Best test batsman - Hussain vs Astle

[Zinzan]

Sorry to those of you bored to death of polls, but I couldn't resist this one as they were two totally different players with remarkably similar test records..

Best test batsman ........

N Hussain matches 96 innings 171 no 16 runs 5764 ave 37.18 HS 207 100s 14 50s 33

N Astle matches 81 innings 137 no 10 runs 4702 ave 37.02 HS 222 100s11 50s 24

 

[_Ed_]

Hussain for me, but Astle easily in ODIs.

 

[JimmyGS]

Astle just because of that 222.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Realistically, Hussain scored runs for England on many occasions when no one else was able. Astle didn't provide that service on as often as he was needed for NZ.

The reasons that I don't like Hussain are purely due his personality, commentary (states the obvious a bit too much) and for the slightly childish way that he went about his retirement. From a purely cricketing perspective, Hussain was the more important player.

 

[Precambrian]

Hussain easily.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Realistically, Hussain scored runs for England on many occasions when no one else was able. Astle didn't provide that service on as often as he was needed for NZ.

The reasons that I don't like Hussain are purely due his personality, commentary (states the obvious a bit too much) and for the slightly childish way that he went about his retirement. From a purely cricketing perspective, Hussain was the more important player.

Think that's harsh in the extreme. Just seemed to be a case of a player knowing anno domini was calling him. Given his credit in the bank with the selectors he could quite easily have hung on until he made his century of caps, as was his stated ambition at one point. An honest retirement for me.

I like him as a commentator too, but obviously that's more a matter of personal taste. What I do particularly admire is that he isn't afflicted by the need to talk up his still playing ex-team mates like so many other recently retired commentators.

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.

 

[Goughy]

Nasser, probably.

More consistent. However, there are certain line-ups (depending on the players surrounding them) where I would take Astle over Nasser.

 

[Zinzan]

Realistically, Hussain scored runs for England on many occasions when no one else was able. Astle didn't provide that service on as often as he was needed for NZ.

The reasons that I don't like Hussain are purely due his personality, commentary (states the obvious a bit too much) and for the slightly childish way that he went about his retirement. From a purely cricketing perspective, Hussain was the more important player.

Interesting take on his retirement, can't see how it was childish tbh.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Think that's harsh in the extreme.

I found it childish in two ways.

Firstly, he'd just scored a decent century and a great match-winning innings in a test match at Lord's. Maybe, Nasser was doing what was best for him and not what was necessarily best for England - no matter how well he tried to sell it.

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 certainly remember thinking at the time that it was hardly the most gracious of retirements. He was more interested in moving onto the next stage of his career - the Commentary box - rather than considering what was best for the two teams that he was a central pillar of.

 

[Zinzan]

Hussain easily.

Easily? Care to elaborate ?

 

[Zinzan]

I found it childish in two ways.

Firstly, he'd just scored a decent century and a great match-winning innings in a test match at Lord's. Maybe, Nasser was doing what was best for him and not what was necessarily best for England - no matter how well he tried to sell it.

I also remember reading at the time that he retired immediately, without giving his County members the opportunity to give him a send off.

I certainly remember thinking at the time that it was hardly the most gracious of retirements.

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?

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

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?

That was the popular view, yes. As I recall, however, it turned out he didn't retire before he'd received an offer from Sky UK though.

 

[Flem274*]

No idea who to vote for tbh. Unbiasedly and without my prejudices I'd have to vote Hussain but bringing myself to vote for somebody whom I felt like punching during his patronising, condescending commentaries and will probably destroy Astle in this poll as well as bringing myself to vote against someone who was a real hero for us on many occassions, argh I don't know.

I think Astle had far more ability, and he could devastate attacks in a way Hussain never could. In terms of fighting qualities they were probably more or less even (I realise many will disagree, bt his twin 100s vs the WI, his 100 through sickness and that 222 really demonstrated his never say die attitude) but Nasser has more 50+ scores (though more innings as well).

What interests me is Hussain has a few more 50+ scores than Astle, yet their averages are basically the same, yet I always thought Hussain was the most consistent by far. Probably just proves once again that I'm right in running away from statistics.

Nah, stuff it, I'm voting Astle. Go national bias!

EDIT: Poll even I see (after voting). I'm surprised, thought Hussain would have an early lead.

Anywho (this is not a personal insult) waiting for richard to come in and argue with someone (which won't be me) until his face is blue all sorts of "Hussain is good" stuff (if Hussain is better than Hayden then I'd guess he's better than Astle). Hopefully this doesn't become world war 3.

 

[NZTailender]

Can't really explain it, but I'd rather Astle over Hussain in both forms if I had to choose.

 

[Precambrian]

Can't really explain it, but I'd rather Astle over Hussain in both forms if I had to choose.

Need not. Your location is enough.

 

[NZTailender]

Need not. Your location is enough.

Yeah, it automatically must be bias.

Seriously, I've never really rated Hussain, and I loved watching Astle bat. Plus, he's a handy part time bowler...

 

[S.P. Fleming]

on ya nath! winning the poll. He's such a gun.

 

[Athlai]

Astle 222.

 

[Richard]

Anywho (this is not a personal insult) waiting for richard to come in and argue with someone (which won't be me) until his face is blue all sorts of "Hussain is good" stuff (if Hussain is better than Hayden then I'd guess he's better than Astle). Hopefully this doesn't become world war 3.

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.

 

[tooextracool]

I found it childish in two ways.

Firstly, he'd just scored a decent century and a great match-winning innings in a test match at Lord's. Maybe, Nasser was doing what was best for him and not what was necessarily best for England - no matter how well he tried to sell it..

That is definetly arguable. He made the rather unselfish guesture(having already run out Strauss at Lords when he looked very well like scoring twin hundreds on debut) of retiring so that Strauss would not have been dropped after his fine debut as a result of Vaughan coming back into the side the following game. Yes, he wanted to retired on the up rather than the down, which was marginally selfish on his part, but he was still clearly the most dispensable member of the side having already been left out of the side during the tour of Sri Lanka. I certainly dont think that his retirement was bad for England as such, there were younger players then who had the potential to do at least as well as Hussain.