Where does Hussey rate?

[Black Diamond]

He's up there. I reckon Martyn's best was ahead of Hussey's, but Mike was a little more consistent for a longer period.

Disagree on the consistency front. Hussey averages 51 from 7 years. I doubt you could bracket a seven year period of Martyn's career and find those types of figures. In fact, I don't think Martyn even held his spot in the test side for a full 7 consecutive years (I say this as a huge Martyn fan).

 

[Kyptastic]

Disagree on the consistency front. Hussey averages 51 from 7 years. I doubt you could bracket a seven year period of Martyn's career and find those types of figures. In fact, I don't think Martyn even held his spot in the test side for a full 7 consecutive years (I say this as a huge Martyn fan).

I just feel that Martyn's 2004 in Sri Lanka and India was some of the best performances by an Australian batsman I've seen, which is I rate him a little higher. You're right in that Hussey's was far more consistent and ruthless, which probably puts him ahead for most people.

 

[Zach Package]

WOULD HAVE (not might have) joined the 10,000 run club had he not been stuck behind guys like mark waugh, martyn, lehmann and also hayden, langer and elliott.

I rate him incredibly highly, and along with lehmann, reckon he would have been an all time great had he been born into another era.

Also one of the nicest blokes you will ever meet

 

[The_Reaper]

Great ODI player and a very good test player.

 

[OrdinaryJoel]

He would've been in the same discussions with Sanga, Laxman, Kallis etc. if he was debut in International Cricket earlier in his career.

An absolute star in my eyes, and one of the best in the modern era.

 

[Cooldude]

Oh he was good, up there with most of our top batsmen of the past 20 years

I remember when he first came in, he was versatile as heck, he would block for 10 off 70 odd balls, then score a century that's off 150 balls. He could tough it out, and when he wanted to turn it on he was unstoppable

Still remember that century he got batting with Macgill and McGrath at the MCG against the Saffers, was it? That was absolutely extraordinary, he was on nothing and got a ton batting with two bunnies

 

[The Falcon Strike]

He should be arrested for crimes against cricket for retiring his cover drive too soon!

 

[Cooldude]

Absolutely fantastic fielder at any position, too. Seriously can't remember him dropping any catches, he was safe as a house. Certainly took a heck lot of blinders, too

Amazing cricketer

 

[Black Diamond]

Still remember that century he got batting with Macgill and McGrath at the MCG against the Saffers, was it? That was absolutely extraordinary, he was on nothing and got a ton batting with two bunnies

One that is often overlooked is the hundred he scored at the Adelaide Oval against the West Indies earlier that summer. He was coming off a hundred in his second game at Hobart. Clarke was dropped, Langer came back in from injury and Hussey was shifted to five. We had a middle/lower order collapse and he rocketed to 133 not out putting together sizeable partnerships with MacGill and McGrath.

One of his other more memorable performances was the third test of the 2006-07 Ashes at the WACA. He held it together for us after a minor collapse in the first innings, and then scored a lively hundred in the second (which was largely overshadowed by the Clarke and Gilchrist partnership which saw the latter score one of the fastest centuries in test cricket).

 

[Tazwegian]

He'll finish with a Test average around 51, a ODI average of 48 and a T20I average of 38.

He'll have played 79 Tests, 185 ODIs and 38 T20Is.

That on its own would suggest he is actually one of our great batsmen. But he's never really been renowned as such. Why not? Is it because he started late?

Deserves to be rated in the same breathe as Ponting, Chappell, Waugh and Hayden. He is a bit Waugh like, for mine. He never acheived the amazing feats of a Ponting, Bradman or a Clarke, but was ultra-consistent apart from a couple of down periods, and performed best when most needed.

