Can Hussey be the 2nd greatest ever?

[aussie tragic]

**Dig**

Okay, will Hussey be the 2nd greatest run scorer ever after 40 Innings?

He currently has 1896 runs @ 86.18, HS 182, 7 centuries, 8 fifties from only 29 innings, while the following are the most runs at 40 innings:

ummm, major slow down from Hussey, will need a big hundred in the next test if he's to do it......

(1) Don Bradman: 3528 runs @ 95.35, HS 334, 14 centuries, 5 fifties
(2) Everton Weekes: 2431 runs @ 62.33, HS 207, 9 centuries, 10 fifties
(3) Neil Harvey: 2409 runs @ 66.91, HS 205, 10 centuries, 8 fifties
(4) Herb Sutcliffe: 2340 runs @ 65.67, HS 176, 8 centuries, 13 fifties
(5) Viv Richards: 2339 runs @ 61.55, HS 291, 8 centuries, 7 fifties
(6) Denis Compton: 2294 runs @ 69.51, HS 208, 10 centuries, 9 fifties
(7) Graeme Pollock: 2252 runs @ 62.55, HS 274, 7 centuries, 11 fifties

(8) Michael Hussey: 2245 runs @ 74.83, HS 182, 8 centuries, 9 fifties - 38 innings

(9) Doug Walters: 2226 runs @ 61.83, HS 242, 7 centuries, 14 fifties
(10) Brian Lara: 2218 runs @ 56.87, HS 375, 4 centuries, 12 fifties
(11) George Headley: 2190 runs @ 60.83, HS 270*, 10 centuries, 5 fifties
(12) Arthur Morris: 2184 runs @ 59.02, HS 206, 10 centuries, 5 fifties
(13) Graeme Smith: 2171 runs @ 58.67, HS 277, 7 centuries, 5 fifties
(14) Virender Sehwag: 2145 runs @ 53.62, HS 309, 7 centuries, 6 fifties
(15) Frank Worrell: 2144 runs @ 59.55, HS 261, 7 centuries, 8 fifties
(16) Wally Hammond: 2107 runs @ 58.52, HS 251, 7 centuries, 7 fifties

 

[Jono]

14 centuries from Bradman, what a gun (to state the obvious).

Viru had a fair start to his test career as well.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I still think that Graeme Smith could end up being one of the leading test run scorers of all time. He has 5392 runs and could feasibly be playing on for another 10/11 years.

 

[Richard]

Viru had a fair start to his test career as well.

Compo's wuz even better.

 

[aussie tragic]

Oh yeah, Hussey will have the 2nd highest average after 40 Innings as even if he gets a pair in the next test, he'll average 70.15

 

[Days of Grace]

Everton Weekes is an underrated batsman IMO.

Never seems to get a mention when discussing the greatest batsmen.

 

[ret]

will be interesting to see who are in the top 20 after 50, 75 and 100 innings?

 

[Richard]

Everton Weekes is an underrated batsman IMO.

Never seems to get a mention when discussing the greatest batsmen.

Apparently they say he was found-out by something or other at some point in Australia.

Nonetheless, still one of the greatest ever to wield the willow, beyond question.

 

[sideshowtim]

(1) Don Bradman: 3528 runs @ 95.35, HS 334, 14 centuries, 5 fifties

Only 5 fifties in 40 innings? Lol, what an overrated dud.

 

[aussie tragic]

will be interesting to see who are in the top 20 after 50, 75 and 100 innings?

A teaser....

Most runs after 50 Innings

(1) Don Bradman: 4490 runs @ 95.53, HS 334, 17 centuries, 7 fifties
(2) Herb Sutcliffe: 2960 runs @ 64.34, HS 176, 12 centuries, 13 fifties
(3) Everton Weekes: 2938 runs @ 61.20, HS 207, 10 centuries, 13 fifties
(4) Brian Lara: 2849 runs @ 59.35, HS 375, 6 centuries, 16 fifties
(5) Viv Richards: 2812 runs @ 58.58, HS 291, 9 centuries, 10 fifties

(6) Neil Harvey: 2761 runs @ 60.02, HS 205, 11 centuries, 10 fifties
(7) Denis Compton: 2692 runs @ 64.09, HS 208, 11 centuries, 12 fifties
(8) Wally Hammond: 2665 runs @ 60.56, HS 251, 9 centuries, 10 fifties
(9) Clyde Walcott: 2638 runs @ 58.62, HS 220, 12 centuries, 8 fifties
(10) Graeme Smith: 2560 runs @ 54.46, HS 277, 7 centuries, 9 fifties

 

[Richard]

(1) Don Bradman: 3528 runs @ 95.35, HS 334, 14 centuries, 5 fifties

Only 5 fifties in 40 innings? Lol, what an overrated dud.

Shows the absurdity of not counting centuries as half-centuries in yet another way.

It should be "50+ scores" and "100+ scores", not "fifties" and "hundreds".

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Double hundreds should count as two hundreds, triples as three and quads as four. Lara would dominate. Second to Bradman, one would think certainly.

 

[neville cardus]

Why, cusses?

 

[weldone]

Number of tests is irrelevant, it should be innings we're looking at here.

Number of times dismissed will be more appropriate...

 

[weldone]

Double hundreds should count as two hundreds, triples as three and quads as four. Lara would dominate. Second to Bradman, one would think certainly.

Then why not count a score of, say, 73 not out in one inning and 27 or more in the next as a hundred?

 

[SJS]

Who? David Hussey ? Why not ..nothing is impossible.

 

[Richard]

Double hundreds should count as two hundreds, triples as three and quads as four. Lara would dominate. Second to Bradman, one would think certainly.

Not sure about that, ITBT. It's what happens from start of innings that matters.

 

[Isura]

Even at a time of generally flat pitches and rubbish bowling, averaging 80-odd over your first 16 Tests is pretty remarkable.

I disagree with this. There is a lot to be said for the qualify of opposition. And also there is lots of variance in a 15 test sample. Things like match situations dictating batting approach. Now some of this can be counterbalanced by 'seeing' the best play. And I don't rate Hussey anywhere near the Lara/Tendulkar/Ponting yet. I would guess that the same wouldn't be said about people who saw Bradman or Headlely when compared to others who played in similar eras.

 

[Richard]

Hussey is nowhere near being in the Tendulkar\Lara class for mine. Nonetheless, what he did in his first 16 Tests was fairly remarkable.

 

[Isura]

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.

The governing body of cricket has shown their incompetence and lack of foresight repeatedly in the last few years. The ICC don't have the most objective or knowledgeable cricket minds. Cricket followers can certainly dispute inflated statistics and achievements.