On Mike Hussey...

[Richard]

I never rated him before he was picked and I maintain it was the right decision not to pick him before 2004 but have been forced to drastically review my opinion of him.

Something I was thinking about the other day... what would've happened if Langer had been fit for the opening two Tests (or, possibly worse, the Second after missing the First) of the West Indies series in 2005/06?

I'd not for a second suggest there's a strong possibility that Hussey'd never have played Test cricket, not for a second. But I reckon if he was going to be picked as a middle-order batsman it'd have happened before 2005/06, so I don't reckon he'd have played until 2007/08 at the earliest had Langer not missed the 3 Tests (plus 2 against Bangladesh) that he missed that season. And he'd have been 32 by then. Would he have been given first dibs on replacing Langer? It's an interesting question, or would the younger Jaques have been given first shot?

Same thing applies to Stuart Clark, of course. I'm sure everyone would wish McGrath's wife would not have fallen ill again in 2005/06, and say she hadn't? Clark would certainly not have played in SA, and would he have debuted in The Ashes? I doubt it. I honestly reckon that had McGrath's wife's cancer never returned Stuart Clark may well never have played Test cricket, and what a thought that is!

Hussey, well, as I say, I reckon there's more guesswork involved there. But it's certainly far from impossible that had Langer's fitness held in 2005/06 that he'd not have got in at all.

 

[honestbharani]

Frankly, I don't care what Mike Hussey's stats are saying, high average or not. He's been right up there with Ponting just for making runs and I suspect he has a few more 'tough' runs than even Ponting in his time as a Test cricketer. For a guy who's only been playing Test cricket a couple of years, he's doing pretty well and sustaining it.

Forget he stats. Just watch him bat and you see what a total pro he is. I never rated him before he was picked and I maintain it was the right decision not to pick him before 2004 but have been forced to drastically review my opinion of him.

Amen to that..



To hell with stats.. He makes bowlers almost beg for him to get out and THAT is greatness, pure and refined........

 

[Uppercut]

Amen to that..



To hell with stats.. He makes bowlers almost beg for him to get out and THAT is greatness, pure and refined........

Hmm. But i'd rather have someone who scores a lot of runs in my team. And runs scored is a "stat", apparently.

 

[Top_Cat]

Hmm. But i'd rather have someone who scores a lot of runs in my team. And runs scored is a "stat", apparently.

One logically follows from the other, I'd have thought. Batsmen rarely just 'look' great without some runs coming their way. In the case of Hussey, it's hard to argue with his aura or his record. When he gets a ton, all bar one he's gone on to make it a decent sized ton, he's guts out some tough innings against top-level opponents and he's done it at home and away (much more at home, yes, but still averaging 50+ away). Any team would want him in their side.

 

[Top_Cat]

Something I was thinking about the other day... what would've happened if Langer had been fit for the opening two Tests (or, possibly worse, the Second after missing the First) of the West Indies series in 2005/06?

I'd not for a second suggest there's a strong possibility that Hussey'd never have played Test cricket, not for a second. But I reckon if he was going to be picked as a middle-order batsman it'd have happened before 2005/06, so I don't reckon he'd have played until 2007/08 at the earliest had Langer not missed the 3 Tests (plus 2 against Bangladesh) that he missed that season. And he'd have been 32 by then. Would he have been given first dibs on replacing Langer? It's an interesting question, or would the younger Jaques have been given first shot?

Same thing applies to Stuart Clark, of course. I'm sure everyone would wish McGrath's wife would not have fallen ill again in 2005/06, and say she hadn't? Clark would certainly not have played in SA, and would he have debuted in The Ashes? I doubt it. I honestly reckon that had McGrath's wife's cancer never returned Stuart Clark may well never have played Test cricket, and what a thought that is!

Hussey, well, as I say, I reckon there's more guesswork involved there. But it's certainly far from impossible that had Langer's fitness held in 2005/06 that he'd not have got in at all.

All sliding doors stuff, really. I find it hard to predict other than I'm pretty sure, since they were in the Aussie team set-up for a while, that they both would have had a chance come their way soon enough.

 

[Richard]

You'd think so - but as I say, neither of them were getting any younger.

Lehmann's (wholly and completely deserved) shot at finally getting a decent run in 2002/03 suggests that 32 isn't by any stretch too advanced an age for an established high-class batsman to come in at, and that Hussey might very well indeed have got first dibs on taking Langer's place (would that now mean Jaques was still waiting?).

