Mike Hussey not happy

It’s not very often you hear someone like ‘Mr Cricket’ coming out and taking a swipe against his cricket bosses, but thats exactly what Mike Hussey has done in response to him not being given the chance to play in this years cricket world cup.

This is obviously a major disappointment to him and it is almost certainly his last chance to play in the 50 world cup.

Given all this, I still believe that Hussey is being very diplomatic with what he has said.

He could have easily come out and put the boot into the selectors, who I think it would be fair to say are not in the strongest of positions at the moment.

This statement though, is probably as close to dissent as you are likely to get from Hussey.

He rightly points out that the precedent was set with Andrew Symonds 4 years ago. If I remember rightly, a lot of that was down to Ricky Ponting’s insistence of having Symonds in the squad.

What has changed here then? Did Ponting not make a similar case on Hussey’s behalf? Or has Ponting not got the same sort of clout and influence that he had 4 years back?

Personally I think Hussey is very unlucky. He is a naturally fit bloke, if he said he could be fit by the 3rd game, then that would have been good enough for me. He is a bloke who can be taken at face value.

This looks like yet another major clanger and PR disaster from the bungling Aussie selectors.

5 thoughts on “Mike Hussey not happy

  1. I think it was a fair call to omit him. Four years ago Australia had their strongest side and they could afford to carry an injured passenger without blinking. That’s not the case now – any of the benched players could be needed.

  2. Thats very true Rishabh and something I did think when I wrote this. The fact is that Australia cannot afford any passengers any more.

    Another point is, can you really carry on a precedent that only comes around every 4 years?

    Hussey pointed this out about Symonds, but it is a different set of circumstances this time round, with Ponting also carrying an injury – and also being hopelessly out of form.

    That said, I still think he is very unlucky.

    As I stated before, he strikes me as the sort of bloke you can take at face value. If he says he will be ready by the 3rd game, I’d have to believe him.

    And lets be honest, it’s how many weeks before the real competition starts?

    It could also be that maybe the selectors like the look of Ferguson and felt it was time to reinstate him to the team after all his injuries.

    After all he is the future, but it might have been nice of the selectors to tell Hussey if that was the case. I still think they have made a bit of a mess off this.

  3. Anonymous says:

    The point is… they have included 2 wicketkeepers in the 15. Does anyone else think this is necessary?

    WTF is going on with the selectors?

  4. Anonymous says:

    Another thing, they let Michael Clarke, Brad Haddin and Punter pick themselves as regards injury previously. They have all played when obviously impaired.

  5. back then Symonds was the only injured player in the squad. This time we have Ponting (just back from broken finger), Clarke (chronic back injury plus he might crack a nail) and most of the bowlers on limited preparations. With a squad of only 15 (nothing wrong with two keepers, both of them good enough to be in the squad as specialist bats), there is no room for carrying a bloke who MIGHT be ready to play in the third game. Huss was lucky not to get pushed out at the start of the Ashes series, and fair play to him, he grabbed the chance with both hands. But he’s not irreplaceable, we have to start moving forward…

Comments are closed.