He'd be top 7 Australian batsmen of all time for mine:

D. Bradman
R. Ponting
G. Chappell
A. Border
S. Waugh
M. Hayden
M. Clarke
M. Hussey

Something like that. He'd obviously be higher in the ODI rankings:

M. Bevan
R. Ponting
M. Waugh
D. Jones
M. Hussey
A. Gilchrist

The sheer weight of numbers of these other batsmen is what tops them over Hussey. Ponting and Hussey will finish pretty close on average, but average is only part of the story. Ponting scored more than double the centuries, way over double the runs, and did so from a higher batting position for most of his career plus the burden of captaincy. Hussey also came into the team in his peak, whereas guys like Ponting, Waugh, and Clarke were playing test cricket well before their peak, and still learning the ropes at that level. All that has to be taken into consideration when ranking players.

 

[Black Diamond]

Deserves to be rated in the same breathe as Ponting, Chappell, Waugh and Hayden. He is a bit Waugh like, for mine. He never acheived the amazing feats of a Ponting, Bradman or a Clarke, but was ultra-consistent apart from a couple of down periods, and performed best when most needed.

He'd be top 7 Australian batsmen of all time for mine:

D. Bradman
R. Ponting
G. Chappell
A. Border
S. Waugh
M. Hayden
M. Clarke
M. Hussey

The ICC ranks him 17th of all time equal with Neil Harvey. The Australian's ahead on that list are Bradman, Ponting, Hayden and Walters.

Something like that. He'd obviously be higher in the ODI rankings:

M. Bevan
R. Ponting
D. Jones
M. Hussey
A. Gilchrist

19th of all time on the ODI rankings behind Chappell, Jones, Bevan and Wessels. Just saying for interest sake.

 

[Kyptastic]

Wouldn't have Hussey's that high on the all time list. Harvey and Trumper definitely rate a mention ahead of him at the very least.

 

[Tazwegian]

The ICC rank him 17th of all time equal with Neil Harvey. The Australian's ahead on that list are Bradman, Ponting, Hayden and Walters.

That's cool. The ICC rankings aren't the be and end all. I added more info to my original post, hopefully that should help you come to understand why I rank him where I do.

 

[Black Diamond]

That's cool. The ICC rankings aren't the be and end all. I added more info to my original post, hopefully that should help you come to understand why I rank him where I do.

I know mate. That's why I said "for interest sake". I've just had a read of that extra paragraph and I tend to agree.

 

[Tazwegian]

I know mate. That's why I said "for interest sake". I've just had a read of that extra paragraph and I tend to agree.

My ratings are probably a little skewed towards modern day players. Harvey's record is outstanding, 21 centuries from 79 tests is simply incredible. However, I do tend to think that despite all the claims of "dodgy pictches", thinner bats, longer boundries, and no helmets, batting was actually easier in those days. The old scorecards seem to suggest so anyway. Not sure how many tests the Don played in that the first innings total was less than three hundred. 9 out of the top 10 all time highest batting averages were from players playing between the 30s and 70s, with Hobbes being the only one who didn't play predominantly in that era and he is tenth on the list and he finished playing in 1930. So Miller's record has to be seen in that light also. But still, it is outstanding and he would probably be next after Hussey in my rankings.

The sheer weight of Hussey's match winning performances also puts him ahead too. A lot of Hussey's runs came when Australia most needed them. That is outstanding really. Just a pure classy player

 

[Tazwegian]

Wouldn't have Hussey's that high on the all time list. Harvey and Trumper definitely rate a mention ahead of him at the very least.

What about Trumper's record would you say warrants him being ahead of Hussey, out of interest? It is pretty poor, really. Average of less than 40, only 48 tests, only 8 hundreds and 13 fifties. That puts him way down the list. He'd be below Boony and probably even Mark Waugh in my estimation. I know he is spoken of highly by commentators, but I am not seeing anything worthy of him being rated very highly at all.

 

[Rocky_Star_Pro]

I still remember that test game against Pakistan at the SCG in 2010 where we were 8-250 odd and only led by 40 so runs. Huss with help from Siddle managed to put on 123 in the 9th wicket partnership and Hussey eventually making 134, saved our asses again and we ended up bowling Pakistan out and winning. That game was what Mike Hussey is all about and what we will miss from him, he would always come to the rescue when needed. Gonna miss him

 

[Tazwegian]

19th of all time on the ODI rankings behind Chappell, Jones, Bevan and Wessels. Just saying for interest sake.