Clark, however, as I say - I honestly would've been surprised had he debuted against SL last summer. And I'd say with extreme confidence that he wouldn't have in the 2006/07 Ashes, as even after his outstanding performance in SA there were inexplicably still questions being asked about whether Tait or Johnson would be picked instead of him. And of course there was Gillespie too; and Kasprowicz had he been fit. One of them would almost certainly have played in The Ashes instead of him. The question is whether he'd have been given first dibs on replacing McGrath in 2007/08. I'd not rule it out but I'd also not feel at all confident in suggesting it.

 

[Uppercut]

One logically follows from the other, I'd have thought. Batsmen rarely just 'look' great without some runs coming their way. In the case of Hussey, it's hard to argue with his aura or his record. When he gets a ton, all bar one he's gone on to make it a decent sized ton, he's guts out some tough innings against top-level opponents and he's done it at home and away (much more at home, yes, but still averaging 50+ away). Any team would want him in their side.

Yeah it's not common, but occasionally batsmen do look good and not score many runs (Tendulkar for the past 2-3 years, Ian Bell.) And it's annoying when people say "the stats (runs scored) aren't important, just watch them bat!" because, well, the stats are the important thing. Whoever gets the higher number wins the game. I think Mike Hussey is a good example of someone who can score a lot of runs when not looking in the best touch.

When it gets to the point of random, irrelevant stats (more common in football- number of corners, shots on target, possession percentage), then the bull**** detector starts to go off.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah it's not common, but occasionally batsmen do look good and not score many runs (Tendulkar for the past 2-3 years, Ian Bell.) And it's annoying when people say "the stats (runs scored) aren't important, just watch them bat!" because, well, the stats are the important thing. Whoever gets the higher number wins the game. I think Mike Hussey is a good example of someone who can score a lot of runs when not looking in the best touch.

Okay, can see I've been misunderstood (should probably point out I work in maths/statistics so I'm not stats-adverse!). What I meant was not that his tally of runs is unimportant but that you don't need them necessarily to judge whether Hussey is a top-notch player. Arithmetic averages, I find to be a really blunt-force tool to measure the ability of a player anyway so I use them mainly as a guide.

When it gets to the point of random, irrelevant stats (more common in football- number of corners, shots on target, possession percentage), then the bull**** detector starts to go off.

Yeah, paralysis by analysis and all that. Personally find it remarkable that unlike other sports, cricket measures have largely remained the same for many years. I predict, though, that soon we'll be reporting the average distance batsmen hit 6's for......

 

[Uppercut]

Okay, can see I've been misunderstood (should probably point out I work in maths/statistics so I'm not stats-adverse!). What I meant was not that his tally of runs is unimportant but that you don't need them necessarily to judge whether Hussey is a top-notch player. Arithmetic averages, I find to be a really blunt-force tool to measure the ability of a player anyway so I use them mainly as a guide.



Yeah, paralysis by analysis and all that. Personally find it remarkable that unlike other sports, cricket measures have largely remained the same for many years. I predict, though, that soon we'll be reporting the average distance batsmen hit 6's for......

Yeah, see your point. Wasn't aiming it at you in particular, just a bit of a rant tbh

Stats do come up more often in cricket than other sports though. You might, for example, point to Ponting's record against India as a reason why you think Oz will lose this series. You'd never point to Jonny Wilkinson's poor kicking record against a given team as a reason why England won't win the six nations. Maybe it is overdone a bit in cricket- can't imagine that in any stats related job 8 matches played would be considered anywhere near a reasonable number of trials, yeah?

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah it's not common, but occasionally batsmen do look good and not score many runs (Tendulkar for the past 2-3 years, Ian Bell.) And it's annoying when people say "the stats (runs scored) aren't important, just watch them bat!" because, well, the stats are the important thing. Whoever gets the higher number wins the game. I think Mike Hussey is a good example of someone who can score a lot of runs when not looking in the best touch.

When it gets to the point of random, irrelevant stats (more common in football- number of corners, shots on target, possession percentage), then the bull**** detector starts to go off.

well... the stats are a guide but I think you need a lot more to rate a player than just his stats..



And as for my "to hell with stats" comment, it was just a spur of the moment thing..



