Where does Hussey rate?

[Phone]

seen some pretty amazing stuff over the last 20 odd posts

 

[Tazwegian]

Whoever C. Hill is, I'd put him above Trumper. Seems like less of a squib. Better average in the tougher era, way less ducks. Contributed more than Trumper in that era.

 

[Tazwegian]

Whoever C. Hill is, I'd put him above Trumper. Seems like less of a squib. Better average in the tougher era, way less ducks. Contributed more than Trumper in that era.

Clem Hill for the win. Compare his record to Trumper's.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/player/5662.html

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/player/7980.html

The only thing Trumper has on Hill is that he score one more century. But Clem managed to put a decent score on the bored 26 times compared to Trumper's 21 and Clem has the better average. Trumper was a glory hog, Clem Hill got the job done more often - contributed more often.

 

[The Speaker]

Not even close to being true. Do the filter.

1/11900 - 31/12/1909

Hon.FS Jackson (Eng) 1902-1905 10 17 3 803 144* 57.35 3 4 2

J Sharp (Eng) 1909-1909 3 6 2 188 105 47.00 1 1 0

RE Foster (Eng) 1903-1907 8 14 1 602 287 46.30 1 1 1

VS Ransford (Aus) 1907-1909 10 19 4 641 143* 42.73 1 3 0

MJ Hartigan (Aus) 1908-1908 2 4 0 170 116 42.50 1 0 0

G Gunn (Eng) 1907-1909 6 12 1 463 122* 42.09 2 2 3

W Bardsley (Aus) 1909-1909 5 10 0 396 136 39.60 2 0 1

C Hill (Aus) 1901-1908 28 52 2 1930 160 38.60 3 11 3

AW Nourse (SA) 1902-1907 11 19 5 531 93* 37.92 0 5 0

CB Fry (Eng) 1902-1909 13 22 3 714 144 37.57 2 3 3

JB Hobbs (Eng) 1908-1909 7 14 2 434 83 36.16 0 4 2

RA Duff (Aus) 1902-1905 22 40 3 1317 146 35.59 2 6 0

GC White (SA) 1906-1907 8 14 1 452 147 34.76 1 2 1

VT Trumper (Aus) 1901-1909 33 61 4 1953 185* 34.26 4 9 6

In the period where he played the majority of his career, he was well down the list of averages.

I apologise. I took that from an otherwise excellent article on Trumper. I presume the author had a qualification to that statement that he left out.

Having said that, that list is far from ordinary for the time.

He did make the most amount of runs in this period, but only because he played more tests than anyone else.

Have you considered why he would've played so many Tests if he was so ordinary?

Hilariously, a certain bloke called C Hill, made only 23 less runs than Trumper in this era. From five less tests, with an average of more than four runs better. Is he better than Hussey too? Anyone want to argue C Hill is an all time great?

Well at least you've confirmed one thing - you don't know your cricket.

That "certain bloke called C Hill" is Clem Hill, one of Australia's greats and a member of the Hall of Fame.

Not even close to being the best batsmen of this era for mine.

It's your word, looking at numbers from a very shallow angle a hundred years after he played, versus his contemporaries who consistently called him one of the best of their time.

I would think those that watched him play would be more reliable than you.

 

[Caesar]

Then Trumper doesn't have a comparible average for the 1910s. The only era where he was half decent. Way to own your own argument.

lol. You've got to be shitting me. So you're going to invalidate the guy's average by picking a wholly arbitrary timeframe whereby you can narrow down his number of innings to an excludable amount? Creative. Nonsensical, but creative.

Lettuce be cereal. The guy was universally recognised during his time as one of the greatest batsmen of the Golden Age. He played almost twice as many Test matches as any almost other leading batsman, under all manner of conditions, with far more overseas tours than most players managed, against a powerhouse English side with one of the world's greatest-ever bowling attacks, and still maintained one of the highest averages of the era.

