How Good is Michael Hussey?

[Quagmire]

Looking at the performances from Michael Hussey since he has entered international cricket and he is averaging just under 80 in tests after 26 innings 1597 runs with 5 tons and 8 fifties. Quickest player to get to 1000 test runs in the history of test cricket. Once his career is over can he bridge the gap between Bradman and the rest of the pack.

After 30 innings

1. Bradman - 99.94 (80 innings)
2. Pollock - 60.97 (41 innings)
3. Headley - 60.83 (40 innings)
4. Sutcliffe - 60.73 (84 innings)
5. Ponting - 59.29 (183 innings)

After 25 innings

1. Bradman -99.94 (80 innings)
2. Hussey - 79.85 (26 innings)
3. Pollock - 60.97 (41 innings)
4. Headley - 60.83 (40 innings)
5. Sutcliffe - 60.73 (84 innings)

My question is that at the end of his career who will he be compared too?

Please dont argue with little things like where different batsman should be in because its impossible to do because everyone has different opinions.

[John]

Good enough to play for South Africa.

[greg]

We need to remember that Jimmy Adams averaged 66.1 after 24 tests and ended his career averaging 41.26 after 54 matches.I am not saying that Hussey will drop off as dramatically but we need to wait another couple of years to see where he is at then before we judge him.

After all he hasn't toured in asia yet which will be a decent test for him and has only played 16 tests so far.

[KennyG]

Originally Posted by John

Good enough to play for South Africa.

Good enough to be South Africas' top six.

It depends on how long Hussey plays.
If he stopped playing now he would could live off an undeserved reputation just like G.Pollock and B.Richards.
I would say he would end up with a high 50s' test average at least.

[Milo]

Undesreved? Why?

Pollock played only four test matches after his 21st birthday, and Richards showed when he came to your country in 1971 and scored over 1000 runs for SA at over 100 how good he was. Test cricket actually missed their prime (unlike many cricketers). Richards even turned up at World Series and showed how good he was.

To suggest that the ban actually gave them undeserved reputations is baffling??

[KennyG]

Good bowlers usually figure you out if you play them often enough.
When they should have been playing their was a boatload of great bowlers around.

You can only be considered a great if you perform in different conditions for an extended period of time at the highest level.
They did not get the chance to prove themselves great unfortunatly.

Mark Taylor had a great start to his career against England.
Greg Blewett scored a ton in each of his first two test matches.
If they stopped they would have been hailed as greats and we would have said what a pity we did not see the best of them.

If Pollock and Richards had stuck around for a while their numbers would not have stayed up.

[Milo]

Originally Posted by KennyG

You can only be considered a great if you perform in different conditions for an extended period of time at the highest level.
.

I cannot agree with this as a hard and fast rule, I'm afraid. It is this argument (one I have always refuted) that Asians use for criticising the greatness of Bradman and also Lillee.

When the West Indian and Australian rebels went to South Africa (Clarke, Croft, Hogg, Alderman, Rackemann - all very good bowlers), Pollock almost in his 40s showed his early test career was far from a Blewett like purple patch. The same goes for Barry Richards - World series cricket showed that he was still able to excel at the top ten years down the line. We have enough evidence to suggest they were great batsmen.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by KennyG

They did not get the chance to prove themselves great unfortunatly.

If Pollock and Richards had stuck around for a while their numbers would not have stayed up.

My good man, you do seem to contradict yourself woefully here... Think about it...

You say: They could have been great, if they had the chance proof it. Yet you also say they would NOT have been great HAD they had the chance to proof it??

[KennyG]

Originally Posted by Milo 128507

I cannot agree with this as a hard and fast rule, I'm afraid. It is this argument (one I have always refuted) that Asians use for criticising the greatness of Bradman and also Lillee.

When the West Indian and Australian rebels went to South Africa (Clarke, Croft, Hogg, Alderman, Rackemann - all very good bowlers), Pollock almost in his 40s showed his early test career was far from a Blewett like purple patch. The same goes for Barry Richards - World series cricket showed that he was still able to excel at the top ten years down the line. We have enough evidence to suggest they were great batsmen.

McGrath had a great record in Asia.

Those rebel bowlers you mention were nearing the end of their careers or were ordinary.
I did not say Pollock and Richards were not good, they were,they were not great.
Through no fault of their own they don't have the long records to say they were great.

Originally Posted by Wanderer 128511

You say: They could have been great, if they had the chance proof it. Yet you also say they would NOT have been great HAD they had the chance to proof it??

1st sentance.
Proof.
It was unfortunate they did not get the chance to prove themselves as great,so without the proof, they are not.
They would have been good but not seen in the near god like reverance they are now.
Would we worship Maralyn or J.Dean if we could see what they looked like as 70 year olds?

2nd sentance
Its an opinion derived from my reasoning.

They are overated pretty much like all South African cricket is.
Two batsmen with less than 3000 test runs between them are not greats whatever the circumstances.

[Mr Hutt]

I will try to make my point simply

Hussey is to Australia what Tendulkar is to India

he is a genius... whatever reason he was kept out for so long is just not justifiable.