Kevin Pietersen vs Michael Hussey

[Goughy]

If there was a Test tomorrow Id probably take Hussey but I would not swap KP for Hussey permenantly.

There isnt too much to choose between them and KP has a longer and more productive career ahead of him than Hussey.

Interesting thought, which Im sure others may have discussed. But would the inclusion of Hussey ahead of maybe Katich, Clarke or Martyn have changed the outcome of the 2005 Ashes?

 

[Fiery]

You'd pick Hannibal Lecter over KP though

He revolutionised safety equipment anyway

 

[wpdavid]

If there was a Test tomorrow Id probably take Hussey but I would not swap KP for Hussey permenantly.

There isnt too much to choose between them and KP has a longer and more productive career ahead of him than Hussey.

Interesting thought, which Im sure others may have discussed. But would the inclusion of Hussey ahead of maybe Katich, Clarke or Martyn have changed the outcome of the 2005 Ashes?

Probably should have been picked ahead of Katich, which may well have changed the outcome completely given how close the 2nd & 4th tests were. tbh he was never going to be picked ahead of Martyn at the time.

 

[Barney Rubble]

The better question would be Pietersen or Bradman, otherwise it just isn't close

Nah, I'm gonna be one-eyed as ever and say that KP hasn't rached his peak yet and when he does so will be better than Hussey. We'll see though.

I voted KP too, because I don't think Hussey knows what it's like to have as much riding on his efforts as KP does when he goes out to bat. Also, I'm English, what did you expect?

 

[GIMH]

Good to have a fellow blind patriot back

 

[silentstriker]

I voted KP too, because I don't think Hussey knows what it's like to have as much riding on his efforts as KP does when he goes out to bat. Also, I'm English, what did you expect?

That can compensate for a 40 point difference in average? Cause really, by that definition, Hadlee's average would be like 4 with the ball, and Sachin's 200 with the bat.

 

[Barney Rubble]

That can compensate for a 40 point difference in average? Cause really, by that definition, Hadlee's average would be like 4 with the ball, and Sachin's 200 with the bat.

Oh, come on, you saw what I said at the end. Isn't it obvious that I decided beforehand that I was gonna vote for KP, and then had to come up with a reason, no matter how tenuous?

 

[silentstriker]

Oh, come on, you saw what I said at the end. Isn't it obvious that I decided beforehand that I was gonna vote for KP, and then had to come up with a reason, no matter how tenuous?

Yes, I read that. Still, its not like he's English anyway. Plus, doesn't he just annoy the hell out of you? If it was a proper cricketer, like Cook, then I'd be all for it.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Yes, I read that. Still, its not like he's English anyway. Plus, doesn't he just annoy the hell out of you? If it was a proper cricketer, like Cook, then I'd be all for it.

Nah, he's great. Misunderstood character, he is. What I don't get is how when an Englishman is a bit arrogant and in-your-face, it's a bad thing, but when an Australian does it, it's "competitive spirit". There's a reason why the Aussies are so successful - self-belief. Pietersen has it where some of his English peers do not. That's what sets him apart, not any kind of personality difference. IMO.

 

[chalky]

If there was a Test tomorrow Id probably take Hussey but I would not swap KP for Hussey permenantly.

There isnt too much to choose between them and KP has a longer and more productive career ahead of him than Hussey.

Interesting thought, which Im sure others may have discussed. But would the inclusion of Hussey ahead of maybe Katich, Clarke or Martyn have changed the outcome of the 2005 Ashes?

It could possibly have changed the result of the series but there's also a chance Hussey could have failed in the series & been discarded as not good enough. During that series England had a far stronger attack than anything he has played since & were bowling exceptionaly well to lefties.

On the Hussey Pietersen agree 100% with Goughy.

 

[TT Boy]

Nah, he's great. Misunderstood character, he is. What I don't get is how when an Englishman is a bit arrogant and in-your-face, it's a bad thing, but when an Australian does it, it's "competitive spirit". There's a reason why the Aussies are so successful - self-belief. Pietersen has it where some of his English peers do not. That's what sets him apart, not any kind of personality difference. IMO.

But his not an Englishman.

His arrogance and in your face attitude (plus the underlining insecurity) is purely a White South African trait. I voted for KP!

 

[Barney Rubble]

But his not an Englishman.

His arrogance and in your face attitude (plus the underlining insecurity) is purely a White South African trait. I voted for KP!

Haha. Fair point. I guess Englishmen just aren't destined for sporting success then.

