• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Hussey goes to top of rankings

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
So many top Australian players, amazing.

Pathan should be removed from the top 10 bowlers because SS says so.
 

Great Birtannia

U19 Captain
FaaipDeOiad said:
Really shows the class that's present in the Australian ODI side right now. While Australia have lost quite a few matches when experimenting recently, a side including all of Gilchrist, Ponting, Symonds, Clarke, Hussey, Hogg, Lee, Bracken and McGrath would be tremendously hard to beat, and no other side can boast 9 genuinely high class ODI players. Australia should be strong favourites come the world cup with that lineup, even though the ODI field is the most even it has been in some time.
On the Malaysian tri series thread I noticed that someone mentioned that Australia are the most brittle side that they have been in a long time. Now, perhaps our rotation of players, we have probably used around 30 players in the last 12-18 months, has clouded judgement a little as we have dropped quite a few games including a couple of large run chases that we shouldn’t have albeit on roads in South Africa and postage stamps in New Zealand.

If you look at our team from the last world cup final;

+Gilchrist, Hayden, Ponting, Martyn, Lehmann, Bevan, Symonds, Hogg, Bichel, Lee, McGrath

And compare it to what we will be looking at come next year;

+Gilchrist, XXXXX, Ponting, Clarke, Symonds, Hussey, Watson, Hogg, Lee, Bracken, McGrath

Top Order – Slightly weaker. Gilchrist’s average surprisingly has incrementally increased, save for his ordinary tour to NZ late last year, a couple of notches since the last world cup and he has a career high average and strike rate. Test form exaggerates his downfall when adjudging his contribution to the ODI side. That said, the great man is growing weary, and I think he will be down on his best by the time the WC comes around. The 2003 world cup was the height of Hayden’s ODI career with an average hovering around 45 and while the opening position for next year’s world cup is wide open it’s hard to see Hayden recapturing that form, Katich will never get anywhere near it and the other options, Jaques and Cosgrove, would find it very difficult to get to that kind of level by the world cup. Ponting’s test average has shot up over the last 4 years but his ODI form has remained steady, maybe he is a slightly improved ODI batsman with his ability to consistently go on and make big scores after a start.

Middle Order – Slightly stronger. The big thing to remember here is that Symonds went into the last World Cup with his career hanging by a thread. At the time he was averaging 23 with the bat, after 54 one day internationals, and I remember actually tipping him in a WC competition to score the most runs in that game against Pakistan as a joke. Michael Clarke is a slightly more accomplished batsman than Damien Martyn at the same stage. Lehmann and Symonds very close statistically, I think Symonds’ explosiveness gives him the duel on points, and Hussey v. Bevan has been debated quite a bit recently. Bevan has the runs on the board, Hussey again more explosive with a stike rate of 98.94 to Bevan’s 74.16.

Bowling – Slightly stronger. Lee’s maturing as a strike bowler covers the perceived drop off in McGrath’s wicket taking ability. Bracken has Bichel on toast (41 matches, 71 wickets @ 20.69 v. 67 matches, 78 wickets @ 31.58). Hogg is a savvier bowler with 4 years of international cricket under his belt and Watson is a better 5th bowling alternative to Symonds.

As an aside, since the one day series preceding the Ashes last year, Australia have used the following players:

Nathan Bracken, Stuart Clark, Michael Clarke, Mark Cosgrove, Dan Cullen, Brett Dorey, Brad Haddin, Brad Hodge, Brad Hogg, Adam Gilchrist, Jason Gillespie, Matthew Hayden, James Hopes, Michael Hussey, Phil Jaques, Mitchell Johnson, Michael Kasprowicz, Simon Katich, Brett Lee, Mick Lewis, Damien Martyn, Glenn McGrath, Ricky Ponting, Andrew Symonds, Shane Watson, Cameron White

So in the space of 39 one day internationals there have been 26 players pull on the green and gold. Quite an extraordinary turnover even if some were more successful than others.
 

andyc

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
_TiGeR-ToWn_ said:
Bracken at number 4 in the bowling, come on.
Uhhh... what's wrong with Bracken being at four? Averages under 21 (better than Lee and McGrath) from 41 games, and he's only conceeded more than 50 runs 5 times, one of which was against SA at Jo'Burg, where he also took 5 wickets and had the best ER of all the bowlers, from both teams. There's no reason why he shouldn't be high up on the list.
 

