Can Hussey be the 2nd greatest ever?

[NUFAN]

Hussey has played what 1 series outside of Australia? and no series in the subcontinent. No matter how good hes been in those series, at the end of the day hes still far too unproven to be judged based on those series.

He played in South Africa and Bangladesh so he has played a Series in the Sub Continent.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

He played in Bangladesh so he has played a Series in the Sub Continent.

You little tease.

 

[Migara]

Hussey has played what 1 series outside of Australia? and no series in the subcontinent. No matter how good hes been in those series, at the end of the day hes still far too unproven to be judged based on those series.

Exactly.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The original point of this thread was not to suggest that Hussey is the Second Coming, it was only to see if he can break the record for runs after 20 Test.
As he made only 38 runs in Test number 19 currently in progress his chances are now looking much slimmer.

 

[tooextracool]

He played in South Africa and Bangladesh so he has played a Series in the Sub Continent.

Bangladesh dont count as a test class team. The fact that Gillespie scored more than Hussey did in that 2nd test emphasises that IMO

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

The original point of this thread was not to suggest that Hussey is the Second Coming, it was only to see if he can break the record for runs after 20 Test.

Yeah ****, people, read the thread first ffs.

 

[Richard]

There was an article about this on Cricinfo which I cbf finding, which pointed out that although Hussey is averaging 80 or so, other batsman such as Sangakkara, Ponting and Kallis have been averaging thereabouts over the same period as part of the whole 'declining test bowling and flatter pitches' thing. It's just that Hussey hasn't had the previous years of averaging 40-50 to weigh his average down, and so has the much superior average.

I can't believe anyone thought that wasn't obvious enough that it didn't even need an article.

Mind, TBF at least it's taken 2 years.

 

[aussie tragic]

I can't believe anyone thought that wasn't obvious enough that it didn't even need an article.

Mind, TBF at least it's taken 2 years.

Well I don't think it is that obvious as Kallis is averaging 20 runs lower than Hussey and Ponting is reaping the benefits of his additional 10 years of "Test experience" that Hussey obviously doesn't have.....also, just look at Pieterson who debuted about the same time, is often referred to as the best batsman in England for decades and yet he averages 30 runs less than Hussey..... only Sangakarra has a claim IMO.....

 

[nightprowler10]

**** Bradman was good.

Statsguru tell you that?

 

[Richard]

Well I don't think it is that obvious as Kallis is averaging 20 runs lower than Hussey and Ponting is reaping the benefits of his additional 10 years of "Test experience" that Hussey obviously doesn't have.....also, just look at Pieterson who debuted about the same time, is often referred to as the best batsman in England for decades and yet he averages 30 runs less than Hussey..... only Sangakarra has a claim IMO.....

Pietersen's simply obviously not as good as the Kallises, Husseys, Sangakkaras, Pontings etc. I don't care if he's the best England batsman for X years.

As I said - it seems to me to be something close to the most obvious thing in The World that Hussey's average has merely been the same as other players who've done well in recent times, without the previous times to "drag down" any overall average. I simply took it for granted, don't think I've even made so much as a single post saying such a thing.

That doesn't change the fact that Hussey's unusual in managing such feats from Test #2, naturally. But it's obvious nonetheless.

 

[Richard]

**** Bradman was good.

Statsguru tell you that?

Thought that was going to be filter-avoidance chastisement TBH.

 

[NUFAN]

Bangladesh dont count as a test class team. The fact that Gillespie scored more than Hussey did in that 2nd test emphasises that IMO

Did you even see the test match series?

At one stage Bangladesh made 427 and Australia were 6 for 93..

 

[Richard]

And Hampshire not only bowled Australia out for 97 and took a massive first-innings lead, but won the match.

Does that make them Test-class and does that mean every Hampshire game should be considered a Test-match?

 

[NUFAN]

And Hampshire not only bowled Australia out for 97 and took a massive first-innings lead, but won the match.

Does that make them Test-class and does that mean every Hampshire game should be considered a Test-match?

Hampshire had a decent attack then, Australia only chose 4 batsmen!!

Hampshire while a nice area in the world is not a country, and to play Test Cricket you need to be a Country tbh. Except for the Windies if you were about to mention them.

Also, that grey scorecard is ugly.

 

[Richard]

To play Test-cricket you also need to be capable of competing consistently against Test-class teams, as well as being a country.

Bangladesh aren't, so they're not Test-class.

And Hampshire had a decent attack? Mullally, and Udal. They had James Schofield who got a wicket with his 1st ball in First-Class cricket that match FFS!

 

[NUFAN]

To play Test-cricket you also need to be capable of competing consistently against Test-class teams, as well as being a country.

Bangladesh aren't, so they're not Test-class.

And Hampshire had a decent attack? Mullally, and Udal. They had James Schofield who got a wicket with his 1st ball in First-Class cricket that match FFS!

English Premier Goals against Derby County shouldn't count..

Bangladesh are capable of competing against Test class teams, they have shown it.. It's just they don't compete for long enough..

 

[Richard]

English Premier Goals against Derby County shouldn't count..

Nah, football and cricket work in totally different ways.

Bangladesh are capable of competing against Test class teams, they have shown it.. It's just they don't compete for long enough..

Exactly. Uganda could compete sometimes if they got enough chances. You can't be considered Test-class if you only compete in 1 out of 15 games.

 

[NUFAN]

Nah, football and cricket work in totally different ways.

Exactly. Uganda could compete sometimes if they got enough chances. You can't be considered Test-class if you only compete in 1 out of 15 games.

They've played 49 Test Matches, are you saying they've only competed in 3 or 4 of those matches?

 

[Prince EWS]

Thought that was going to be filter-avoidance chastisement TBH.

It's been decided that "****" doesn't qualify as filter avoidance.

 

[Richard]

They've played 49 Test Matches, are you saying they've only competed in 3 or 4 of those matches?

Well let's have a luke... for starters 4 of them were against Zimbabwe after they too had ceased to be Test-class.

Those that they lost by an innings, we can take it as read that they didn't do so here yes? All twenty-nine of them? Out of 45.

The other sixteen were:
9 wickets on debut - will give you that, was a remarkable performance. In the next 48 OTOH...
8 wickets vs Zimbabwe in 3rd game - weren't absolutely overwhelmed here, given, but conceded a first-innings deficit of 166 and took just 11 wickets - nah.
Draw when rain severely disrupted after conceding a first-innings deficit of 324 - no way.
Another 8-wicket defeat when Zimbabwe chased 11 to win - basically the same as an innings defeat, no way.
288-run defeat to Sri Lanka - no way.
7-wicket defeat to West Indies - will give you that.
7 and 9 wickets to Pakistan - no way.
1 wicket to Pakistan - obviously yes.
7 wickets at 329 runs to England - just about, but only just.
Draw with West Indies at Gros Islet - will give you that.
8 wickets and 10 wickets to Sri Lanka - no way.
3-wicket defeat to Australia - obviously.
Draw with India at Chittagong - no way, rain completely disrupted this.

So in their 44 games against Test-class oppo after their first, they could be said to have competed really, seriously 4 times. That's seriously, seriously poor.