The fact that you think you can point to modern averages and claim that this makes players like Hayden superior to him is... well, it's fantasy land stuff. You're either the world's greatest comedian, or the world's greatest troll.

 

[The Speaker]

lol. You've got to be shitting me. So you're going to invalidate the guy's average by picking a wholly arbitrary timeframe whereby you can narrow down his number of innings to an excludable amount? Creative. Nonsensical, but creative.

Lettuce be cereal. The guy was universally recognised during his time as one of the greatest batsmen of the Golden Age. He played almost twice as many Test matches as any almost other leading batsman, under all manner of conditions, with far more overseas tours than most players managed, against a powerhouse English side with one of the world's greatest-ever bowling attacks, and still maintained one of the highest averages of the era.

The fact that you think you can point to modern averages and claim that this makes players like Hayden superior to him is... well, it's fantasy land stuff. You're either the world's greatest comedian, or the world's greatest troll.

He deserves some credit for being obdurate enough to make me less than thorough in an effort to force him to go away quickly.

 

[Tazwegian]

lol. You've got to be shitting me. So you're going to invalidate the guy's average by picking a wholly arbitrary timeframe whereby you can narrow down his number of innings to an excludable amount? Creative. Nonsensical, but creative.

Errrm... I wasn't the one who used the argument that Trumper had the second highest average of the 1910s, then added the post hoc caveat that the number of innings had to be 20+. Which actually excludes Trumper from comparison in that era. Try to keep up.

I think I have thoroughly trounced the Trumper proponents. Clem Hill is clearly a better player from that era. Trumper's number of ducks per innings makes me want to rate him somewhere around the same area as Marcus North. Sure, Trumper was good on a few occassions, but most of the time he really sucked. Maybe the old Trumper romantics didn't watch every game, and only saw his good innings. Nothing else can explain why this guy who fell over so often could possibly be considered along side Michael Hussey.

 

[Caesar]

I think I have thoroughly trounced the Trumper proponents.

Maybe the old Trumper romantics didn't watch every game, and only saw his good innings.

Yes, those Wisden journalists are notorious for their slipshod and incomplete approach to their jobs. They're no match for Tazwegian, his laptop and their own database of statistics 100 years after the guy died.

 

[Tazwegian]

Yes, those Wisden journalists are notorious for their slipshod and incomplete approach to their jobs. They're no match for Tazwegian, his laptop and their own database of statistics 100 years after the guy died.

Facts over sensationalism any day of the week.

Check this out. Averages for the period that spanned both Hill and Trumper's careers. Even going by the 20 innings rule, Trumper is miles down the list:

AJL Hill (Eng) 1896-1896 3 4 0 251 124 62.75 1 1 0

JB Hobbs (Eng) 1908-1914 28 49 6 2465 187 57.32 5 16 3

ER Mayne (Aus) 1912-1912 2 2 1 48 25* 48.00 0 0 0

J Sharp (Eng) 1909-1909 3 6 2 188 105 47.00 1 1 0

Hon.FS Jackson (Eng) 1896-1905 18 30 4 1216 144* 46.76 4 5 3

RE Foster (Eng) 1903-1907 8 14 1 602 287 46.30 1 1 1

J Vine (Eng) 1912-1912 2 3 2 46 36 46.00 0 0 0

W Bardsley (Aus) 1909-1912 20 33 0 1490 164 45.15 5 7 4

J Worrall (Aus) 1898-1899 5 10 1 406 76 45.11 0 5 0

KS Ranjitsinhji (Eng) 1896-1902 15 26 4 989 175 44.95 2 6 2

MJ Hartigan (Aus) 1908-1908 2 4 0 170 116 42.50 1 0 0

G Gunn (Eng) 1907-1912 11 21 1 844 122* 42.20 2 6 3

GA Faulkner (SA) 1906-1912 24 45 4 1717 204 41.87 4 8 2

CP Mead (Eng) 1911-1914 9 13 1 483 117 40.25 2 1 2

C Kelleway (Aus) 1910-1912 15 24 3 832 114 39.61 2 4 1

C Hill (Aus) 1896-1912 49 89 2 3412 191 39.21 7 19 9

VT Trumper (Aus) 1899-1912 48 89 8 3163 214* 39.04 8 13 7

Then if you sort by runs scored, Hill destroys Trumper again:

C Hill (Aus) 1896-1912 49 89 2 3412 191 39.21 7 19 9

VT Trumper (Aus) 1899-1912 48 89 8 3163 214* 39.04 8 13 7

Hill > Trumper.

