Brad Hogg

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I wouldn't describe Hussain as useful though. I would say he is a very good test match batsman, who averages 37. He has also been an inspirational captain who has helped England improve a great deal in three and a half years.

When I refer to useful, I mean the in between player. i.e. the player who doesn't come to mind immediately when thinking about a particular team but is an integral part of the team in terms of contribution etc.

Hussain is by no means a superstarnor is he a poor player. As such, Hussain is essentially useful but, my point is, he has made a good career for himself.

 

[sasnoz]

a bit like flemming

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I actually find myself agreeing with you sasnoz. :wow:

 

[Andre]

You can't class Hussain as a very good player for one reason: those batsmen seen as very good players generally average 45+.

Hussain, on the other hand averages just 37, by all means handy but nothing to call him, a very good player on.

That said, he very rarely fails to make a score between 20-80 in a Test, much like the Ranmprakash, Fleming, Martyn, Langer of the world.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Hussain is a good player. He's not outstanding but he is a good player. An outstanding player is one with a 45+ average. A good player is 35-45 who score runs consistantly, if not huge scores.

 

[marc71178]

That said, he very rarely fails to make a score between 20-80 in a Test, much like the Ranmprakash, Fleming, Martyn, Langer of the world.

Erm, you cannot put one of those in the company of the other 3, and to compare Hussain to him is an insult to the England skipper.

 

[Bazza]

And I think I know which one you mean!

Yeah my point is in England we traditionally have used the benchmark of 40 as a batting average. Throughout the 90s we had four players who flirted with this mark - Atherton, Stewart, Thorpe and Hussain. None of these would be put in a bracket with Lara or Tendulkar, but regularly did the biz for England. They would be put in a 'B' bracket if you like, where A is a superstar and C is ordinary (like our friend above). I think this is the point Mr Mxyzptlk was trying to make, just a few misunderstandings with language.

 

[Eclipse]

Well I would say Vaughan is an A grade player and Trescothick a B+ there rest are B's exept Crawley and Key who are C's :P

For Australia I would Say Hayden, Ponting, Gilchrist and Waugh are A+'s Langer, Martyn are B+ and Lhemann is C+.

I like giving players grades

Bowlers
Brett Lee : C+ with the potential for an A
Gillespie : A+
McGrath : A+
Warne: A+
Bichel : C+

Caddick: B+ (sometimes slips to a D)
Harmison: C
Hoggard: B
Anderson : (not in test sqaud but has the potential for an A)
Dawson: D- ( with the potential for an E)

hehehe ahhh yes...

 

[Andre]

Generous mark there for Dawson. I'd give him and E for Effort, only just avoiding an F because he turned up.

Key gets a D, Crawley a C-.

 

[Eclipse]

In One day cricket:

Australia:

Gilchrist: A
Hayden: A
Ponting: A+
Martyn: B+
Lehman: B (loses 2 points for his comments :P )
Beven: A+
Watson: C+ (he will be an A in good time )
Warne: A+
Lee: B+ occasionaly A
Gillespie: B+
McGrath: A+

England:

Night: A
Trescothick: A
Vaughan : D (he is much better than his rating but what can i say about an avrage of 19)
Hussain: B-
Collingwood: C+
Steward: B
Blackwell: C+
Irani : E- look he has worked hard and deserves this reward
Caddick: B
Anderson: B (with A grade talent)
Harmison: D

Ok thats enough grading I just got board and had to do somthing.

 

[marc71178]

Well I would say Vaughan is an A grade player and Trescothick a B+ there rest are B's exept Crawley and Key who are C's :P

For Australia I would Say Hayden, Ponting, Gilchrist and Waugh are A+'s Langer, Martyn are B+ and Lhemann is C+.

Right, so you're trying to say that Hayden, Ponting, Gilchrist and Waugh are ALL better batsmen than Vaughan?

Nice and unbiased view there!

 

[sasnoz]

haydens better than vaughn
i would say pontings equal with him
waugh in his prime would be better
gilchrist is a filthy slogger who is technically correct

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

IMO Vaughan is just as good, if not better than Hayden is. Hayden has had an unbelievable 15 months or so however and full credit to him. Vaughan, however, has also come into his own with an amazing year.

Both players must be considered in the light that they are from two different types of teams. Australia is a great cricketing unit and a very strong team and England is a good team which is improving. Vaughan played exceptionally against the best team in 15 or so years - Australia. Think about how Hayden would have done if he played for England in Oz.

Hayden would probably have done well but perhaps not quite as well as Vaughan.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

gilchrist is a filthy slogger who is technically correct

Talk about a paradox!

 

[marc71178]

waugh in his prime would be better

This is based on current form though.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Vaughan is a better stroke player.

 

[Eclipse]

Right, so you're trying to say that Hayden, Ponting, Gilchrist and Waugh are ALL better batsmen than Vaughan?

Nice and unbiased view there!

Shut up!! Seriously Its just an opinion and its not even that I ment to give him an A+ anyway.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Calm down you two...

 

[Top_Cat]

Gee, looks like the 'worst spinner in Australia' probably CAN bowl and field after all.

He's Australia's leading wicket-taker in the series at the moment...............Brett Lee and Shane Watson are one wicket behind him and have played more matches.

Also, Shane Watson is right up there in the aggregates with the ball (10 wickets in 7 matches before today's match) too.

Interesting.

 

[Eclipse]

I though he bowled brilliantly today his wrong un has been totaly un pickable and to me he has only started using it in the last few games.

He also also seems to have developed a fliper and all in about a weeks time.