My view is that great players almost always have great stats.. Like for batsmen, averaging 50+ in test cricket.. But beyond that, the measure of greatness, ranking etc. need to be done with due consideration to all factors that could have influenced those stats and a certain amount of subjectivity as well.. Hardly anyone can argue if I rate Hussey as one of the best batsmen right now simply because he never looks like getting out and is still scoring runs at a decent enough clip. Of course, he has great stats but that is not the only reason I rate him as high as I do....-

 

[Richard]

My view is that great players almost always have great stats..

There has never been a great player who did not have excellent figures. Never.

Occasionally there'll be players who are great only for a short time and this greatness is not understood by those who insist an entire career is the only matter of relevance and no amount of breaking-down must be done. But mostly even this is pretty rare.

 

[Uppercut]

There has never been a great player who did not have excellent figures. Never.

Interesting to try to think of examples. Prasanna perhaps? Obviously well before my time, but a lot of people swear by him and his figures are fairly ordinary.

 

[Richard]

His figures in India were damn good IIRR.

Never have worked-out how he was supposed to be better than Bedi and Chandra though TBH. And that's not saying anyone is neccessarily wrong to consider such a thing, just that I've never read any reasoning as to why anyone considers it the case, merely "well so-and-so thought Prasanna was the best of the three".

In any case I don't think anyone's ever claimed Prasanna was of the very top drawer like Warne, Murali, Grimmett etc. or even Benaud. Just a damn good bowler.

 

[Uppercut]

Hmm, indeed. I can think of a lot of very good players with very unflattering stats (Fleming, Atherton etc.) but i see what you mean about really great players. Don't think i can do better than Prassana. (FTR, 26.9 at home, 33.8 away). Garry Sobers's bowling, maybe?

 

[Richard]

Yeah Sobers' bowling would possibly be the closest thing but even there there's the caveat of the fact that pretty well everyone agrees that he was a far better seamer than spinner, which obviously impacts on his average, and also the fact that he had 5 or 6 years of averaging pretty well indeed.

I don't think any of even Sobers' most fervent supporters would claim he was anything other than ordinary with the ball at the start of his career, and it's well-known that he's considered to have been lesser into the 1970s as he entered his mid-30s.

And as regards Fleming, Atherton and so many others like them - I've said more times than possibly anyone has said anything but in long careers a career average rarely means much and Atherton and Fleming most certainly fit this criteria and how.

 

[Uppercut]

Totally agree with what you say, but i'm deliberately looking for cases where the stats don't at all reflect how good a particular player is. There's always a reason for it.

 

[Goughy]

And as regards Fleming, Atherton and so many others like them - I've said more times than possibly anyone has said anything but in long careers a career average rarely means much and Atherton and Fleming most certainly fit this criteria and how.

I obviously could not disagree more but I dont fancy going over this stuff.

High career averages over a long career count for everything. It is consistency and longevity combined with brilliance.

TBH, I cant care less if a player averaged 50 over 20 Tests if he was **** for 60.

Im not into cherry picking. A good career average shows that your good times dominated your down times. That is the sign of class. A moderate average (ala Atherton) fairly illustrates that his ordinary times were disproportionatley larger than you could expect a quality player to have.

 

[Uppercut]

To be fair though, if Australia kept picking Don Bradman today his average would take a fair plunge. Players like Flintoff will always have the fact that they were picked too early impacting on their average, while those like Hussey, picked once they were at their peak, benefit. Ten good years followed by two average ones when they probably should have retired shows a player as disproportionately worse than a player who had just seven good years.

 

[Woodster]

For me, for Carl Hooper to average just 36.46 is just wrong. Such a talented player with so much time to play his shots, he should have averaged much more, but again that is probably why he wasn't great.

I must agree with Goughy, a high average spanned over a long length of time shows quality performaces and longevity, two things integral if you are to be qualified as Great.

 

[Prince EWS]

For me, for Carl Hooper to average just 36.46 is just wrong. Such a talented player with so much time to play his shots, he should have averaged much more, but again that is probably why he wasn't great.

Yeah, he should have averaged more, but he didn't. He's as good as what he did in the game; not what he should have. He just wasn't that good.

Trumper springs to mind though. Obviously we'll never know the exact reasons for his low average but he's a great based on a sheer legend and status at the time.

Grace is a more obvious one although if you really analyse his career for what it is, he has great stats as well.