Johnners

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Brack's is definetly a fine ODI bowler, however he does have one flaw, and that is when the ball isn't swinging, he's not all that potent. That being said, he's still doing a fantastic job and thoroughly deserves his 4th ranking.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Kweek said:
Hussey..better then Bradman?

thoughts?
Its obvious. The ODI stats are horrendous for Bradman. Plus on recent form, Bradman is quite lacking. I say you should only count the last innings, and on that Hussey has an average of 100+ whereas bradman averages 0....

So there ya go.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Thought I'd dig this up.

Can he go on? I'll hold my hand up & say I tipped him as "biggest disappointment" in the Ashes predictions thread, but he keeps churning out the runs. Is he really as good as his average suggests? His career is getting towards the "meaningful" stage now & he still has an average in excess of 80. Well in excess, now. His game seems to have no obvious weaknesses & he can play as the game dictates.

I guess the other question is that if he is so good why have the CA selectors denied us (the cricket watching public) his talents for so long? The question is partly rhetorical, as Australia's top 6 has been in Midas-like form for the better part of a decade now, but his class &, moreover, his temprement seems so evident it does raise the question why the likes of (say) Clarke, Katich & Love got a go ahead of him?
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
BoyBrumby said:
Thought I'd dig this up.

Can he go on? I'll hold my hand up & say I tipped him as "biggest disappointment" in the Ashes predictions thread, but he keeps churning out the runs. Is he really as good as his average suggests?
No one is as good as that average suggests, really.

BoyBrumby said:
His career is getting towards the "meaningful" stage now & he still has an average in excess of 80. Well in excess, now. His game seems to have no obvious weaknesses & he can play as the game dictates.
Yea, but look for his career average to drop down to what his FC average is eventually (mid fifties).

BoyBrumby said:
I guess the other question is that if he is so good why have the CA selectors denied us (the cricket watching public) his talents for so long? The question is partly rhetorical, as Australia's top 6 has been in Midas-like form for the better part of a decade now, but his class &, moreover, his temprement seems so evident it does raise the question why the likes of (say) Clarke, Katich & Love got a go ahead of him?
Hard to justify change if you're never losing.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
silentstriker said:
No one is as good as that average suggests, really.



Yea, but look for his career average to drop down to what his FC average is eventually (mid fifties).



Hard to justify change if you're never losing.
SS = TEC? :huh: :laugh:
 

Magrat Garlick

Global Moderator
silentstriker said:
Hard to justify change if you're never losing.
Yeah, but Brumby's point was that Michael Clarke, Simon Katich, Martin Love, Andrew Symonds and Matthew Elliott have all at various points been preferred to Hussey in the Test team, and in the ODI side they also gave Jimmy Maher the gig before Hussey.

I suppose the reason is that he was never outstanding in FC cricket - for his first five seasons (up to 2000) he was a solid 40+ averaging batsman with talent, but others really stuck their hand up with FC performances, like Elliott (who had an FC average of 49 by the end of the 2005 English season, despite a mediocre return of 1,172 runs @ 33 in Test cricket), and WA's own Martyn, so he didn't really impress any selectors. Also the fact that he was an opening batsman, and Langer/Hayden were up to about 2004 the most prolific partnership in world cricket, so there really wasn't any point in replacing any of them we someone who had just filled his boots in English D2 (made over 5,000 runs @ 78) but rarely batted well in Oz during that time.

The only real opening was after the Ashes, when Australia realised they weren't invincible against all kinds of bowling. (But they did axe the wrong man. :p )
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
silentstriker said:
What is TEC? :huh:
Not what, who. Tooextracool. He has (or had) a habit of replying to posts by breaking them up like you just did. Richard & he could (& did) go on for pages at a time. I'd just never seen you do it before. :)
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
BoyBrumby said:
Not what, who. Tooextracool. He has (or had) a habit of replying to posts by breaking them up like you just did. Richard & he could (& did) go on for pages at a time. I'd just never seen you do it before. :)
I think I've always done it that way. :laugh: Makes it easier for me to reply to each point and if someone replies to my posts that way, it makes it easier to refute/agree with each point. I didn't know people found it annoying.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
BoyBrumby said:
I guess the other question is that if he is so good why have the CA selectors denied us (the cricket watching public) his talents for so long? The question is partly rhetorical, as Australia's top 6 has been in Midas-like form for the better part of a decade now, but his class &, moreover, his temprement seems so evident it does raise the question why the likes of (say) Clarke, Katich & Love got a go ahead of him?
I think the reason these blokes got the nod over him was because intially he was purely an opener for Western Australia in the 4-day format & with Hayden/Langer dominating from 2001 onwards, its impossible for him to get a look in.

But his rise is amazing really, all of his experience in domestic cricket in Australia & over here has really helped him become such a immediate hit.
 

Top