Can Hussey be the 2nd greatest ever?

[bagapath]

to be the second best test batsman ever, one must be better than hobbs, hutton, gavaskar, compton, hammond, sobers, headley, tendulkar, richards, lara, g.chappell, weeks, border, miandad and sutcliffe. mike hussey has had a fantastic ride so far. but he has not done enough to overtake all those names mentioned above. we can revist this question in three years.

 

[pasag]

Looking at the first post, AT asks 'Can Hussey be the 2nd greatest run scorer ever after 20 Tests?', not second greatest batsman full stop.

 

[aussie tragic]

to be the second best test batsman ever, one must be better than hobbs, hutton, gavaskar, compton, hammond, sobers, headley, tendulkar, richards, lara, g.chappell, weeks, border, miandad and sutcliffe. mike hussey has had a fantastic ride so far. but he has not done enough to overtake all those names mentioned above. we can revist this question in three years.

Purely statistical based question; originally was most runs after 20 tests, by CW demand it was changed to number of innings (which makes more sense) and the following are facts:

Hussey is the 3rd greatest run scorer ever after 20 tests (only behind Headley & Bradman)......

Hussey is equal 3rd fastest to 2000 runs (33 Innings equal with Sutcliffe, only behind Headley & Bradman).....

So new question is will he be 3rd best run scorer (needs 165 runs) after 40 innings or maybe 2nd best (needs 187 runs) as per the OP ..... 2 innings to go

 

[bagapath]

Purely statistical based question; originally was most runs after 20 tests, by CW demand it was changed to number of innings (which makes more sense) and the following are facts:

Hussey is the 3rd greatest run scorer ever after 20 tests (only behind Headley & Bradman)......

Hussey is equal 3rd fastest to 2000 runs (33 Innings equal with Sutcliffe, only behind Headley & Bradman).....

So new question is will he be 3rd best run scorer (needs 165 runs) after 40 innings or maybe 2nd best (needs 187 runs) as per the OP ..... 2 innings to go

hi aussie tragic. good to run into you after a long gap, mate. if you come to india my offer to buy you beer - for running all the polls in the all time xi thread - is still open

as for this thread, i get the point now. apologies if i had stated the obvious in my previous post.

 

[aussie tragic]

hi aussie tragic. good to run into you after a long gap, mate. if you come to india my offer to buy you beer - for running all the polls in the all time xi thread - is still open

as for this thread, i get the point now. apologies if i had stated the obvious in my previous post.

Still open for a beer, but you didn't really state the obvious as "hobbs, hutton, gavaskar, compton, hammond, sobers, headley, tendulkar, richards, lara, g.chappell, weeks, border, miandad and sutcliffe" is missing a " Harvey...ummmm, Walters, Slater, S Waugh, Ponting, Hayden, etc.....

 

[aussie tragic]

So with Hussey 40* in his 40th innings, he now has 2295 runs and moves ahead of Pollock and Compton into 6th most runs after 40 innings.....137 runs to go to be 2nd greatest ever

The next in his sights....

Viv Richards: 2339 runs
Herb Sutcliffe: 2340 runs
Neil Harvey: 2409 runs
Everton Weekes: 2431 runs
Don Bradman: 3528 runs

Edit: Doh! Hussey out for 40.......wasn't my fault...honest.....

 

[Richard]

So with Hussey 40* in his 40th innings

40 and out now.

 

[oitoitoi]

The problem with comparing Hussey with these players is that this is Hussey at his most prolific. Those players played from earlier on in their careers (Pollock excluded) and learnt in the national side rather than exclusively the firs class game. If you chose other players only during their peaks they could have some pretty astonishing careers. e.g. Mohammed Yousuf since his conversion to Islam, Andy Flower during that unbelievable run that took him to no.1 in the rankings, Tendulkar around 1998/1999. There are tons of examples. The only player I've ever heard of where an extraordinary but short career was truly representative was Barry Richards, people who saw him play genuinely believe that he could have averaged in the 70's or 80's over a long period.

I think while Hussey may well be remembered as a great player (though you might not think it watching a typical Hussey innings) his average will not be a good measure of how good he was. It's more representative of the astonishing strength and depth of batting of this current Australian generation (though it's petering out somewhat). The way in which Hussey has managed to walk in to test cricket with such ease is a mirror to the quality of the Australian domestic system.

 

[Richard]

The only player I've ever heard of where an extraordinary but short career was truly representative was Barry Richards, people who saw him play genuinely believe that he could have averaged in the 70's or 80's over a long period.

I doubt that. Mid-50s and even over 60, perfectly possible - especially given that he averaged over 60 in South African domestic cricket all career, over 100 in his brief foray in Sheffield Shield cricket and over 50 in English county cricket.

But 70 or 80, no. Richards' case is one of the most frustrating of all, though - possibly only Vijay Merchant of those who were obviously superlative batsmen who didn't get any decent Test careers is on his level.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

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

Was tongue in cheek, really.

 

[Jono]

Mike Hussey's average has fallen below 50 for the record.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Michael Hussey's case is a classic example that illustrates how isolated statistics, statistics without context and small sample sizes can often be misinterpretted.

Hussey if a fine player...but just because he averaged 86 at one point does not place him in the same category as Wally Hammond.

It is important to look at someone's body of work, over a certain period of time and that places things in perspective.

 

[pasag]

Michael Hussey's case is a classic example that illustrates how isolated statistics, statistics without context and small sample sizes can often be misinterpretted.

Hussey if a fine player...but just because he averaged 86 at one point does not place him in the same category as Wally Hammond.

It is important to look at someone's body of work, over a certain period of time and that places things in perspective.

But the OP didn't ask for any interpretation, it was purely a statistical question...

 

[Jono]

Yeah but the discussion moved on after the opening post (and anyway the title of the thread is dreadfully misleading) from not just the first 40 innings, to just how good Hussey overall is.

 

[pasag]

Yeah but the discussion moved on after the opening post (and anyway the title of the thread is dreadfully misleading) from not just the first 40 innings, to just how good Hussey overall is.

Not in the context of Wally Hammond, unless I'm much mistaken.

 

[Furball]

Was interesting recently in a poll that quite a few people had Hussey as the better batsman out of a choice of him, Gambhir, Clarke and KP.

All Hussey's career consists of is bashing rubbish attacks at home. He's acheived virtually nothing of substance away from his home tracks against decent to good bowling. Quite similar to Gambhir, yet no-one voted for Gambhir, yet quite a few voted for Hussey.

 

[zaremba]

I'm hugely, disproportionately and maliciously pleased to see that average in the 40s.

 

[bagapath]

I'm hugely, disproportionately and maliciously pleased to see that average in the 40s.

me too zaremba. he belongs in the vengsarkar, boon, richardson category and not the lara, ponting, sachin league.

 

[Ikki]

Really though, his deterioration is as hard to believe as his rise. You knew he was going to come down eventually, but this hard? There was a point where I thought Hussey was GOD on the onside...now he looks so vulnerable.

 

[Jono]

It's sad to see. I love Huss. One of the good guys