Tag Archives: michael hussey

The Problem with Michael Hussey’s Statistics

Posted on by

Mahek has a post “Michael Hussey and the Myth of Padding Averages” where he uses Hussey’s average statistics to demonstrate how good he is at different forms of the game and suggests that Hussey’s not outs are not a problem.

The argument used against most batsmen who bat in the lower middle order is that they pad their averages by virtue of remaining not out. It is one of the most cliched excuses given against batsmen who time and again show the skill and composure to score quickly at the end of an innings and yet remain unbeaten. Historically, as well as since Hussey’s debut, batsmen in the top 4 have averaged more than those batting from 5 to 7.

The simple riposte to this argument is to look at No. 1 and No. 3 in the all-time ODI batting averages. They are Michael Bevan and M S Dhoni, both of whom have typically batted down the order. Dhoni’s case is a little blurred by the fact that he has better averages up the order, but it needs to be noted that he has often (somewhat controversially) promoted himself up the order when the openers or top order had set up a good foundation. But Michael Bevan is the key example. Compare their stats:

What you note is the very similar percentage of not outs, the similar highest scores, the averages. Even though Bevan has a lower strike rate, remember the era in which he played when ODI scores were typically lower and they had fewer Powerplays. Importantly, Hussey succeeded Bevan in the same team. He managed to fit the exact mold for Australia and contribute in the same vein. Take a quick glance at the cumulative statistics after each game for Hussey and run through the average column. You will find that Hussey did not even have an average until his 7th match and he had 12 not outs in his first 16 innings. Whether it is his skill or he trying to stay not out, difficult to say without seeing those matches individually. At any rate, he had an average of 229 once which is now down to 50.53.

Take a look at all of Hussey’s stats (career summary and cumulative averages). He had a spectacular couple of years at the beginning of his career followed by a big slump. Since then, he has been average, some good scores, some poor ones, but enough to keep him in the team. The last two Test series has been awesome stuff from him, though.

Finally, if you compare Hussey with players with other teams, keep in mind that they did not have to play against the Australian bowlers (Warne, McGrath) during the same time period. The opposition also counts. Which is why a person like Samaraweera who has a better average than Hussey during the same time period is now out of the Sri Lankan team.

Should Hussey Be Retained After His Century?

Posted on by

Everyone is talking about how Michael Hussey, a la Hayden 2005, has saved his career with a century in an Oval Test. And that may very well be the case, as the Australian Board may give him a few more opportunities to see if he has indeed returned to form. And if he can turn that into a good streak of form, it would indeed be a career-saving century.

The problem is that, unfortunately, Michael Hussey has been the weakest link in a strong Australian top and middle batting order. Circumstances have conspired to keep him in the team when a similar form by another team member would have found them out of the team long ago. These include the retirements in the team that meant giving a senior player like Hussey more rope than usual.

One has to take Hussey’s century in the full context of the series. What if he had made the century in the first innings of the Cardiff Test and followed it up with the rest of the other scores he made? Would we still be talking about his continued tenure in the team? Most of Hussey’s runs were made in two partnerships (with Ponting and with Haddin) and didn’t make much difference to the outcome.

It does seem unfair to Hussey to drop him after he just made a century. But it also doesn’t make sense to keep someone who will surely retire in the next few years on the basis of performances made just when he is about to be dropped from the team. And while players like Hughes are dropped for far less.

Stop Calling Michael Hussey “Mr. Cricket”

Posted on by

People went ga-ga sometime back over Mike Hussey’s phenomenal average, which was getting too close to Don Bradman for comfort. And they named him “Mr. Cricket”. But even as his average has nosedived in the last couple of years, some people insist on calling him that.

Hussey did play a few good innings, but the only thing out of the ordinary was the way he managed to preserve his wicket to boost his average. Lets take a look at his batting averages every year and how he would have fared without any not outs:

Year   Runs     Avg  W/NO Avg
2005    595   85.00     59.50
2006    965   80.41     64.33
2007    374   74.80     62.33
2008    900   37.50     36.00
2009    207   29.57     25.88

Without his not-out innings, the first few years are still pretty good, but not extraordinarily so. You will also notice that he has not crossed 1000 runs for any year so far. Hussey also has a touring weakness: his away average is only 44.69. His first-class average (53.19) is also not lofty enough to merit talks of greatness.

I don’t deny that Hussey is a talented batsman. But people ignore that he just had a good run in his first few years which coupled with his ability to remain unbeaten lead to a big average. Hussey was fortunate to have had his good form at the start of his career and been able to have a more sustained run than most. For example, Sunil Gavaskar had 918 runs in his first year, but only 224 runs (in 5 Tests) in the next two years.

But with the benefit of hindsight, it was unlikely that he could maintain such an average. Injuries, different batting conditions, sustaining mental conditions, etc. are one set of factors. The other is that when a batsman makes tons of runs, the opposition targets him and is determined to find a way to break him down. Think of how Pakistan targeted Dilshan in the final. Unless Mike Hussey was a superman, which he isn’t, there was no way he was going to continue his form against tough Test nations like India and South Africa.

So let’s drop the term “Mr. Cricket” and wait until someone has the statistics to back it up before calling him that. Maybe after makes 5000+ runs and has played at least 2 series against each team home and away, so that a few good series do not skew the overall picture.

The Curious Case of Mike Hussey

Posted on by

Michael Hussey falls again for a duck, the 2nd one in a row. At one point at the beginning of his career, his average hovered very close to Don Bradman. Just last year, his average was just over 80. Now it is down to 60. He is still a dangerous player, but his claims to greatness are diminishing Test by Test. His decline mirrors his fortunes in the ODI arena, where his average did not fall under 100 until his 33rd match, but now stands at 57.

Hussey’s astronomical averages had been boosted by his ability to remain not out at the end of the innings. Consider this: In ODI’s, the first time he was out was in his 7th match and even after 42 matches, he remained not out 21 times (50% of the time). After 20 Tests, he was not out 8 times out of 33 innings (almost 25% of the time).

It is not difficult to imagine a scenario where Hussey’s average has not been preying on his mind. And the added pressure may be affecting his play, as he has to keep racheting up big scores to maintain his average. Instead of what he should do, which is to just play himself back into form, instead of worrying about making large centuries. If he doesn’t do that and continues in poor form, then there will be real external pressure for him to do something big, when he has the lowest confidence and least able to make such scores. Just like Matthew Hayden.