I know I am writing a lot, but I missed this quote the first time.

Wessels shouldn't be mentioned in the same breathe as Bevan, Ponting, Mark Waugh, Jones, or Hussey. Not sure what they were on when they made that list.

Bevan's record speaks for itself.

Ponting is next after Bevan. Big game player, an incredible 30 centuries (easily the most by any Australian), excellent strike rate for a number 3 batsmen, and to cap it off he did this while being the best ODI captain of all time (hard to argue against). Deservedly number 2.

Mark Waugh is very underrated in ODIs. His average of 39 isn't outstanding, but 18 centuries puts him right up there for mine. His strike rate of 76 was also outstanding for his time.

Dean Jones - The best one day batsmen of his time.

Then it has to be Hussey here. Amazing average, could turn on the runs when needed, a rescue specialist like Michael Bevan.

Chappell and Wessels don't rate for mine in the ODI arena. I'd have Gilly over both without even blinking. Wessels wouldn't be close to Michael Clarke, let alone Hussey. I might only just put him over David Hussey (probably not though

 

[Black Diamond]

I still remember that test game against Pakistan at the SCG in 2010 where we were 8-250 odd and only led by 40 so runs. Huss with help from Siddle managed to put on 123 in the 9th wicket partnership and Hussey eventually making 134, saved our asses again and we ended up bowling Pakistan out and winning. That game was what Mike Hussey is all about and what we will miss from him, he would always come to the rescue when needed. Gonna miss him

Are you aware of the subsequent controversy from that game?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistani_cricket_team_in_Australia_in_2009–10#2nd_Test
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazhar_Majeed#Allegations_of_match_fixing

 

[Kyptastic]

What about Trumper's record would you say warrants him being ahead of Hussey, out of interest? It is pretty poor, really. Average of less than 40, only 48 tests, only 8 hundreds and 13 fifties. That puts him way down the list. He'd be below Boony and probably even Mark Waugh in my estimation. I know he is spoken of highly by commentators, but I am not seeing anything worthy of him being rated very highly at all.

You have to take into account the conditions pre First World War - in particular uncovered pitches. An average of 40 back then is equal to at least 50 these days. Trumper was also a master of batting on the sticky. Furthermore, pretty much all his contemparies rate him as the best batsman they'd seen. It's difficult and unfair to compare batsmen across era's, but I think it's pretty safe to rate Trumper ahead of Hussey.

 

[Black Diamond]

What about Trumper's record would you say warrants him being ahead of Hussey, out of interest? It is pretty poor, really. Average of less than 40, only 48 tests, only 8 hundreds and 13 fifties. That puts him way down the list. He'd be below Boony and probably even Mark Waugh in my estimation. I know he is spoken of highly by commentators, but I am not seeing anything worthy of him being rated very highly at all.

It's a good question about Trumper. All we really have is anecdotal evidence and his raw numbers. Why is Trumper rated so highly compared to somebody like Clem Hill, particularly when their raw numbers are much the same (right down to date of birth)? I can't recall exactly where I read this, but Trumper was a very good player on particularly dodgy wickets, and he provided quite a spectacular image as a batsman which has added to his reputation. Perhaps even passing away so young helped his legend grow? This is what Cricinfo has to say which sums up what I've seen elsewhere:

He was great under all conditions of weather and ground. He could play quite an orthodox game when he wished to, but it was his ability to make big scores when orthodox methods were unavailing that lifted him above his fellows.
For this reason Trumper was, in proportion, more to be feared on treacherous wickets than on fast, true ones. No matter how bad the pitch might be from the combined effects of rain and sunshine, he was quite likely to get 50 runs, his skill in pulling good-length balls amounting to genius. Of this fact our English bowlers had convincing evidence day after day during the season of 1902. Trumper paid four visits to this country - in 1899, 1902, 1905, and 1909 - but it was in 1902 that he reached his highest point.

