Can Hussey be the 2nd greatest ever?

[Richard]

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

Really?

Had always presumed it would have done, and hence have refrained from using it many times. Goody goody.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

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

The only requirement to play Test Cricket is being granted Test status by the sport's governing body. Like or not you do have to go by their decisions. We might just as well say that any laws the Labour Party pass can be disregarded as they're idiots as well.
We can all play around with stats and eliminate achievements that we don't consider worthy when judging a player but only the governing body can officially decide what is and isn't a Test Match or what criteria is needed to qualify.

 

[Richard]

The only requirement to play Test Cricket is being granted Test status by the sport's governing body. Like or not you do have to go by their decisions.

Not those which concern classification of matches. Those which concern the Laws Of Cricket, yeah.

We might just as well say that any laws the Labour Party pass can be disregarded as they're idiots as well.

Not when they concern the fact that people can be court-summonsed and sentenced because of them.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Not those which concern classification of matches.

What?

 

[Richard]

I don't have to "go by" their decisions about which match belongs in which tier of cricket. Nor does anyone else.

If someone wants to act like a puppet with no intelligence of their own that's their choice. I prefer (and so do many others) to make the logical, simple deduction that Bangladesh aren't a Test-standard team and that there's absolutely no way on Earth matches involving them should be classified as Tests, regardless of whether I$C$C say they should be.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I don't have to "go by" their decisions about which match belongs in which tier of cricket. Nor does anyone else.

If someone wants to act like a puppet with no intelligence of their own that's their choice. I prefer (and so do many others) to make the logical, simple deduction that Bangladesh aren't a Test-standard team and that there's absolutely no way on Earth matches involving them should be classified as Tests, regardless of whether I$C$C say they should be.

You don't have to "go by" their decisions when making judgements, but you do have to "go by" their decisions in terms of facts. If they decide it's a Test Match then it's a Test Match and there's no counter argument.

 

[Richard]

I don't have to accept that it should be a Test-match. No, not for no-one.

Nor does anyone else.

 

[Dasa]

I don't have to accept that it should be a Test-match. No, not for no-one.

Nor does anyone else.

You don't seem to get this. Yes, you don't have to accept that it should be a Test match, but you do have to accept that they are Test matches.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I don't have to accept that it should be a Test-match. No, not for no-one.

Nor does anyone else.

You have to accept that it is a Test Match though, which is why I queried your original statement that "To play Test-cricket you also need to be capable of competing consistently against Test-class teams, as well as being a country." I said "The only requirement to play Test Cricket is being granted Test status by the sport's governing body." There's no disputing that Matches are Test Matches if the ICC say they are, whether the rest of the population don't think they should be is irrelevant.

 

[aussie tragic]

Since this thread is about Hussey, I assume all the discussion above is regarding whether the two Bangladesh tests have inflated his average.....well yes it has...

Husseys overall average is 80.58, whereas his average against Bangladesh is 80.66, so obviously Bangladesh were much weaker than the rest of the opposition that Hussey played

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Hampshire while a nice area in the world is not a country, and to play Test Cricket you need to be a Country tbh.

Actually you don't need to be a country, as proven by the so-called Super Test.
As I've already said.........it's a Test Match if the ICC says it is.

 

[Richard]

You don't seem to get this. Yes, you don't have to accept that it should be a Test match, but you do have to accept that they are Test matches.

You have to accept that it is a Test Match though, which is why I queried your original statement that "To play Test-cricket you also need to be capable of competing consistently against Test-class teams, as well as being a country." I said "The only requirement to play Test Cricket is being granted Test status by the sport's governing body." There's no disputing that Matches are Test Matches if the ICC say they are, whether the rest of the population don't think they should be is irrelevant.

What they are according to I$C$C really isn't important. Long gone are the days when people have to accept the complied stats that are presented on a plate to them.

Obviously the original statement would be far better as "to deserve to play Test cricket you need ... etc. etc."

 

[Richard]

Since this thread is about Hussey, I assume all the discussion above is regarding whether the two Bangladesh tests have inflated his average.....well yes it has...

Husseys overall average is 80.58, whereas his average against Bangladesh is 80.66, so obviously Bangladesh were much weaker than the rest of the opposition that Hussey played

As the above so conclusively proves, Bangladesh are patently not a Test-standard team. Anyone who can allow such a woeful batsman as averages <whatever Hussey's average against Test-standard teams is - presumably round about 80.49 or so> to average 80.66 is clearly far below the required standard.

Seriously, the discussion about Hussey is whether he has achieved Test success in the subcontinent, something he hasn't done, because he's never faced a Test-class team in a Test in the subcontinent.

 

[Migara]

How strange! Hussey's runs against BAN are test runs, but Murali wickets against them are not!

 

[Lillian Thomson]

How strange! Hussey's runs against BAN are test runs, but Murali wickets against them are not!

That would almost be a good point but for three things.

1. The thread is purely stats related based on Hussey's first 20 Test so for that purpose they have to count.
2. His level of performance is identical with or without the BAN runs.
3. Aussie and Richard were being facetious anyway.

Happy New Year.

 

[neville cardus]

And to you, you awesome poster, you.

 

[Richard]

How strange! Hussey's runs against BAN are test runs, but Murali wickets against them are not!

Just for clarity, nothing - runs scored, wickets taken, runs conceded, matches played - involving games against Bangladesh are worthwhile Test when I'm the person doing the consideration. I'd never, ever accord such matches Test-status.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

He's will be at least up to number three in the list after 20 Tests but will have to score 238 in his next match to overtake Headley into second place.

 

[aussie tragic]

And the answer to the OP is that no, Hussey will not be the 2nd greatest run scorer ever after 20 Tests...unless he gets 197 in the aussie 2nd innings????

He is officialy the 3rd greatest run scorer ever after 20 tests though......

As for the fastest to 2000 runs, he can still be equal 3rd fastest with 25 in his next dig as he currently has 1975 runs from 32 innings.....

Bradman: 22 innings
Headley: 32 innings
Sutcliffe: 33 innings
Walters & Lara: 35 innings

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The answer to the thread title question is NO. He fell 51 runs short of Headley's total.