 

[The Speaker]

Is that meant to be proof that Trumper was no good? Everyone knows Hill was one of Australia's greats.

Well, except you, considering you didn't know who he was until today.

How exactly is a difference of .17 in averages proof of Hill "destroying" Trumper anyway?

 

[Mateyman]

Whoever C. Hill is, I'd put him above Trumper. Seems like less of a squib. Better average in the tougher era, way less ducks. Contributed more than Trumper in that era.

This gave me a great laugh

 

[Mateyman]

I haven't laughed as hard as I did reading the last 3 pages of this thread in a loooooong time. "Where does Hussey rate?", has turned into "Was Victor Trumper a squib/better than Clem Hill?"

 

[courtjester]

Haydos was a hundred making machine. I beg you guys to go and look at Trumper's scorecards. Easy to do on statsguru. Come back and try and make a compelling argument for why, despite him squibbing out for the most part, he should be rated above a guy who makes hundred as freakishly frequent as haydos.

Try and make an argument based on his actual results, not the hyperbole of long dead Trumper fans.

Hayden was found out very early in his career when there were a few genuine quicks in the opposition. He was dropped from the team because of it. As an opener he couldn't handle bowlers of the calibre of Donald, Ambrose, Bishop and Walsh. When he came back in to the team 3 years later, most of those guys were gone, and he had a field day sweeping India's spinners in 2001. His competition in terms of opening bowlers from that point for the next few years was pretty average (Gough, Caddick, Dillon, Collins, Pathan hmmm...)

Then, when we faced in England in 2005, in a series that mattered, against pretty good quality pace bowling, where was our hero opening batsman? No where to be seen.

Now I wouldn't label anyone who plays top level cricket a "squib", but in my eyes, Hayden is about as close as it gets. Failed against top quality quicks when it mattered, yet talked a lot of shit against average opposition, and filled his boots when things were NOT tough.

Trumper played in an era WHEN BATTING WAS INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT. You cannot compare Trumper to Hobbs. Pitch preparation changed massively over Hobb's career. Look at the careers of anyone WHO ACTUALLY PLAYED IN TRUMPERS ERA (not Hobbs) and you'll see there are a lot of low scores in that time. Hobbs played in a different time. Yes, Hobbs was an absolute great. Yes, Hobbs is in my All Time Test XI, and Trumper isn't. Yes, I think Hobbs is a better batsman than Trumper. Most cricket fans do. But to say the shit you're saying about Trumper (squib/overrated) is ridiculous.

 

[Tazwegian]

Trumper played in an era WHEN BATTING WAS INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT. You cannot compare Trumper to Hobbs. Pitch preparation changed massively over Hobb's career. Look at the careers of anyone WHO ACTUALLY PLAYED IN TRUMPERS ERA (not Hobbs) and you'll see there are a lot of low scores in that time. Hobbs played in a different time.

