Who had the better start to their test Career? Jimmy Adams or Mike Hussey?

[mr_mister]

Jimmy Adams

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo


Mike Hussey


Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo



Both had amazing starts, and after 15 tests both averaged in the 80s. Jimmy had dropped down to 70 by his 20th test, where as Hussey didn't drop down there til his 25th, so his hot run of form lasted a teeny bit longer. Both suffered a sharp decline through the 70s, 60s, and 50s before Jimmy landed @ 40 and Mike at least managed to hover around 50. Though at first glance you could say Jimmy had to bat in the era with better bowlers, he had Ambrose/Walsh on his own team and didn't have to face Waqar/Wasim. For some reason he didn't play against Pakistan until 2000, in his final few months as a test player(but he played decently and lead his team well). However he did have to face Australia a fair few times. Hussey faced Bangladesh during this initial run of hot form and Adams got no such luck, not playing Zimbabwe til 2000 either.


Anyway, I think it's an interesting comparison as both of these guys suffered a significant "slump" after their initial purple patch.

 

[NZTailender]

Jimmy got hit by a bouncer and was never the same batsman after that. Not really the same to compare, for mine.

 

[Noble One]

Whilst Jimmy came back strong against New Zealand in 1996, he was clearly not the same player after being hit by Van Troost. Was beyond mediocre in the later stages of his career and is a greater case of "what if".

Not sure you can compare him with Michael Hussey who followed a completely different career trajectory.

 

[mr_mister]

But I'm asking who had the better start to their careers. In those early tests when both averaged above 80 for quite a while, who was better? Not worried about what caused their form to drop

 

[OverratedSanity]

Hussey's run was more impressive for sure imo

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Both players put Steve Smith's purple patch into context.

 

[Cabinet96]

Averaging 84 after 20 tests is just insane.

 

[Zinzan]

Both players put Steve Smith's purple patch into context.

Agree, one of the reasons I'm not quite as excited about Smith as some are just yet, or convinced he'll end up averaging anywhere near the 56 he does atm. I'm picking it will fall below 50 by the end of his career, but only time will decide that.

 

[mr_mister]

well this Bangaladesh series coming up might pump it up to 60

 

[Red]

Smith's average will end up at 52

 

[harsh.ag]

Jimmy Adams

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo


Mike Hussey


Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo



Both had amazing starts, and after 15 tests both averaged in the 80s. Jimmy had dropped down to 70 by his 20th test, where as Hussey didn't drop down there til his 25th, so his hot run of form lasted a teeny bit longer. Both suffered a sharp decline through the 70s, 60s, and 50s before Jimmy landed @ 40 and Mike at least managed to hover around 50. Though at first glance you could say Jimmy had to bat in the era with better bowlers, he had Ambrose/Walsh on his own team and didn't have to face Waqar/Wasim. For some reason he didn't play against Pakistan until 2000, in his final few months as a test player(but he played decently and lead his team well). However he did have to face Australia a fair few times. Hussey faced Bangladesh during this initial run of hot form and Adams got no such luck, not playing Zimbabwe til 2000 either.


Anyway, I think it's an interesting comparison as both of these guys suffered a significant "slump" after their initial purple patch.

You realize this is the 68th thread you have started in 3 months here

 

[cnerd123]

Both players put Steve Smith's purple patch into context.

Agree, one of the reasons I'm not quite as excited about Smith as some are just yet, or convinced he'll end up averaging anywhere near the 56 he does atm. I'm picking it will fall below 50 by the end of his career, but only time will decide that.

Disappointing lack of KW in these posts

 

[Flem274*]

shut the **** up about steve smith, kane williamson, joe root and all the other upstarts.

more random posting about chris rogers and angelo mathews is required.

 

[mr_mister]

You realize this is the 68th thread you have started in 3 months here

has it been that many? lol. i might slow it down then

 

[OverratedSanity]

You realize this is the 68th thread you have started in 3 months here

Atleast he makes half decent threads not dumb**** ones like this. http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/67657-proposing-new-convention-batsmen-their-late-90s.html

And people say my fifties thread is stupid.

 

[mr_mister]

to my credit I've wanted to discuss cricket in detail my whole life and never found a forum til well, 3 months ago. It's not like my mates want to chat about who's better out of Atherton and Stewart.

 

[harsh.ag]

Atleast he makes half decent threads not dumb**** ones like this. http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cri...ng-new-convention-batsmen-their-late-90s.html

And people say my fifties thread is stupid.

That was the classiest thought expressed on here since hendrix's fashion oration.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Atleast he makes half decent threads not dumb**** ones like this. http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/67657-proposing-new-convention-batsmen-their-late-90s.html

And people say my fifties thread is stupid.

Who had the better start to their posting career? mr_mister or harsh.ag?

 

[Spark]

shut the **** up about steve smith, kane williamson, joe root and all the other upstarts.

more random posting about chris rogers and angelo mathews is required.

1000000000x this.

 

[Gob]

Agree, one of the reasons I'm not quite as excited about Smith as some are just yet, or convinced he'll end up averaging anywhere near the 56 he does atm. I'm picking it will fall below 50 by the end of his career, but only time will decide that.

Based on what though?he has been tested every where