How Good is Michael Hussey?

[Quagmire]

The main thing that puts doubt in my mind about Hussey dropping off is that in ODI's he has played 52 matches and has made 1519 runs at 79.94 with a strike rate of 91.94. I think it is an interesting topic.

[Ernest]

As a Test player Quagmire it's far to soon to say how good he is, to try and quantify after just 16 matches is IMO just guesswork.

Flintoff had a terrible start to his career, and then came good, Hussey has had a brilliant start in 16 matches but a run of bad form will soon make inroads into his average of 79.85 because 16 matches is just not enough to evaluate his long term comparisons with the greats.

He looks a very good prospect indeed, but let's see in another 20 matches if he has lived up to his promise.

[Quagmire]

That is the question i was asking I dont expect him to keep going at the rate he is. It seems only Bradman is capable of those kind of career statistics.

[tim93au]

i think husset is on a high. He was playing well for WA but he was averaging normally, now hes a sercued spot, he will go on to notch up 6000+ test runs if he keeps it up.

[Milo]

OK, let's get this in context now. So far, his test career has lasted 15 months. In those months, other players have been as prolific as him (some have been even better). It does not matter how many tests he has played, he still has only had a 15 months career.

Great players score runs throughout a period of in excess of ten years. If his career only lasts five years, then he should never be called a great (even if he score 6000 runs in those five years). He was not good enough to play for Australia five years ago, in fact his form for WA never matched his prolific for Northamponshire. So far, he's had a very good run - but a great, let's get this in perspective.

[Quagmire]

Well considering that players like Lehmann, Love, MacGill, Kasprowicz, Hodge, Clark and Bevan for most of there careers were not seen to be test players. It’s hard for Hussey to get the side five years ago.



2002 side

Langer

Hayden

Ponting

Mark Waugh

Steve Waugh

Martyn

Gilchrist

Warne

Lee

Gillespie

McGrath



How could Hussey take the place of in that side?

I agree that you can not call Hussey a great but its how you take your opportunities that matter.

[Rachael]

I've no problem with Hussey starting late and still considered for comparison with the very best.... but there's a difference between a purple patch of form and genuine class: let's face it, even Hayden had people thinking he was more than a flat track bully for a few seasons... and if you really want to see why timeframes matter consider this "all time great"...

Filter: in matches that started after 1984-11-25, and ended by 1985-08-21.
Sort order: chronological. 
 
 
Mat I NO Runs HS1 HS2 HS3 Ave 100 50 0
filtered 10 17 6 1098 207 160 136 99.81 4 4 0
 
 
Runs Pos Dismissal I *+ R Match
 
15 3 caught 1 L 1st Test v Ind in Ind 1984/85 at Mumbai [1001]
136 3 caught 3 
26 3 bowled 2 W 2nd Test v Ind in Ind 1984/85 at Delhi [1004]
30* 3 not out 4 
48 5 bowled 2 D 3rd Test v Ind in Ind 1984/85 at Kolkata [1007]
207 3 caught 2 W 4th Test v Ind in Ind 1984/85 at Chennai [1008]
10* 3 not out 4 
62 3 caught 2 D 5th Test v Ind in Ind 1984/85 at Kanpur [1011]
41* 3 not out 4 
53 4 caught 2 W 1st Test v Aus in Eng 1985 at Leeds [1017]
12 4 caught wk 4 
14 4 lbw 1 L 2nd Test v Aus in Eng 1985 at Lord's [1018]
75* 6 not out 3 
74 4 run out 1 D 3rd Test v Aus in Eng 1985 at Nottingham [1019]
35* 4 not out 3 
160 4 caught wk 2 D 4th Test v Aus in Eng 1985 at Manchester [1020]
100* 4 not out 2 W 5th Test v Aus in Eng 1985 at Birmingham [1021]

[Quagmire]

So your saying that Hayden is just a flat track bully. You can't say that a man that averages over 53 in test cricket with 27 hundreds, 2 double tons and a triple ton is a flat track bully. Considering he is a better batsman than any batsman that England has produced since Barrington.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Quagmire

So your saying that Hayden is just a flat track bully. You can't say that a man that averages over 53 in test cricket with 27 hundreds,

Nothing wrong with being a flat track bully, had England had such a batsman they would not have lost at Adelaide.

It does make you think though Quagmire that on pitches doing a bit like in England in 2005 - he did nothing, yet on the flat tops of Ashes 2006, he has excelled.

What do we make of that?.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Quagmire

Hayden [...] is a better batsman than any batsman that England has produced since Barrington.

Really? He's a big bloke who's got away with murder by using his height (and an advanced crease position) to take advantage of an era of bowling that's been rather bereft of bowlers who can get lateral movement in the air or off the pitch (to trouble him on the front foot) or steep bounce at genuine pace (to expose his lack of back-foot prowess).

In terms of talent... Gower had stacks more than Hayden... but he had more than most. As an opener... Boycott was far superior: get Hayden on the lumpy pitches that Boycott played on in England... or up against the WI attacks that Boycott faced... and you'd be looking at a record more like that of (at best) Gooch.

Hayden is routinely elevated to a status he doesn't deserve: effective, yes; in the same elevated class as Slater? NO!