That's exactly what I did:

AJL Hill (Eng) 1896-1896 3 4 0 251 124 62.75 1 1 0

JB Hobbs (Eng) 1908-1914 28 49 6 2465 187 57.32 5 16 3

ER Mayne (Aus) 1912-1912 2 2 1 48 25* 48.00 0 0 0

J Sharp (Eng) 1909-1909 3 6 2 188 105 47.00 1 1 0

Hon.FS Jackson (Eng) 1896-1905 18 30 4 1216 144* 46.76 4 5 3

RE Foster (Eng) 1903-1907 8 14 1 602 287 46.30 1 1 1

J Vine (Eng) 1912-1912 2 3 2 46 36 46.00 0 0 0

W Bardsley (Aus) 1909-1912 20 33 0 1490 164 45.15 5 7 4

J Worrall (Aus) 1898-1899 5 10 1 406 76 45.11 0 5 0

KS Ranjitsinhji (Eng) 1896-1902 15 26 4 989 175 44.95 2 6 2

MJ Hartigan (Aus) 1908-1908 2 4 0 170 116 42.50 1 0 0

G Gunn (Eng) 1907-1912 11 21 1 844 122* 42.20 2 6 3

GA Faulkner (SA) 1906-1912 24 45 4 1717 204 41.87 4 8 2

CP Mead (Eng) 1911-1914 9 13 1 483 117 40.25 2 1 2

C Kelleway (Aus) 1910-1912 15 24 3 832 114 39.61 2 4 1

C Hill (Aus) 1896-1912 49 89 2 3412 191 39.21 7 19 9

VT Trumper (Aus) 1899-1912 48 89 8 3163 214* 39.04 8 13 7

Trumper was ok, not that great. Hobbs completely owns him in the same era. In fact, Hobbs average for the era he played with Trumper is better than his own career average. No matter how you spin it, Trumper comes up short. Not a special player in an era of amatuers. Doesn't deserve to be mention along side Hussey.

The fact that some of these old timers argued that he was better than Bradman shows just how full of crap they were back then.

 

[Tazwegian]

Cricinfo says he had one good series in England, and for the most part he squibbed hard. It even has this to say:

"His career culminated when the South Africans visited Australia in the season of 1910-11. He then recovered his finest form, and on the beautiful wickets at Melbourne, Adelaide, and Sydney the googly bowlers had no terrors for him. In the five Test matches he scored 662 runs, with an average of 94"

Flat track bully bumping his average up on the flat decks. So basically, he did well in 1902 on some terrible wickets, then was ordinary for the most part, then the bumped his average up hard on a flat deck in his final years. Then had a pretty ordinary series against England in his final year where England absolutely flogged Australia.

 

[courtjester]

Yawn....

If you want to get completely pedantic about it, here's the link that compares the couple of years that Hobbs and Trumper's careers actually crossed over. Yep, Hobbs had a higher average. But it's quite clear how good Trumper was, isn't it? And I'm pretty sure the argument was about Australia's greatest batsmen, and Hobbs doesn't really fit in to that discussion. I'm guessing you know Hobbs is English?

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmax1=1 Mar 1912;spanmin1=1 Jan 1908;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

 

[Tazwegian]

Yawn....

If you want to get completely pedantic about it, here's the link that compares the couple of years that Hobbs and Trumper's careers actually crossed over. Yep, Hobbs had a higher average. But it's quite clear how good Trumper was, isn't it? And I'm pretty sure the argument was about Australia's greatest batsmen, and Hobbs doesn't really fit in to that discussion. I'm guessing you know Hobbs is English?

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmax1=1 Mar 1912;spanmin1=1 Jan 1908;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

How good Trumper was on those flat decks that are described on cricinfo. Those final years he played one good series against south africa on a deck that cricinfo described as "beautiful". He was ordinary for the rest of it. So much for him being a hero on crappy uncovered wickets. Even manipulating his career arbitrarily to show his best period, you can see he was still not close to the best in that era. Despite it including his stat boosting series on a flat deck.

His last series against England he averaged 29.99. Between 1908 and 1909 he only averaged 31. His stats for that era where Hobbes played are massively padded by the flat deck South Africa tour, and he was ordinary in all other series.

And of course I know Hobbs is English, otherwise I'd be talking up Hobbs, not Clem Hill, as the best Australian of that era.

