Mike Hussey - Just How Great Is He

[Kangaroo-King]

On batting averages alone "Mike Hussey" is the best ever One Day batsman and 2nd only to the great "Sir Donald Bradman" in Test Cricket.

Is he really that good though, he must be, as he has played a lot of matches now in both forms of the game and scored a lot of runs.

How can a man acheive this feat in both forms of the game and not Win the highest Award being the "Alan Border" Medal in any of the years he has been doing it.

It doesn't seem as the media place him on the pedestal of being the 2nd best batsman in the history of the game but how long does he have to keep on doing this before he is recognised with that status.

Most would veiw the likes of "Sachin Tendulkar", "Brian Lara", "Ricky Ponting", "Viv Richards", "Greg Chappell", etc as being better than "Mike Hussey", are they though, this is my question.

[Tendlya]

Originally Posted by Kangaroo-King

Most would veiw the likes of "Sachin Tendulkar", "Brian Lara", "Ricky Ponting", "Viv Richards", "Greg Chappell", etc as being better than "Mike Hussey", are they though, this is my question.

Hussey indeed has played some fabulous knocks.

If beven was version 1, Hussey was hailed as version 1.1 who has better ability to accelerate when compared to bevan.

If Hussey playes same number of matches as the above bunch of players, his average may fall drastically or it may remain the same. Perhaps thats the reason people are playing the wiating game.

His team mates giving more number of match turning performances in a given calendar year can be the reason why he did not border medal

[Kangaroo-King]

Originally Posted by Tendlya

Hussey indeed has played some fabulous knocks.

If beven was version 1, Hussey was hailed as version 1.1 who has better ability to accelerate when compared to bevan.

If Hussey playes same number of matches as the above bunch of players, his average may fall drastically or it may remain the same. Perhaps thats the reason people are playing the wiating game.

His team mates giving more number of match turning performances in a given calendar year can be the reason why he did not border medal

Mike Hussey has the ability to score 30's and 40's when he isn't making 100's, this is why his batting average stays the same.

I can't see his average going down a lot because he has played a lot of Tests and One Dayers for Australia now.

He is fortunate that he entered the One Day team at age 28 and the Test arena as a 30 year old I think.

He was mature when he came into these teams and had waited a very long time to get there, he will continue to score a lot of runs, his average will come down a bit, though if he plays for another three or four years he will have done enough to average 60 in Tests and 45 in One Dayers, making him 2nd only to the great "Don Bradman" in Cricket history.

[acker]

"KK" I'm exited as well.

Every thing is in big letters

[Aurelius]

Originally Posted by Kangaroo-King

I can't see his average going down a lot because he has played a lot of Tests and One Dayers for Australia now.

Not really- he's only played 22 Tests so far.

I think he's better than Michael Bevan as an ODI finisher, but I can't see him going down as one of the greats of Test cricket, any more than Damien Martyn- because he'd only have had a handful of years at the top.

And we shouldn't forget the case of Andrew Strauss- most runs scored ever in the first year, but a run of low scores meant his average slipped to just over 40. And I think the form slump started at around the 20th Test, too.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Aurelius

Not really- he's only played 22 Tests so far.

Aurey,

I am with you. I think the use of the word "great" is a little premature. The greats in modern cricket are (IMO) Ponting, Tendulkar, Lara, Warne, Murali and McGrath.. all of these guys have had long and very successful careers, have proved themselves all of the world against all oppositions.

22 Tests is not long enough to judge, but his average is almost Bradmanesque, and you cannot deny that maybe he was ready for Test cricket 3 or 4 years before he actually got selected.

Also KK please stop writing in that font... it makes it very difficult to read, I feel I am being shouted at!!

[Aurelius]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

22 Tests is not long enough to judge, but his average is almost Bradmanesque, and you cannot deny that maybe he was ready for Test cricket 3 or 4 years before he actually got selected.

Right on Flanny!

I thought he could easily have been put in after Mark Waugh retired in '03. Waugh was 38, Hussey was 27-28- but Lehmann, the man who got his spot, was about 33. I'd have much rather that he was replaced by Hussey, especially as he now holds down the no. 4 position anyway.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Aurelius

I'd have much rather that he was replaced by Hussey, especially as he now holds down the no. 4 position anyway.

The Waugh dropping in favour of Lehmann was great for Boo, who would have had a lot more Test caps if he was born anywhere else in the world, but not really a great long term thing.

I am still surpised that Hussey was not part of the 2005 test side that lost the Ashes, he was the inform player after the ODI's yet was not in the Test squad, and that for me was a huge error of judgment.

[greg]

Come back after Hussey has played over 50 tests and then we can talk about him properly.Didn't Jimmy Adams have a similar ridiculously high average after about 20 games and his soon went down so i expect the same will happen with Hussey.

[Warne]

Hussey is 10 times the batsman Adams ever was though, with impressive range of shots Adams could only dream of.