Best test batsman - Hussain vs Astle

[kingkallis]

I may be wrong, but wasn't the main factor for his retirement at that time due to the fact Vaughan was returning from injury making the decision easier for the selectors?

Nope, I think he made way for Andrew Strauss!

 

[NUFAN]

I've gone for Hussain, but only just.

I think Astle was more talented and was finer to watch, but I think Nasser was more resolute in defense and probably would have averaged slightly higher if he didn't have to worry about the captaincy at the same time.

Haven't looked at the stats, but I seem to remember Hussain having to face the eras dominate bowlers more so than Astle.

Astle's 222 has been mentioned a bit quite rightly, I think Hussain's 207 should be mentioned too.

 

[tooextracool]

Anyway, as batsmen I'd take old poppadom fingers in tests and Astle in the shortened form, which Nass never quite got to grips with & I think we can unprobelmatically say his reaction to his only ton was indeed childish. Was quite surprised Astle's test average was as low as it was, must've tailed off towards the end of his career. In my mind he was averaging a tick below 40.

Astle's average has been around the 37-38 range for most of his career. Personally, always thought he underperformed given that on his day he could score runs against any attack anywhere in the world. A poor man's Carl Hooper if anything.

It goes without saying that Hussain was a better player. Hussain's average is hardly relevant, he was masterful of scoring runs on minefields and in the toughest batting conditions and that adds points to his worth given that there were plenty of other FTB's in the side around that time who would more than always gorge themselves on the flatter tracks. Hes gone on record stating that he often found it easier to bat in situations where others were crumbling around him because fear of failure was less and that he felt more pressure when everyone else scored. And credit where its due, few players in the world have sparkling records averaging nearly 50 against SA in the 90s.

 

[Precambrian]

A poor man's Carl Hooper if anything.

Curious. Hooper averaged 36.42 against Astle's 37

 

[tooextracool]

Curious. Hooper averaged 36.42 against Astle's 37

That is cause Hooper played almost a third of his career when he was utterly woeful and shouldnt have been in the side. Post 93 he did fairly well, but still could and should have done better.

 

[Richard]

I think Nasser was more resolute in defense and probably would have averaged slightly higher if he didn't have to worry about the captaincy at the same time.

I'm not sure about that. There was one time that the captaincy got to him, the series against West Indies in 2000.

Hussain's average between 1996 and 2004 with the year of 2000 excluded entirely is pretty decent. He was simply utterly woeful for the entire 2000, which disguises how good he was either side. I'm not making any excuses for his poor play in 2000, it was painful to watch by the time mid-WI series rolled around (earlier it'd just been a couple of bad games in SA to follow a few excellent ones, then Zimbabwe where it really didn't matter if he scored or not as there were Athertons, Stewarts and heck, even Hicks (a rarity after 1996), to do the run-getting. But it makes little sense to fail to recognise that it's only his 2000 that drags him down towards Astle. As pointed-out, Astle's average remained pretty well the same all career - he was just short of being a "good" player and was just "pretty good". Hussain for the most part was better than Astle.

However, Astle never did anywhere near as badly at any extended point as Hussain did for the 11 games of 2000 (and the first 3 of 2001) and that, obviously, is a big point in Astle's favour.

 

[NUFAN]

I'm not sure about that. There was one time that the captaincy got to him, the series against West Indies in 2000.

Hussain's average between 1996 and 2004 with the year of 2000 excluded entirely is pretty decent. He was simply utterly woeful for the entire 2000, which disguises how good he was either side. I'm not making any excuses for his poor play in 2000, it was painful to watch by the time mid-WI series rolled around (earlier it'd just been a couple of bad games in SA to follow a few excellent ones, then Zimbabwe where it really didn't matter if he scored or not as there were Athertons, Stewarts and heck, even Hicks (a rarity after 1996), to do the run-getting. But it makes little sense to fail to recognise that it's only his 2000 that drags him down towards Astle. As pointed-out, Astle's average remained pretty well the same all career - he was just short of being a "good" player and was just "pretty good". Hussain for the most part was better than Astle.

However, Astle never did anywhere near as badly at any extended point as Hussain did for the 11 games of 2000 (and the first 3 of 2001) and that, obviously, is a big point in Astle's favour.

He averaged 2 runs less as captain than as non-captain during what should have been his prime years.

Hard to say what kind of effect the captaincy had on him.

 

[Zinzan]

Nah. I do think Hussain was better than Astle, and I don't have much doubt about it, but the idea that Astle was > Hussain is nowhere near as ridiculous to me as the idea that Richardson was > Atherton.

I've said it before of course but Astle's 222 is easily, by a million miles, the best innings I've ever seen and while one innings is worth precisely that - one innings - it was hugely enjoyable to see someone who under normal circumstances was nothing more than pretty good play in a manner almost no batsman will ever play all career.

As to the question in question - I'd have Hussain over Astle on a seaming and\or uneven deck without the slightest thought, but I'd back both to be successful on a reasonable number of occasions. I'd have Astle on a non-seaming deck without a backward thought too, Hussain was never very good on flat pitches with everything apparently loaded in the batsman's favour.

