Where does Hussey rate?

[Tazwegian]

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.

I don't mind the idea of taking them at their peak. Cricket is harsh, because unlike AFL, a player is often judged over their career because we can easily track a career batting average, which there is nothing similar to in many, or possibly most, other team sports. Ben Cousins is not remembered and compared to other players from his Richmond days, but for his West Coast days when he was at his best. Koudifidis is remembered and compared to other players for his early years, not his late ones. Same with Wayne Carey, Brereton and so on. That's fair enough.

But the peak has to be a reasonable expanse of time. I remember an article on cricinfo which ranked players as per their best 52 match streak, so they could be compared to The Don. Ponting was second to Don, averaging 70 in that period, Kallis was next, and Tendulkar was a little way down. But you wouldn't know how good Ponting's peak was just by looking at his (still very good) career average. His form slump at the end killed it a bit. I think 52 games gives a more than sufficient peak period to compare players in tests. But to be valid, the peak period really has to be more than a year. Maybe a four - five year peak would be fair. A player surely can't be considered great just because he had one amazing year, and was mediocre the rest of the time.

 

[Black Diamond]

Maybe a four - five year peak would be fair. A player surely can't be considered great just because he had one amazing year, and was mediocre the rest of the time.

Check this out: http://www.relianceiccrankings.com/faq.php

It would seem there is no minimum number of games to qualify and that a player could potentially accumulate enough points in just one year to rocket up the rankings.

 

[LukasTheGreat]

Excluding a series or two, always seemed in form aswell.. Always made runs

 

[The Casey Cat]

Rates very highly. Saved our @$$es time and time again. Not sure I have ever seen a more versatile batsmen either. Could anchor himself in and allow the man at the other end to attack and then flick the switch and score a run a ball himself (or start that way). Magnificent cricketer we will miss him dearly and miss the terrific example he sets even more. If he is interested he should be our fielding coach for as long as he wants the position.

 

[Tazwegian]

Check this out: http://www.relianceiccrankings.com/faq.php

It would seem there is no minimum number of games to qualify and that a player could potentially accumulate enough points in just one year to rocket up the rankings.

Yeah, that system is not meant to rank players over a career. It is designed to give a current ranking. The "all time" list is merely a list of the highest ranking scores ever achieved, not a career ranking.

 

[RooBoyz24]

Great Batsman and always gave his all to Australian Cricket.Easily in the Top 10 and will leave a massive hole in the middle order.Enjoy time with family and i hope he helps out WA cricket with Justin langer.

 

[imadodgyumpire]

If you go by my reasoning, categorising player into four groups. They are legends, superstars, jouneymen, fill ins. I would put Hussey in the superstar class. He's obviously produced alot immense results, nut I'm not sure he's been/made a difference for long/often enough, like a legend would. I've always seen him as a supplementry player to a dominant one (Hayden, Ponting, Clarke). His passion for cricket is awesome. He was a bit mentally fragile, and he let it get him down for too long. Outstanding cricket player.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

He was a bit mentally fragile

Elaborate?

 

[imadodgyumpire]

Elaborate?

Just wait. I'm writing something else.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

I'd be taking Hussey over Bevan in ODI cricket

Bevan was a star in a chase, particularly when the team had crumbled around him. However one got the feeling Bevan represented Michael Bevan 232 times, not his country - playing too often for his average and not trying to accelerate the scoring rates.

Hussey is very adept at the chase and turning over strikes and stealing singles - but was also quality at clearing pickets.

Given the choice between the two in ODI cricket - I'd be taking Hussey

 

[Tazwegian]

I'd be taking Hussey over Bevan in ODI cricket

Bevan was a star in a chase, particularly when the team had crumbled around him. However one got the feeling Bevan represented Michael Bevan 232 times, not his country - playing too often for his average and not trying to accelerate the scoring rates.

Not for mine. I don't agree that Bevo was selfish, he just wasn't a big hitting closer. Could still tick the score over nicely, but was never really the best player to have around in the last ten overs of a first innings when you are trying to set a big total. Hussey definitely is better in that regard, but Bevan was outstanding to have in your team because he so rarely failed.

Regardless, they are both legends of the ODI arena and it really comes down to what attributes you favour when selecting who is better than who when it comes to guys of their class. You could mount a very convincing argument for any of Ponting, Gilly, Mark Waugh, Dean Jones, Michael Bevan, Greg Chappell and Michael Hussey as being the greatest Australian ODI batsmen of all time.

 

[Underarm]

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.



