• 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.

Husseys Struggle at test level.....

Natman20

International Debutant
To me Hussey has just been a class player for the last few tours and is having a good run of form. Pity about his age though
 

howardj

International Coach
Slats4ever said:
ummm try making your argument...
Well, the argument is - particularly when you bat in the middle-order in ODI's - that not outs are more the result of the overs running out, than they are of the batsman defying the bowling attack. I mean Hussey, coming in as he usually does at six or seven, faces a max of about 15-20 overs. It's hardly extraordinary, or down to his ability to defy all comers, that he remains unconquered at the end of the innings. Although, granted, in his ODI career to date (not outs or outs) he has played extraordinarily well.
 
Last edited:

open365

International Vice-Captain
ohtani's jacket said:
Well, Hussey's innings average in ODIs of 43.14 is a lot more realistic than his actual average of 151.00. You could make an argument that since it's limited overs, not outs are irrelevant.
thats still a fantastic average for someone who bats at 6/7,and even better if you compared him to every other cricketer with the not outs taken off their average,i'm pretty sure he'd still have the highest average.Not that i'm condoning your argument,your still wrong.
 

Slats4ever

International Vice-Captain
howardj said:
Well, the argument is - particularly when you bat in the middle-order in ODI's - that not outs are more the result of the overs running out, than they are of the batsman defying the bowling attack. I mean Hussey, coming in as he usually does at six or seven, faces a max of about 15-20 overs. It's hardly extraordinary, or down to his ability to defy all comers, that he remains unconquered at the end of the innings. Although, granted, in his ODI career to date (not outs or outs) he has played extraordinarily well.
umm so therefore when he's not out he shuld be classed as out? I think it is harder to have done what he has done and played so many innings and still remained unbeaten. He has had to come in a variety of situations, get settled each and every time he's gone out there. I think that it's stupid to suggest that the fact that he has been not out so many times detracts from his record.
 

sqwerty

U19 Cricketer
ohtani's jacket said:
Well, Hussey's innings average in ODIs of 43.14 is a lot more realistic than his actual average of 151.00. You could make an argument that since it's limited overs, not outs are irrelevant.
What an absurd statement.

Who cares what anyone's 'innings' average is. It's totally I R R E L E V A N T.
 

sqwerty

U19 Cricketer
howardj said:
Well, the argument is - particularly when you bat in the middle-order in ODI's - that not outs are more the result of the overs running out, than they are of the batsman defying the bowling attack. I mean Hussey, coming in as he usually does at six or seven, faces a max of about 15-20 overs. It's hardly extraordinary, or down to his ability to defy all comers, that he remains unconquered at the end of the innings. Although, granted, in his ODI career to date (not outs or outs) he has played extraordinarily well.
Come on mate this is a ridiculous argument.

If you bat up the order you've got more time to make more runs. If you bat down the order it's the opposite....plus you're having a slog and more likely to get out anyway.

Any argument that suggests that not outs should be disregarded in working out averages should be dismissed without a second thought.
 

Mister Wright

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
It all depends on what people think a batsman's average should represent. If you think it should represent the amount of runs he scores in a batting innings, then you would be of the belief that his average should be calculated on the amount of innings played. If you believe a batsman's average should reflect the batsman's ability with the bat then you would want to measure the batsman on the amount of runs he makes before getting out. IMO the current system we have is fine.
 

sqwerty

U19 Cricketer
Mister Wright said:
It all depends on what people think a batsman's average should represent. If you think it should represent the amount of runs he scores in a batting innings, then you would be of the belief that his average should be calculated on the amount of innings played. If you believe a batsman's average should reflect the batsman's ability with the bat then you would want to measure the batsman on the amount of runs he makes before getting out. IMO the current system we have is fine.
yeah but who cares how many anybody makes per innings. It's not the batsmans fault if he has to come in with 3 overs to go.

I can't see any relevance or interest whatsoever in that statistic.
 

thierry henry

International Captain
howardj said:
Well, the argument is - particularly when you bat in the middle-order in ODI's - that not outs are more the result of the overs running out, than they are of the batsman defying the bowling attack. I mean Hussey, coming in as he usually does at six or seven, faces a max of about 15-20 overs. It's hardly extraordinary, or down to his ability to defy all comers, that he remains unconquered at the end of the innings..
I don't understand this.

If a player averaged 150 because he came out and scored 150 every time, it would be amazing.

However, Hussey is making 150 runs whilst only being dismissed once over the course of approximately 4 innings. That's 4 times he has to come in and get his eye in, 4 times he has to get used to the pitch, 4 times he has to adjust to the bowlers, and he's done all this with a strike rate in the 90s!

While there are also arguments the other way (fatigue, perhaps) I actually think it's easier to argue that accumulating an impressive average with a lot of not outs is MORE impressive than accumulating an impressive average with few not outs.
 

thierry henry

International Captain
This point is further proved by the fact that a vast majority of lower order ODI players have lower averages than they might otherwise achieve for the very reasons just outlined.
 

howardj

International Coach
Slats4ever said:
umm so therefore when he's not out he shuld be classed as out? .
umm where did i say that? oh thats right, i didnt. you just thought youd make it up to try and make your argument sound better.
 

howardj

International Coach
Slats4ever said:
I think that it's stupid to suggest that the fact that he has been not out so many times detracts from his record.
i didnt say that either. just that it gives - particularly in ODI cricket where the overs are limited - an inflated picture of his ability. tho, as i acknowledged, he has performed extremely well.
 

howardj

International Coach
sqwerty said:
Any argument that suggests that not outs should be disregarded in working out averages should be dismissed without a second thought.
I didnt say that. Im just saying that they can give an inaccurate picture of a batsman's abilities. For instance, do you think - going on averages - that Hussey is three times the player that Gilchrist is? I don't think so.

As Ive acknowledged, that's not to Hussey hasnt performed magnificently in his particular role.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
sqwerty said:
What an absurd statement.

Who cares what anyone's 'innings' average is. It's totally I R R E L E V A N T.
As is an average when a batsman has been dismissed so few times.
 

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
By pure definition, the term 'average' relates to how many runs a player makes per dismissal, not per innings, so you cant change what an 'average' is based on because it then wouldnt be an 'average' at all. Its just the way it is, no matter how inaccurate it can be in measuring a players ability.
 

Mister Wright

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
benchmark00 said:
By pure definition, the term 'average' relates to how many runs a player makes per dismissal, not per innings, so you cant change what an 'average' is based on because it then wouldnt be an 'average' at all. Its just the way it is, no matter how inaccurate it can be in measuring a players ability.
The term 'average' was not created by cricketers. Average is a mathematical term which means: A number that typifies a set of numbers of which it is a function.

This means you could apply average to per innings or per out/dismissal.
 

Maison

Cricket Spectator - 1st Warning
ffs.

well put it this way, imo, if Hussey batted at the top of the order (for example), and had time to bat for the whole 50 overs, he'd have 100+ runs everytime he bats.

yay, enough said :P

lol
 

Top