 

[Caesar]

Most of Trumper's so-called 'failures' come as a result of opening the batting on tours of England, which given the conditions and the strength of the English bowling attack at the time is arguably the toughest batting gig in the history of cricket. Regular failures were expected. In reality, an average of 28 over 20 matches in England at that time was bloody good for a foreign opener. If Trumper had really been such a horrible failure in England as your interpretation of the statistics would have us believe, then he wouldn't be held in such incredibly high regard by the English of the time.

Clem Hill on the other hand was a middle order batsman for most of his career, at a time when the difference between an opener and a middle order bat was far bigger than it is today. Yet Trumper and Hill's statistics (both at first class and Test level) are remarkably similar.

Clem Hill himself said he wasn't fit to lick Trumper's boots, and Clem Hill is one of the greatest Australian batsmen of all time. To take his record, compare it to Trumper and use that to describe Trumper as an overrated squib - well, it just demonstrates a complete ignorance about not only historical context but the game in general.

 

[Tazwegian]

Add modesty to Clem Hill's great attributes and record. I think the fact that Trumper died young is the reason why he is so highly regarded. Yes, he was a decent player for his time. But that was a time of amatuers, and even so, he wasn't close to Hobbs and Hill has a better record and contributed more often. Hussey won matches for Australia with regularity. He held many of our innings together. He could play in all conditions, could sum a game situation up beautifully, and rarely had a bad series. Trumper was mediocre for the most part, and brilliant at times. But the times when he was brilliant were infrequent. I don't think he is anywhere near Hussey.

 

[Caesar]

I think the fact that Trumper died young is the reason why he is so highly regarded. Yes, he was a decent player for his time. But that was a time of amatuers, and even so, he wasn't close to Hobbs and Hill has a better record and contributed more often.

You realise that Trumper was considered one of the all-time greats of the game during his own lifetime? Hill was a great player but nobody - nobody - of his own era or afterwards regarded him as superior to Trumper.

Just the fact that you have to compare him to Hobbs, Bradman's only real rival, in an attempt to denigrate his achievements says it all.

 

[Tazwegian]

Just the fact that you have to compare him to Hobbs, Bradman's only real rival, in an attempt to denigrate his achievements says it all.

I've already compared him to Clem Hill. Hill wins. Hobbs also wins by a mile. What other "all time great" gets flogged by his nearest rivals of the same era to the extent that Trumper does? Hobbs smashes him badly. Bradman is great because he destroyed his nearest rivals. Ponting at his peak also destroyed his nearest contemporary rivals, but not to the extent that Hobbs or Bradman did. Allan Border did to an extent also. Those were really the only three Australian batsmen who have done that. Greg Chappell was another, he was right up there with Gavaskar, Sobers, Richards, and Miandad in his era, but probably never really had an extended period where you could argue that he was definitively better than those guys. So my revised top four would be:

Bradman
Ponting
Border
Chappell

Trumper is way below Ponting, Bradman, Border and Chappell for that reason. For no extended period, was Trumper truly the best batsmen in the world. Sure, neither was Hussey. So then you need to compare how often they stood up in games, how often they made a contribution. Trumper loses to Hussey on this count. Trumper's average was pumped up by a couple of good series, one on a flat deck, the other in tough conditions in England. For the rest of the time, he was only really good-mediocre. Hussey hardly had a bad series, apart from a form slump in the middle-end of his career.

Trumper is a bit like Clarke. Probably quite comparable to Clarke really. His best was amazing, but he went through extended periods of medoicrity. Their stats are also padded out by a few really big scores for their respective times.

 

[Caesar]

Hobbs is, by far, the second greatest batsman of all time. His greatness does nothing to diminish Trumper's abilities.

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

 

[Bond.ShaneBond]

two different type of batsman that had two different type of influences on the game.

at their peak i know which batsman i would want to get out before they got to 20, Ponting was a match winner.

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.

 

[The Speaker]

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.

By ignoring the opinions of those who have? Yeah, very clever.

 

[Yoda_]

Came on here to read up on one of my favorite Aussie players ever, instead, read two pages of stuff on players not even in the same era as Hussey.