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

Those icc rankings are at their peak, over 12 months or something like that. It implies that at his peak, he was a better performer than Tendulkar at his peak, but seldom would people try arguing Hussey > Tendulkar.

 

[imadodgyumpire]

Elaborate?

He is a beast of a player. There were just periods of his career, where it seemed a 50 was a massive achievement. An incredible first few years, has been countered since where he's been carried, even been a liabilty. There was never any reason for this, it can only be mental. There was nothing to suggest he was going to do anything in the 10-11 Ashes, for the the previous 2-3 years. Then, when his head's on the block, pulls 195 out of his backside. During lean times, he came acoss as easy meat for opposition bowlers.

 

[Rocky_Star_Pro]

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

I knew that match was fixed. But fixed or not, Hussey's innings saved our asses regardless

 

[Kram]

However one got the feeling Bevan represented Michael Bevan 232 times, not his country - playing too often for his average and not trying to accelerate the scoring rates.

Once on the last ball of an innings when Australia were setting a total he refused to chance a risky single and just sent the tail end batsman back, seriously couldn't believe it. Don't wanna risk missing that not out

 

[Black Diamond]

Those icc rankings are at their peak, over 12 months or something like that. It implies that at his peak, he was a better performer than Tendulkar at his peak, but seldom would people try arguing Hussey > Tendulkar.

I know. There is a long discussion about it in this thread already.

 

[dan warna]

I rate hussey as a great, behind punter, border and waugh in the current era.
SHOULD be equal of them.
SHOULD have been selected in the 2005 ashes series. He was in scintillating form and was easily better than Martyn , michael clarke (then), langer, haydo's and katich.
In fact Hodge and Hussey WOULD have been the difference in such a close games. Even hayden was ordinary. Mrtyns selection on form was a joke.
leaving hussey out and to a lesser degree hodge and Mcgrath's injury cost us the series in.
the selectors were adamant on proving they were correct and completely inflexible.
This sort of rubbish continued for much of the rest of the decade.

 

[Black Diamond]

Mrtyns selection on form was a joke.

You must be getting him confused with somebody else. Martyn's selection for the 2005 Ashes was completely justified.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...4;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

 

[Gough]

Never the most talented player in the side but with a work ethic and consistency that couldn't be faulted. I would imagine with Langer as coach and Hussey as captain, West Australian cricket should get their shit together in a hurry.

 

[dan warna]

ah my memory fails me, I remember martyn averaging negligible numbers in FC cricket leading up to the ashes selection.
thanks for the correction

 

[damochandler]

martyns form in the lead up to the ashes was sublime. he was playing better than ponting. he was the scapegoat for that series. katich was in good touch as well.

 

[Slax]

Solid Test player, not in the top 6 I've seen play, but above Martyn & Langer. On with Hayden

 

[The Falcon Strike]

One thing with Huss, and he isn't on his pat malone here, he was a far better test cricketer than he was a shield cricketer.

He was a top quality shield cricketer, but not one you sit back and go 'wow' this guy is going to be a star at test cricket

I always thought he could hold down a spot - but averaging over 50 in test cricket I would never have guessed.

I look back at our lat 90's batting line-up of

Campbell
Hussey
Langer
Martyn
Moody
Katich
Gilchrist
Hogg
Julian

That batting line-up would be the equal of most gun test sides


then i look at our current line-up and sigh.

 

[Tazwegian]

You must be getting him confused with somebody else. Martyn's selection for the 2005 Ashes was completely justified.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/6513.html?class=1;spanmax1=1 may 2005;spanmin1=10 jan 2004;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

I found that Martyn was underrated for so much of his career. People seemed to be writing him off unjustifiably for almost the entire time he was in the team. A bit like Clarke in that sense. Interesting to see that people still view Martyn's career in the same way even after he retired. He was a very good player, no doubt about that in my mind.

 

[Tazwegian]

One thing with Huss, and he isn't on his pat malone here, he was a far better test cricketer than he was a shield cricketer.

He was a top quality shield cricketer, but not one you sit back and go 'wow' this guy is going to be a star at test cricket

I always thought he could hold down a spot - but averaging over 50 in test cricket I would never have guessed.

I look back at our lat 90's batting line-up of

Campbell
Hussey
Langer
Martyn
Moody
Katich
Gilchrist
Hogg
Julian

That batting line-up would be the equal of most gun test sides


then i look at our current line-up and sigh.

That's a great line up. Australian cricket is strong when WA is strong. I am sure it won't be long until you guys are producing good cricketers again.