'd know that because you'd watched the test - oh wait.

If you are seriously discounting this innings because the batting conditions were easy then you are spinning bull****, pure and simple, because you clearly hadn't watched even the shortest amount of the Test (as opposed to reading the scorecard). Hint: the very first ball of spin turned square, before lunch on Day 1.

So, in essence, you've given three - and there are plenty more examples - innings that are blatantly obvious examples - textbook, even - of Hussey helping the team (putting up a strong and potentially match-winning 1st innings lead from a precarious position, salvaging what seemed a hopeless situation and giving the team a total to bowl at and a near-hundred on a very dicey pitch where no one else got near 50). You've basically dismissed them all with a mix of agenda-based hackery and pathetically inept illogic. Before you start throwing around whiny insults, get your own house in order first, kid. That **** might fly on Youtube comments, but we have higher standards here.

Again, these are not the only examples, so the argument about "miniscule" hardly stacks up either. When compared to basically every other batsman in the team with the exception of Clarke, Hussey's performances stack up very favourably as coming in circumstances where the team needed them, especially since the start of the 10/11 Ashes. And indeed they do when placed against most batsmen in world cricket.

But of course you won't accept that. You have a rigid, tunnel-visioned agenda immune to evidence or basic (and this really is basic) logic and I doubt any statements of obvious fact will change your mind. Which is your right, of course, you're free to believe whatever you want, and I'm free to call out bull**** when I see it.

[Top_Cat]

It's not just the tons, though. Where would the Aussies have been without Hussey's 80-odd against India in Melbourne last year?

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by the big bambino

You are right that we didn't have many replacements but people were dropped during the time of Hussey's run drought. He managed to dodge the bullets though and defined himself as a man who could score runs for the benefit of his average. .

Where do we find these people? Honestly.

The difference between Hussey and Hughes and Khawaja is that Hussey previously had form performing well at test level and his poor form wasn't due to a glaring technical fault. Khawaja struggled to impose himself on test level the whole time he was there, and Hughes had become a parody of the bloke who scored hundreds in SA, consistently falling to short deliveries.

Katich was harshly treated given he was of similar vintage to Hussey at the time. The other two were simply not good enough when they were in the team and only had themselves to blame. What save Hussey was the fact he had previous form at test level.

[Spark]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

It's not just the tons, though. Where would the Aussies have been without Hussey's 80-odd against India in Melbourne last year?

Yeah that was the most obvious "other example" in my mind too. There was a really handy knock at Lord's in the neutral series, too.

[uvelocity]

Originally Posted by quincywagstaff

(accidentally did previous post under my old unused 'wagstaff' account)

don't worry, burgey does this all the time with his jono account

spark stop wasting your time

[Spark]

Originally Posted by uvelocity

spark stop wasting your time

look there's a really obvious joke to be made here but i'll save it

[Spark]

Quality stat from Haigh:

What has multiplied Hussey's value to the Australian teams he has played in has been his capacity for batting in harness. Nobody in this team has built more partnerships of at least 50: 97 in 79 Tests. In this respect, he rivals even his captain: 93 in 89 Tests. He provided both a rainy-day fund of runs and a happy knack of investing them prudently alongside those of others.

[The Sean]

Originally Posted by stephen

I thought that Warne's retirement was worse.

He knew that Langer and McGrath were retiring. He was only 35 and he was in the selectors minds for at least the next 2-4 years. Realistically Hussey was going to be given the tap after the Ashes anyway and if he's not as hungry for runs as he could be then it's probably a good thing that he's retired.

Warne was 37. I realise that it doesn't really matter and the discussion has well and truly moved on, but I have a pathological hatred of incorrect numbers. And also no friends.

[GingerFurball]

Didn't Warne want to retire in 2005 and only prolonged his career to win the urn back?