In your humble opinion that is, especially given the majority of Cricket Web's neutral members that voted rated Richardson above Atherton, in fact by more than 2 to 1 (for both neutral & non-neutral voters).

And this coming from the same guy that voted Graham Gooch over Martin Crowe in a recent poll. IMHO that is the biggest joke of all.

 

[analyst]

Hussain, enjoyed his captaincy and his allround contribution to cricket, even when England were a dire ODI side, they always showed some fight. Hussain's captaincy wins the battle for me and his captaincy coincided with his ability as a batsman and also his many finger injuries. Hussain would have easily been averaging 40 if it was not for these factors, quite unfortunate, not everyone scores a double century against the Aussies, thats my reason for including him.

 

[Paddlesmack]

Nasser Hussain for me. Just love his style of play and his square cuts were just marvelous. Plus, a fantastic captain.

 

[Richard]

He averaged 2 runs less as captain than as non-captain during what should have been his prime years.

Hard to say what kind of effect the captaincy had on him.

As I say - he started brilliantly as batsman-captain in 1999, and from the summer of 2001 to the winter of 2002/03 he also performed well. It's just that his one utterly woeful year happened to be as captain. Yes, the captaincy had an impact on part of that woefulness (he admits in his book that he became so consumed with beating West Indies in 2000 that he simply almost completely neglected his batting starting from midsummer) but I think much of it would have happened even without the captaincy.

As I say, I think it's fairly safe, if you know all the facts, to say the impact of captaincy, while existant, was not considerable.

 

[Richard]

In your humble opinion that is, especially given the majority of Cricket Web's neutral members that voted rated Richardson above Atherton, in fact by more than 2 to 1 (for both neutral & non-neutral voters).

Nah, I don't consider my opinion humble (wouldn't be much point having one if it was so humble) and there's several of those neutral voters in that poll who I'd say don't really know all that much about how to judge a cricketer. On informed and neutral voters, it's pretty much neck-and-neck.

And this coming from the same guy that voted Graham Gooch over Martin Crowe in a recent poll. IMHO that is the biggest joke of all.

As I said at the time, that Gooch was better than Crowe is highly arguable - I simply idolised Gooch as a very young fan and as such couldn't really bring myself to not vote for him. He was an inspiration to at least two generations. However, I've absolutely no truck with someone suggesting Crowe was better, none at all.

In order of debateableness, ascending (that is, most debateable first), for me: Gooch > Crowe; Hussain > Astle; Atherton > Richardson.

 

[haroon510]

voted for Astle..

 

[Richard]

Because he generally scored much more quickly than Hussain, of course, I presume?

 

[Perm]

I also remember reading at the time that he retired immediately, without giving his County members the opportunity to give him a send off - almost as if Hussain was more important than the county that had helped make him the player he'd become.

I'm not entirely sure on the circumstances surrounding his retirement, but Hussain loved Essex and was extremely grateful for everything that the club did for him.

 

[analyst]

[Originally Posted by HeathDavisSpeed
I also remember reading at the time that he retired immediately, without giving his County members the opportunity to give him a send off - almost as if Hussain was more important than the county that had helped make him the player he'd become./QUOTE]

I'm not entirely sure on the circumstances surrounding his retirement, but Hussain loved Essex and was extremely grateful for everything that the club did for him.

Yep that pretty much was the most ill informed statement I have ever read, Hussain is one of the most proud Essex men other than Gooch I know of when it comes to supporting their own. He had been on about Allistair Cook since he was 18, he picked Foster when he was at University, picked Irani for the ODI team. His dad has a huge academy in Essex, and Hussain goes back to meet the boys, to discredit Hussain for his work, is to claim he never played cricket in the first place, ah well arm chair critics need a job too .

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Well, I lived in Chelmsford at the time and am relaying what the locals were saying at that time. They were disappointed that he went straight from a test match (where, let's not forget not everyone can attend given the size of Lords) and straight into the commentary box without a swan-song for the county fans to celebrate his acheivements.

Mind you, I was at 2 of the days of that very test match so have very little complaint myself, but I could certainly understand the feeling at the time. Fans who'd supported Hussain through the good times and the bad times throughout his County and England career didn't get the chance to give him a send of due to his speedy desire to get into the Commentary Box.

Hussain may be extremely proud of Essex and may have indeed promoted some of his County collegues to the test team, but that doesn't mean he treated his County well in retirement.

 

[_Ed_]

Nasser Hussain for me. Just love his style of play and his square cuts were just marvelous. Plus, a fantastic captain.

Interesting. I always thought Astle's square cuts were among the best in world cricket.

 

[anoop4real]

Nathan Astle for me,I think he is quick run getter than Hussain and also plays some huge shots too

 

[Zinzan]

Nah, I don't consider my opinion humble (wouldn't be much point having one if it was so humble) and there's several of those neutral voters in that poll who I'd say don't really know all that much about how to judge a cricketer. On informed and neutral voters, it's pretty much neck-and-neck.

Well there you go then, you've said it yourself. Of those you consider to be informed (which is pretty subjective anyways & I'd assume you'd exclude me from that lot since I disagree with many of your views), its pretty much 50/50 on the Athers/Rigger poll, and not the foregone conclusion you've made it out to be.