Should Michael Hussey be rated as one of the ATG??

[Furball]

Kind of a strange question there BB. While you might not rate Hussey an ATG, I don't think it's absurd to, certainly not as absurd as it would be to rate Hughes as one.

Hussey played 79 tests and had a batting average of 51. In my opinion anyone who plays that many tests and maintains that sort of average is pretty much an ATG.

Also, Hussey was the man during the 2006 Ashes, which was a huge series for Australia.

Nah, Ponting was the main man.

 

[the big bambino]

Kind of a strange question there BB. While you might not rate Hussey an ATG, I don't think it's absurd to, certainly not as absurd as it would be to rate Hughes as one.

Hussey played 79 tests and had a batting average of 51. In my opinion anyone who plays that many tests and maintains that sort of average is pretty much an ATG.

Also, Hussey was the man during the 2006 Ashes, which was a huge series for Australia.

Its an absurd question but to make a point. Thread starter says he's not a stats man. That he looks beyond them or something. A cricketer's reputation is contained in his stats. They are an accumulation of his career and marker to his quality. That is why you'd never consider Hughes an atg. But if the thread starter was more than a stats muncher, as he claims, he'd be able to assess Hussey's average against atg contenders who average much the same. Hussey's long stretch of poor scores and the fact he couldn't get a place when the other greats of his era were available (despite Hussey's versatility) argues against him being an atg. He wasn't as reliable as Karan says and only a person overly impressed with his 50 average would think so. Lastly the comment about Hussey being special bcos he succeeded after 30 is a baseless comment relying on a meaningless statistic; his age.

 

[Maximas]

your best years as a batsmen are probably 29-33, but after 35 you can drop off suddenly, the age thing only helps Hussey IMO, meant he developed his game in FC cricket and then enjoyed his best years as a test player without having to grow into his position and game much

 

[Top_Cat]

That's not what happened with Hussey, though. He didn't slowly develop and refine his game and hit a peak in his 30's, he had to radically change it or he was going to be dropped by WA. What Hussey was lionised for as a Test player (dat cover drive, hitting 6's, being an excellent OD player) didn't exist for first 10 years of his FC career. He deserved credit for it, of course, but no more because he was older when he finally found a method that worked.

 

[Maximas]

still had plenty of FC cricket behind him, changing a gamestyle is a little easier than learning long form cricket in test matches.

In any case, his age didn't run against him, it really isn't a huge factor for batting until you hit the age where you drop off and never come back

 

[Flem274*]

One thing that gets underrated about Hussey is how ****ing good he was at hustling to 30-40 not out without anyone noticing because he was so quick and good between the wickets. Same with Ponting and Clarke. Running between the wickets gets missed a lot in ATG chats imo. Strike rotation is the death of pressure.

Edit: Actually the 00s Australians were world leaders in strike rotation imo. It was one reason that made them so bloody impossible to build pressure against in the field.

 

[Jono]

Nah, Ponting was the main man.

Indeed. Incredible anyone could think otherwise. Ponting was being called 2nd greatest bat of all time etc. etc.

 

[karan316]

Its an absurd question but to make a point. Thread starter says he's not a stats man. That he looks beyond them or something. A cricketer's reputation is contained in his stats. They are an accumulation of his career and marker to his quality. That is why you'd never consider Hughes an atg. But if the thread starter was more than a stats muncher, as he claims, he'd be able to assess Hussey's average against atg contenders who average much the same. Hussey's long stretch of poor scores and the fact he couldn't get a place when the other greats of his era were available (despite Hussey's versatility) argues against him being an atg. He wasn't as reliable as Karan says and only a person overly impressed with his 50 average would think so. Lastly the comment about Hussey being special bcos he succeeded after 30 is a baseless comment relying on a meaningless statistic; his age.

This is a completely wrong statement, most cricketers play in very different conditions and there are many other important factors that need to be considered while judging a player, you can't place stats above all the the other factors to rate some one. Stats are important to a certain extent, but they never tell you the whole story.

 

[the big bambino]

This is a completely wrong statement, most cricketers play in very different conditions and there are many other important factors that need to be considered while judging a player, you can't place stats above all the the other factors to rate some one. Stats are important to a certain extent, but they never tell you the whole story.

The link btwn statistics, peformance and quality is undeniable and sustained for practically every player. The best you can muster in opposition are exceptions. Which ironically enough proove the intial statement as the rule. Stats even explain apparent contradictions as to why it is justifiable to pick Trumper in an atg Aus XI over contenders who average much more than he did. You just have to search for the reasons that explain the statistics a player compiled.

Whereas you vaguely claim stats can't be placed over other factors without explaining what those other factors are. Which leads me to think you are about to establish the primacy of your own subjective opinions and biases ( genuinely not being personal) over objective facts. I can't help but be convinced by that impression when you contradictorily use a stat, being Hussey's age when he debuted in tests, that actually has no meaningful contribution supporting your claim.

 

[Flem274*]

Stats are your results, but sadly some people don't know how to use them without letting their subjectivity get in the way, and they don't remain consistent when comparing two players. We already know there are discussions on here where someone has applied two different methods to two players and/or made a statement then shaped the stats to fit their argument, but there are lots of unnoticed mistakes as well like not acknowledging the limitations of whatever stats someone is using to support their own argument.

That's why imo lists such as DoG's and PEWS' are better indicators of quality than any multi-page stats war on this site. Every player is judged by the same criteria.

