why do you want to ignore his stats?
19 centuries and an average of 51 in tests, 48 average at 87 SR in ODIs are automatic qualifiers for ATG status.
99.94 percent of the world population would do anything to have a career as good as Hussey's. If he were a film actor he would be Brad Pitt; he is that good.
But, he is no Al Pacino.
I always believe those great batsmen who don't score double centuries always miss out on ATG status while other champs with similar stats are rated higher.
For example, Crowe, Gower and Vishy are always rated ahead of Richardson, Anwar, Vengsarkar, Haynes and M. Waugh - all of whom never reached the 200 mark.
Even if you go one league higher, Sutcliffe - who also never scored a double - always gets ranked below Hutton, Hobbs and Gavaskar.
Similarly, lack of one definitive big innings from Hussey could be a reason for him not being rated on par with other aussie batters of similar class (border, s.waugh,hayden, ponting). The biggies do matter when it comes to photo finishes.
The other issue not in his favor could be the Miandad syndrome; his home performances are many folds better than his away shows. 14 centuries versus 5; 61 avg vs 42.
Overseas knocks kind of build your legend; ask Steve Waugh, Allan Border and Sachin Tendulkar about it. In being seen as a home track bully (considering his bad shows in Eng, India and SA) Hussey loses a bit of sheen in the Legend test.
Assuming we are going to ignore Miller for a minute and take 4 middle order bats for Aussie teams, this is what we may end up with
Team 1
Bradman
G. Chappell
Ponting
Border
Team 2
Hill
Harvey
M. Clarke
S.Waugh
Team 3
I.Chappell
Walters
McCartney
Hussey
He is a great batsman for sure. But an ATG? May be. May be not. It is touch and go.