Fiery
Banned
Hayden and Hussain should not be compared to each other...in fact they shouldn't be spoken of in the same breath
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Garry Sobers-A master of black magic?
- Thread starter J.J.B.Lewis
- Start date
Hayden and Hussain should not be compared to each other...in fact they shouldn't be spoken of in the same breath
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
I'd rate Hussain as better than both Imran and Hayden, personally.
Fiery
Banned
The fact Hayden has 2000 more test runs, twice as many centuries, an ave of 53 compared to Hussains 37 and a strike rate of 60 compared to Hussain's 40 says you are very, very wrong. And that's just in tests. Don't know why I'm even bothering to argue this tbh
Last edited:
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Because comparing averages (and other irrelevant matters like number of centuries) is very, very simplistic and fails to take account of any number of significant factors.
Yes, Hayden is better at pounding average attacks, but that's about all he's better at. Had he played in the era Hussain mostly (and virtually everyone else) did, he'd not have lasted long. He is impossibly fortunate to have played in a rare bat-friendly era. In most other eras, he'd have disappeared without trace.
Yes, Hayden is better at pounding average attacks, but that's about all he's better at. Had he played in the era Hussain mostly (and virtually everyone else) did, he'd not have lasted long. He is impossibly fortunate to have played in a rare bat-friendly era. In most other eras, he'd have disappeared without trace.
Fiery
Banned
He played in the same era!
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
If the difference is that marked, then the guys who averaged so much in the nineties (Tendulkar, Lara, and Waugh) would be beyond comparison to anyone that plays now. By your definition, Dravid/Ponting could end up with an average of 70 and still not be better?
IMO, that's not right. There might be a difference, and in fact I think there is a big difference, but not that big.
Oh and by that definition, McGrath would be by far and away the best bowler who ever walked (which I agree with obviously, but wasn't sure if you did). He would pretty much be the Bradman of bowling.
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Exactly
roseboy64
Cricket Web Content Updater
Nah wanre's better than McGrath. I'd much rathe face McGrath than Warne anyday and I play better against spin.
shortpitched713
International Captain
Wow, just wow.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Considering what happens to substandard players that play against him, I'd love to see that.
pasag
RTDAS
Last edited:
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Hussain was definitely better than Imran at batting.
pasag
RTDAS
Sigh, edited just for you.
shortpitched713
International Captain
Hussain was clearly better than Imran in a certain portion of the latter's career. However when you look at the greater part of Imran's career he has comfortably outperformed Hussain making the comparison a bit more complicated than your above statement.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
I don't think so. Hussain as a batsman was superior to Imran as a batsman. It's really simple as that. Even if his average does not immediately point to that conclusion, I think sometimes things become unnecessarily complex......almost anyone would much rather have Hussain over Imran if they were looking for purely a batsman.
And this is coming from a guy who adores stats...I think they are incredibly important and tell a lot about a player. But they have to be taken in the right context.
Last edited:
shortpitched713
International Captain
Okay, then what context exactly puts a guy like Hussain over Imran? Keep in mind that there's a fair context for Imran's average to be considered unrepresentative as he played the first part of his career primarily as a bowler with batting not really coming into the equation for his selection. I don't buy the he was too young/too old/unfit for many matches argument because if that was the case he simply should not have been playing. But even if you remove those occasions Imran's average in context comes out higher.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
What does that have to do with anything, though? You can't just look at an average, let alone from a selective period, and form your entire judgement based on that. Glenn McGrath averaged higher than Matthew Hayden in the 2005 Ashes, does that mean he batted better in that series?
Imran was a very useful batsman but he's massively flattered by the "extended period averaging 50+" argument. Certainly he improved greatly with the bat towards the end of his career (when he hardly bowled at all, mind you), but for most of his career he was merely a handy lower order batsman, certainly not someone who was particularly threatening. He's someone who would consistently chip in with runs but rarely turn a game with the bat, in stark contrast to someone like Botham, who was clearly a far better batsman, but less consistent.
Swervy made the point earlier, but to summarise Imran made six test centuries, half against India, one against a "good attack" (against the Windies in 1980), and one in a match that wasn't a draw. If that record belonged to anyone who wasn't also a world class bowler (or a wicket keeper, which is why I mentioned Boucher earlier in the thread) it would be considered extremely poor.
Anyway, I agree with Slifer earlier in the thread, give or take some variation between different eras, a good batsman should average in excess of 40. Aside form the two vastly overrated stalwarts of 90s England in Hussein and Atherton, how many "good" test batsman in history average under 40? You could pick out a few here or there who had lengthy careers, but I don't really think anyone who is genuinely successful with the bat at test level averages under 40. Similar to the 30 mark for a seamer, and something around 33-34 for a spinner, once again give or take some variation based on the era in which the player was around. Obviously you'd expect a quality seamer in the 90s to average under 29, and a batsman who averaged 40 in the 2000-2005 period probably wouldn't be all that special and might even end up getting dropped, but they're decent benchmarks most of the time.
All of this isn't to say that Imran wasn't one of the best all-rounders of all time, because he was. Combining that level of consistently high class bowling with disciplined and useful batting for such a long period is amazing, and the fact that he improved his batting as his bowling declined is a sign of his class as a cricketer, while someone like Botham just went to **** in both areas. However, there's no logic whatsoever to criticising Sobers for his bowling but not Imran for his batting, for neither were what you'd expect from a specialist, but IMO Sobers' bowling was definitely better, and by a distance at that.
Last edited:
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah agreed. I'm no Hussein fan and I think he's highly overrated (especially with people like Richard calling him better than Hayden), but I'd definitely take him over Imran.