Stats also need to be used with observations.

#statingtheobvious

 

[Red]

What's everyone's criteria for an ATG? Is it a player who has a good chance of making their own nations All Time XI? (obv excluding Zimbabwe etc for the most part...)

 

[LongHopCassidy]

I would class it as someone who would make a contemporary World XI at some point in their careers.

 

[Red]

I would class it as someone who would make a contemporary World XI at some point in their careers.

Reckon that's fair. In that case Hussey is an ATG.

 

[karan316]

The link btwn statistics, peformance and quality is undeniable and sustained for practically every player. The best you can muster in opposition are exceptions. Which ironically enough proove the intial statement as the rule. Stats even explain apparent contradictions as to why it is justifiable to pick Trumper in an atg Aus XI over contenders who average much more than he did. You just have to search for the reasons that explain the statistics a player compiled.

Whereas you vaguely claim stats can't be placed over other factors without explaining what those other factors are. Which leads me to think you are about to establish the primacy of your own subjective opinions and biases ( genuinely not being personal) over objective facts. I can't help but be convinced by that impression when you contradictorily use a stat, being Hussey's age when he debuted in tests, that actually has no meaningful contribution supporting your claim.

Firstly, stats are indicative to an extent, but it gets quite wrong when pure stats are used to decide on a players greatness or his level. There are various factors which are never reflected by stats, in a 5 day match, if a guy scores a 50 when the conditions are overcast and the ball is moving around with wickets tumbling on the other end, and in the same match if someone else scores a 100 when the conditions ease up, would that be reflected by stats? A couple of years down the line when you pick the scorecard of that match, would you be able to understand the quality of those 50 runs?

And coming back to the topic, I feel that Hussey was a player with extraordinary ability and was a versatile performer who can be suited to any format, situation or conditions, that is the reason why I started the thread to see what views people have, not because m impressed by his average of 51. And saying that Hussey starting after 30 actually helped him is not true, how many cricketers have "started" their career after 30 and became as successful as Hussey?

 

[bagapath]

Dilip Vengsarkar was the world's best batter for two years - '86 and '87

And he is not an ATG for sure.

But since I could not think of any other example, I will treat this as an exception and agree with LHC.

Hold on... What about Jeff Thomson from 74/75?

Or Erapalli Prasanna in the late 60s?

Gooch from 90/91?

 

[the big bambino]

Firstly, stats are indicative to an extent, but it gets quite wrong when pure stats are used to decide on a players greatness or his level. There are various factors which are never reflected by stats, in a 5 day match, if a guy scores a 50 when the conditions are overcast and the ball is moving around with wickets tumbling on the other end, and in the same match if someone else scores a 100 when the conditions ease up, would that be reflected by stats? A couple of years down the line when you pick the scorecard of that match, would you be able to understand the quality of those 50 runs?

This is what I was alluding to when I said you have to look into the stats to see what they are saying. It is the reason Trumper, for example, is an atg bcos he played many innings of that kind in difficult circumstances. However if a player achieved greatness in one innings (the 50 you have used as an example) in doesn't necessarily make him great. JT Brown played a great innings that won a match and an ashes with it though he's never mentioned as an atg. In the end the accumulation of a man's career will put one great innings in perspective and give a fairer indication of his quality.

And coming back to the topic, I feel that Hussey was a player with extraordinary ability and was a versatile performer who can be suited to any format, situation or conditions, that is the reason why I started the thread to see what views people have, not because m impressed by his average of 51. And saying that Hussey starting after 30 actually helped him is not true, how many cricketers have "started" their career after 30 and became as successful as Hussey?

I'm not sure and even if he is unique cannot rely on the distinction to support a claim to atg status.

 

[karan316]

This is what I was alluding to when I said you have to look into the stats to see what they are saying. It is the reason Trumper, for example, is an atg bcos he played many innings of that kind in difficult circumstances. However if a player achieved greatness in one innings (the 50 you have used as an example) in doesn't necessarily make him great. JT Brown played a great innings that won a match and an ashes with it though he's never mentioned as an atg. In the end the accumulation of a man's career will put one great innings in perspective and give a fairer indication of his quality.

I'm not sure and even if he is unique cannot rely on the distinction to support a claim to atg status.

Yap, I know one innings don't prove anything, but what m saying is that stats never tell the whole story, and that's completely true. And relying completely on them to derive a conclusion would be wrong

And Hussey may or may not be an ATG, I just started the thread to know people's views on the topic since I felt that he has been an outstanding batsmen out of the ones I have seen in recent years.

 

[Prince EWS]

I would class it as someone who would make a contemporary World XI at some point in their careers.

It's obviously very subjective but to me this makes someone a great of their time rather than an all-time great as such.

 

[Howe_zat]

It's obviously very subjective but to me this makes someone a great of their time rather than an all-time great as such.

Fair. I find there are hugely successful Test players like Matthew Hayden, Tony Lock or Ken Barrington that I'm a bit unwilling to think of in all-time terms as they strike me as such a product of their time. Maybe Hussey fits in there.

You'd think 'ATG' has to mean something besides 'the top x players', because otherwise, what's the point?

Another definition I've seen is that a player is an all-timer if he could make any team that's existed. Problem here is that is massively beneficial to a middle order batsman. Hussey probably gets in on that account, as it's been so rare to have fully established players right from 1 to 7.