Where does Hussey rate?

[Tazwegian]

Persisting in rating Clem Hill as better than Trumper just shows your ignorance.

Trolling aside, it really depends what you prefer. I prefer consistency over flashiness. That's why I rate Clem over Trumper - based on stats. Which is all any of us can really validly use as a way to rate any of these players we haven't seen, in my opinion. Clem contributed more often, Trumper played a handfull of amazing innings, but didn't contribute as often as Clem. Trumper was indeed a match winner, going by his scorecard. Whereas Clem Hill could also win matches, but was more of an even contributer for the most part.

 

[Caesar]

That's just part and parcel of being a Test opener in those days. Sometimes you had to open on a virtually unplayable wicket.

If you look at Trumper's Shield record, he was just as consistent as Clem Hill.

 

[crownie]

Kallis isn't a batsman, he is an all-rounder.

Also, Tazwegian is a genius. He has proven my argument from a few pages back about how stupid it is to compare players you haven't seen.

yayayaya, my point was why Ponting was chosen over Kallis as the cricketer of the decade.

i have seen both Ponting and Kallis play

 

[Sprout]

Whoever C. Hill is, I'd put him above Trumper.

lol.....oh dear.

Taz, you'd do yourself a great service by visiting the cricket museum in Bowral. If you can pull yourself away from cricinfo for long enough.

 

[courtjester]

Also, Tazwegian is a genius. He has proven my argument from a few pages back about how stupid it is to compare players you haven't seen.

Bullshit. People who understand the game's history and read about past players are able to make sound comparisons.

 

[Tazwegian]

lol.....oh dear.

Taz, you'd do yourself a great service by visiting the cricket museum in Bowral. If you can pull yourself away from cricinfo for long enough.

What will that achieve? All those players are long dead, but their scorecards still stand. People don't rate Kallis as the best current batsmen because he looks good when he plays his shots, they rate him because he makes scores extremely often. Don't need to see dusty old photos and listen to old romantics waffle away, to form a valid (more valid) opinion of a player's output as a batsmen. Cricinfo > museum.

 

[courtjester]

What will that achieve? All those players are long dead, but their scorecards still stand. People don't rate Kallis as the best current batsmen because he looks good when he plays his shots, they rate him because he makes scores extremely often. Don't need to see dusty old photos and listen to old romantics waffle away, to form a valid (more valid) opinion of a player's output as a batsmen. Cricinfo > museum.

Understanding the game's history/reading the opinions of people who played with older players > cricinfo

 

[Tazwegian]

Understanding the game's history/reading the opinions of people who played with older players > cricinfo

Cricinfo has a complete set of objective data, people tend to have biased opinions, poor memories, and irrational thought processes. Give me objective data any day of the week.

 

[courtjester]

Cricinfo has a complete set of objective data, people tend to have biased opinions, poor memories, and irrational thought processes. Give me objective data any day of the week.

So you'd rank all cricketers through history purely on the basis of their statistical record?

 

[Caesar]

If not placed into context, statistics are at best meaningless and at worst downright misleading.

 

[Tazwegian]

So you'd rank all cricketers through history purely on the basis of their statistical record?

Not purely, but if I hear a claim like "Trumper played his best when his team needed him", I'd go back and look at the scorecards, I'd look for myself to verify that claim. And being serious for a moment, you can see im the scorecards some terrific innings. Like that lone hand he played against South Africa where he scored 214 in the first innings in quick time, whilst nobody else could really stand up. But then I look at all the other times, which were far more frequent, that he didn't stand up when his team needed him (like the second innings of that same game - which Australia lost, btw), and I would say that the original claim isn't really all that valid.

It is important to place statistics in context, and that is what I have been doing. But if statistics out of context can be misleading, so can other people's opinions. I'd trust my ability to see for myself, objectively, what Trumper achieved, over someone else's subjective opinion.

The records reveal that, on his day, Trumper could win a match of his own accord, or at least keep Australia from losing embarrassingly, which was more often the case with his big scores. But they also reveal he was very inconsistent, and only really had a couple of outstanding series. His best series statistically was also played on a really flat deck. That's where his only 200+ score came from. His next best score, 185* came on a the same deck where a pom made 287 in the first innings. These were hardly minefields. Again Australia lost that game. Maybe they would have won if he made more than 1 in the first innings.

Besides word of mouth from old timers, who are probably biased by the romance of the era and Trumper's unfortunate untimely demise, a detailed look at what he achieved shows that he, in my opinion, should be rated below Hussey. He was very good in a time that Australia was very bad, but so was the reliable Clem Hill.

 

[Dan Cooper]

Neil Harvey is generally regarded as an Australian great. He's in the Hall of Fame. He was in the Australian team of the century.

His average over four tours of England was just under 34. Hussey's average in his only Ashes tour was 34.50.

In fact, Harvey's average of 48.41 is a result of smashing South Africa and India. Which would make him nothing special in terms of Test matches either, by your terms. So, is Hussey deserving of similar accolades to Harvey? Or would they both be undeserving?

Neil Harvey: 85 not out today.

 

[the_interloper]

So you'd rank all cricketers through history purely on the basis of their statistical record?

You can't do this obviously, but I think cricket generally out of all sports lends itself to statistical analysis better than most sports. Hard to purely compare players across eras but if you compare players relative to their peers at the time you get a good gauge on their greatness.

FWIW Richie Benaud picked Sydney Barnes in his Test team of all time without ever seeing him play or video footage either, if it's good enough for him...