Hussey is the best ever

[The Sean]

Fair enough mate. Well for the record a lot of us aren't THAT fickle!

 

[Fiery]

Are you having a go at me??

Nah, just Australians in general

"the dingos got ma baby!"

You want some more?

 

[The Sean]

 

[Fiery]

I'll take that as a yes

Your next prime minister eats his own earwax!

 

[The Sean]

I'll take that as a yes

Your next prime minister eats his own earwax!

It says something that much of the Australian public STILL considers him more attractive than the current PM!

 

[Fiery]

It says something that much of the Australian public STILL considers him more attractive than the current PM!

And probably more attractive than ours too

 

[social]

There are countless records that said players also have to their names, just not records which involve "most X". The reason for this is nothing other than more cricket being played.

And how anyone can argue that playing more = better is beyond me.

And the bias towards it of many people borders on the laughable. To even speak of it in the same breath as the 1990s and much of the 1980s and 1970s is nonsensical; to suggest it's unequivocally better than other decades is, possibly, even worse.

We're talking about the 1930s ffs!

They'd never heard of doosras, 90 mph, beep tests or diving!

Imagine McGrath, Pollock. or countless other professionals on non-covered wickets - it would be a joke!

You're trying to compare guys with a handful of games in the park to some of the greatest of all time.

Seriously, pull your head in - it's embarrassing

 

[Mister Wright]

I doubt it, his ODI form was still pretty damn good afterwards and would've taken Clarke's spot IMO.

But, at that time he was considered only as an opener. The reason why he is batting in the middle order is because he scored a century in his 2nd test and Clarke was dropped to make room for Hussey in the middle order. If Langer had of been back for the 2nd test, I'd dare say Hodge or someone else would have been selected.

 

[Richard]

We're talking about the 1930s ffs!

They'd never heard of doosras, 90 mph, beep tests or diving!

Just because they'd never heard of 90mph didn't mean no-one bowled it. Contrary to popular wisdom, bleep-tests and diving doesn't make any real impact on one's ability as bowler or batsman.

Nor is it impossible to possess physical fitness without them.

Imagine McGrath, Pollock. or countless other professionals on non-covered wickets - it would be a joke!

Not if there'd been no rain, for starters; and for seconds, no more of a joke than it was with the Tates, Larwoods, Voces et al.

You're trying to compare guys with a handful of games in the park to some of the greatest of all time.

You and C_C would make brilliant room-mates in so many ways. It's pointless discussing anything with someone so ignorant of the ways of cricket before their time.

Seriously, pull your head in - it's embarrassing

No more embarrassing than those who claim they know more than learned scientists and biomechanics...

 

[Perm]

Though TBH the tone of your post suggested less an interest in the topic at hand and more a desire for a cheap shot at Australians.

 

[Jono]

I do remember Bradman himself once did dignify the fairly silly question "Would you have scored as many in modern cricket?" once. He essentially said that comparisons were tough because pitches back in his day were, aside from the stickies (which he said were fairly rare), superb for batting. He also said that the greater number of truly fast bowlers changes things too because it was rare to have three quicks and a spinner or four quicks in a side back then. Plus there's the greater planning put into bowling/fielding/field placements/fitness, etc. and he did say that no, he would not have scored as many as he did back then.

"But", said Bradman "I still would have scored more than the chap who came second."

As for the question at hand, too difficult to say for sure, too many variables to take account to come up with a definitive answer. Bradman was a freak for the time but it's widely accepted that was essentially because he had a similar professional view to his batting that most batsmen to these days in a time of amateurs. Would he stand out as much today? Who knows? I'm definitely not in the camp of those who think he had diety-like batting powers, though. He was a man just like any other. Bradman, I believe, was just far ahead of his time in his treatment of the game as being more of a profession, something to work at, not just to play.

How was Bradman THAT much more professional than Hammond for example?

Nah IMO there had to have been something more about him that made him that much better than the rest.

 

[_TiGeR-ToWn_]

However, I find it almost impossible to conceive that Bradman would not do even better in the 2001-current-day period than he did in the 1930s. Bowlers are even worse, and while "normal" wickets maybe no flatter, the potential of a sticky is removed.

How do you know? Do you have a time travel machine where you can asses bowler for bowler? pleaseeeeee your 'current' cricket bashing is boring and old. get over it. Comparing eras is to hard, too many variables.

Back on topic, I will give you my answer at the end of his career.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

But, at that time he was considered only as an opener. The reason why he is batting in the middle order is because he scored a century in his 2nd test and Clarke was dropped to make room for Hussey in the middle order. If Langer had of been back for the 2nd test, I'd dare say Hodge or someone else would have been selected.

He was averaging 70-odd in the middle order in OD cricket, I'd say he would've gotten a shot sooner or later.

 

[Mister Wright]

He was averaging 70-odd in the middle order in OD cricket, I'd say he would've gotten a shot sooner or later.

Wasn't he already in the one day team at that stage?

At the time he was selected in test matches he was purely a First Class opener. I'm not saying he wouldn't have, but I doubt he would have been back two tests later (after Brisbane) in the middle order, ahead of others.

 

[burr]

It says something that much of the Australian public STILL considers him more attractive than the current PM!

Our current PM likes Dylan but not his lyrics I'll take someone who eats his own earwax any day of the week

 

[social]

There are countless records that said players also have to their names, just not records which involve "most X". The reason for this is nothing other than more cricket being played.

And how anyone can argue that playing more = better is beyond me.

And the bias towards it of many people borders on the laughable. To even speak of it in the same breath as the 1990s and much of the 1980s and 1970s is nonsensical; to suggest it's unequivocally better than other decades is, possibly, even worse.

So how would you have us compare these players?

Are you suggesting that Singhs 20-odd test wickets at 30 carry the same weight as Murali's 700 at 21 simply because the former didnt play enough?

Sorry, but I find it incredibly ironic that a person who bases their entire cricket "logic" on record books is now asking me to throw the stats out the window and simply believe that a bunch of cricketers with minimal experience are better (not even simply comparable, mind you) than guys that have performed day in, day out for a decade or more at the highest level.

 

[Richard]

How do you know? Do you have a time travel machine where you can asses bowler for bowler? pleaseeeeee your 'current' cricket bashing is boring and old. get over it. Comparing eras is to hard, too many variables.

You don't need a time-machine, there's more than enough evidence that survives the sands of time.

 

[Richard]

So how would you have us compare these players?

Are you suggesting that Singhs 20-odd test wickets at 30 carry the same weight as Murali's 700 at 21 simply because the former didnt play enough?

Sorry, but I find it incredibly ironic that a person who bases their entire cricket "logic" on record books is now asking me to throw the stats out the window and simply believe that a bunch of cricketers with minimal experience are better (not even simply comparable, mind you) than guys that have performed day in, day out for a decade or more at the highest level.

Singh took far, far, far more than 20 wickets in his career.

Believe it or not, Tests are not the only cricket that get played.

 

[steds]

In Australia, in Australia, in Australia. Australia is not everywhere. In the UK, cricketers have been full-time professionals since the 19th-century.

Not true. In the 50s and 60s even Test cricketers needed some other form of income. Ken Cranston was a dentist, and gave up cricket for dentistry. Brian Statham worked for Greenalls brewery for a while. Almost all cricketers earned their keep in another field and gave up the summer months to play cricket, where they'd probably earn less than they would if they worked straight through. IMO, you cannot decribe an employment that only keeps you for 5 months a year as a full time profession.

 

[Richard]

That's still true now though.

Cricket - outside international level - is a summer-only employment.