Bad day to realise that, what with an important weekend of footy coming up.

 

[silentstriker]

But his not an Englishman.

His arrogance and in your face attitude (plus the underlining insecurity) is purely a White South African trait. I voted for KP!

We'll find that out after we see him in a WC semi final.

 

[Sanz]

Damn I cant resist taking part in these polls. Hussey hasn't played long enough (in Tests) to be compared to KP. Let him play a test series in India/Pak/SL etc before we can judge him.

KP easily.

 

[GIMH]

Nah, he's great. Misunderstood character, he is. What I don't get is how when an Englishman is a bit arrogant and in-your-face, it's a bad thing, but when an Australian does it, it's "competitive spirit". There's a reason why the Aussies are so successful - self-belief. Pietersen has it where some of his English peers do not. That's what sets him apart, not any kind of personality difference. IMO.

word

Kp averages 50 against the best team in the world, Hussey doesn't

 

[Jono]

Yes, I read that. Still, its not like he's English anyway. Plus, doesn't he just annoy the hell out of you? If it was a proper cricketer, like Cook, then I'd be all for it.

Lame. Pietersen rules.

I'd take Hussey though, because of his mental application. That's currently though.

 

[Richard]

Interesting thought, which Im sure others may have discussed. But would the inclusion of Hussey ahead of maybe Katich, Clarke or Martyn have changed the outcome of the 2005 Ashes?

Probably should have been picked ahead of Katich, which may well have changed the outcome completely given how close the 2nd & 4th tests were. tbh he was never going to be picked ahead of Martyn at the time.

TBH he was never going to get picked ahead of anyone - as I've said a fair few times. You have absolutely no case to exclude a batsman whose previous 3 Test scores have been 118, 35 and 35, never mind one who'd averaged 45 since becoming a fixture in the side and who'd already been dropped ridiculously unfairly twice in 14 Tests.

If there was one player who could have made way for him it was Clarke, but he started his Test-career with 151, 17, 5, 39*, 91, 73, 17, 7 and 141, and even though that was followed by 8 innings in which he averaged 16 there was not so much as a whisper about his place being in danger.

If there'd been any case for someone being excluded for Hussey in 2005, it'd have happened. Those saying he should have been there are speaking completely and totally with hindsight.

As for would his inclusion have made a difference had, for instance, Clarke damaged a cruciate-ligament before the opening Test... maybe, but maybe not. However good you are, the bowling in that series was impossibly good too, and against bowling that good any batsman can have a bad series. Absolutely any.

 

[BoyBrumby]

TBH he was never going to get picked ahead of anyone - as I've said a fair few times. You have absolutely no case to exclude a batsman whose previous 3 Test scores have been 118, 35 and 35, never mind one who'd averaged 45 since becoming a fixture in the side and who'd already been dropped ridiculously unfairly twice in 14 Tests.

If there was one player who could have made way for him it was Clarke, but he started his Test-career with 151, 17, 5, 39*, 91, 73, 17, 7 and 141, and even though that was followed by 8 innings in which he averaged 16 there was not so much as a whisper about his place being in danger.

If there'd been any case for someone being excluded for Hussey in 2005, it'd have happened. Those saying he should have been there are speaking completely and totally with hindsight.

As for would his inclusion have made a difference had, for instance, Clarke damaged a cruciate-ligament before the opening Test... maybe, but maybe not. However good you are, the bowling in that series was impossibly good too, and against bowling that good any batsman can have a bad series. Absolutely any.

Repeating an argument doesn't actually make it any stronger, you do realise that, don't you?

Going into the 2005 Ashes Hayden was in very average form with no 100s from his previous 12 tests (22 innings) with a highest score of 70. He had enough credit in the bank to start the series, but given how he stunk out the first 4 tests if Hussey rather than Hodge were the batting back-up he could well have got a go at some point in the series.

 

[Richard]

I never stopped repeating it, nor believing it true though. Nor did you give us a convincing reason why I should do so.

Hussey vs Hayden is an interesting question, certainly. But Hayden being the darling-child of Australian cricket he has been (for obvious reason) I'd be surprised if Hussey had got his place at any time in the series. Might quite possibly have done but for The Oval though, and but for that World XI rubbish.

 

[Perm]

Yes, I read that. Still, its not like he's English anyway. Plus, doesn't he just annoy the hell out of you? If it was a proper cricketer, like Cook, then I'd be all for it.

Why do you not like Kevin Pietersen?