 

[Tazwegian]

You have to take into account the conditions pre First World War - in particular uncovered pitches. An average of 40 back then is equal to at least 50 these days. Trumper was also a master of batting on the sticky. Furthermore, pretty much all his contemparies rate him as the best batsman they'd seen. It's difficult and unfair to compare batsmen across era's, but I think it's pretty safe to rate Trumper ahead of Hussey.

That still puts him below Hussey, and Hobbes must be easily the best since Bradman, because he managed to average 56 in his day. More than Tendulkar in this era. Maybe Hobbes should be considered 2nd to Bradman. He'd be worthy.

I agree the pre-WW1 era was a low average era, the highest average era seems to be the 30s-70s. This era is about average, maybe a touch above. But just a quick search brought up a few guys with a similar record to Trumper's from that era. Then you had CP Meade and FS Jackson averaging just a touch under 50 in the same era. I don't really see anything that makes Trumper jump out. There is no way I'd have him above Hussey based on the evidence at hand.

 

[Black Diamond]

I know I am writing a lot, but I missed this quote the first time.

Wessels shouldn't be mentioned in the same breathe as Bevan, Ponting, Mark Waugh, Jones, or Hussey. Not sure what they were on when they made that list.

They take into all factors including quality of opposition, pitch and weather, team total etc. Wessels did some good things in ODI cricket and was pretty good against the West Indies in the mid-eighties which pushes his ranking up.

Ponting is next after Bevan. Big game player, an incredible 30 centuries (easily the most by any Australian), excellent strike rate for a number 3 batsmen, and to cap it off he did this while being the best ODI captain of all time (hard to argue against). Deservedly number 2.

Agreed.

Mark Waugh is very underrated in ODIs. His average of 39 isn't outstanding, but 18 centuries puts him right up there for mine. His strike rate of 76 was also outstanding for his time.

He was excellent. He would open in my all time ODI Australian team with Gilchrist.

Chappell and Wessels don't rate for mine in the ODI arena. I'd have Gilly over both without even blinking. Wessels wouldn't be close to Michael Clarke, let alone Hussey.

Greg Chappell was a very good ODI batsman. It's very hard to compare given all the rule changes over the years but he was comfortably our best for many years (he retired a few years before I was born, so I'm going on stats and the word of people who I consider good judges).

 

[Tazwegian]

Greg Chappell was a very good ODI batsman. It's very hard to compare giving all the rule changes over the years but he was comfortably our best for many years (he retired a few years before I was born, so I'm going on stats and the word of people who I consider good judges).

He was very good. What I wrote seemed a bit harsh when I reread it. I didn't mean to suggest that he would be too far out of the guys I listed, probably even just below Gilly. I don't see the appeal of Wessels though. Quality opposition or not, the guy made one century, had a strike rate of 55 (I know SRs were a lot lower back then, but that is abysmal even for that era), and an average of 34 (which was admittedly reasonably good for the era). Hard to mount a case for the guy.

 

[Black Diamond]

He was very good. What I wrote seemed a bit harsh when I reread it. I didn't mean to suggest that he would be too far out of the guys I listed, probably even just below Gilly. I don't see the appeal of Wessels though. Quality opposition or not, the guy made one century, had a strike rate of 55 (I know SRs were a lot lower back then, but that is abysmal even for that era), and an average of 34 (which was admittedly reasonably good for the era). Hard to mount a case for the guy.

Definitely hard to mount a case. The thing about the rankings though is they seem to be a very sober and passionless measurement and don't take into account reputations. On the down side they are a ranking of players' "peaks" rather than an entire career. For example, Hussey was 17th in all time test rankings in 2008. His form slump from '08-09 to late 2009 doesn't affect his all time ranking at all, only his present day ranking. Wessels achieved his "peak" in 1985 just three years after making his ODI debut. His subsequent dips in form don't detract from his "peak" and therefore he maintains his all-time ranking. In other words, at his all-time best Wessels was right up there, but whether his career warrants that ranking is up to you.