So despite the fact that I can barely count, I decided to run a statistical experiment. I picked a bunch of batsmen with some claim to ‘greatness’ and since Hussey’s only played 18 Tests, I calculated their batting averages over the last 18 Tests that they had played. In nearly every case this meant the Tests they had played since 2005-2006, which coincides with Hussey’s debut season. I couldn’t find a way of telling Statsguru to do this, so I brought up the Innings by Innings list for each one of them, counted off the last 18 Tests, totted up the runs and divided by the innings they had played (minus the not-outs). These are the results (rounded off):

Michael Hussey: 86
Kumar Sangakkara: 90
Mohammad Yousuf: 82
Ricky Ponting: 77
Jacques Kallis: 67

Omer’s point that other players have racked up similar averages seems to be borne out, though his conclusion that this is an easier epoch for batsmen would need more systematic research that this back-of-the-envelope calculation. For starters you’d have to look at the averages of batsmen like Dravid, Tendulkar, Gilchrist, Hayden etc. over their best seasons. There’s a prima facie case that contemporary averages are higher than they used to be, but the records of many more batsmen, present and past, would need to be number-crunched to make the case for grade inflation.

It’s worth saying that Sangakkara, Yousuf, Ponting and Kallis are exceptional; many of Hussey’s heavyweight contemporaries have less than superlative averages over their last 18 Tests.

This is what some of Hussey’s team-mates managed:

Matthew Hayden: 51
Michael Clarke: 49
Adam Gilchrist: 33

And these are the equivalent figures for India’s champions:

Sourav Ganguly: 53
Rahul Dravid: 48
VVS Laxman: 47
Wasim Jaffer: 46
Sachin Tendulkar: 42

If Hussey and the Big Four (Sangakkara, Yousuf, Ponting, Kallis) keep their post 2005-06 averages going over the next two years, there’ll be reason to believe Hussey is a symptom of a wider trend. On the other hand if the numbers for the others dip and Hussey keeps his figures flying, it’ll be time to bend the knee and say “Bwana”.

My name is Omer 'Admani', not Omer 'Adnani'.

Mukul makes the point I've been trying to make. All the 5 players mentioned have been going through a purple patch in their career, and an 18 Tests patch is too short to make any assumptions about the entire career. Who knows, Hussey may be in the midst of his own purple patch. We saw his ODI purple patch end and his average came crashing down from over 100 into the 50s in one year. I predict the same happening to his Test average (hopefully starting from this series).

I cant understand why Mukul is fixated with Hussey.Even though Hussey has been Bradmanesque in scoring runs,he has done so almost all in Australia or in South Africa where the conditions are similair(Bangladesh doesnt count).We havent seen him play in low and slow tracks of the subcontinent.He really struggled during the Champions Trophy,if I remember correctly.So let us wait and see.Remember even Achilles had a weak point.......

Averages cant be the criterion to Greatness.For example Ponting Averages 12.3 In India.What if hussey takes the same route?

India will give Australia a run for our money, i'll like to see how Hussey performs against the spin of India. Indian batsman are great, but will they really be able to cope with the Australian conditions without practice? we saw wat happened to England without practice. Ganguly and Yuvraj are the key to India because they are in form. Sachin, Lax and Dravid will be handy though. Jaffer shud be replaced by Sehwag. Pathan would be nice, but no place for him. Australian quicks are going to go and bowl good, and a batting lineup with Ponting, Huss and more is very difficult to conquer. India have a huge task ahead and their batting champions need to perform to pick up their much wanted victory.

Let's not forget his brother David. His high 90's average in the past 1st class season hasn't been enough to get him a test or ODI spot.

The batting average isn't the sole indicator of 'greatness' . It's a great average coupled with mastery and skill over the art of batting which is the criteria. Long after this current era, the only 3 batsmen of the generation who will be remembered for their mastery and form the yardstick for greatness will be Tendulkar, Lara and Ponting. Averages don't tell the whole story. Hussey is good, and has a long career ahead of him. Let's see how it pans out. I admire his batting but I'd rather pay to watch Tendulkar or Ponting bat over Hussey, Sangakkara, Yousuf or Kallis (all v v good batsmen). In the meantime, let's enjoy their skills and not obsess over numbers.

We don't have fast bowlers like akram and ambrose and marshall and donald anymore - before them there were lillee and snow and willis. that explains australia's/hussey's dominance. all we can say is that hussey is the best - statistics wise - among the current crop of batsmen over the last 2 years.

What is being neglected in this article is the fact that these are Hussey's FIRST 18 tests. Ponting, Kallis, Sanga and Yousuf all averaged around 40 after 18 tests, albeit with a much younger start in test cricket. It is remarkable that a man can just jump in the fray and have a start as amazing as this in test career. So while it may be a purple patch I still feel he has the potential to keep his long term average over 65 if he can keep batting in the same vein and cement himself in cricketing history.

Mukul Kesavan has done some good work. Jaywardne may soon be joining his group of 5 and someone else is bound to drop out. My impression however is that it is the foreign press rather than the Australian one that is forever painting Hussey as the greatest batsmen since .... I am sure he would be the first one to say that judgement should be withheld until he has played many more tests. Meanwhile he is showing himself to be both reliable and entertaining at the crease and a good bloke off the field.

Hi Mukul,
Have read Hussey I & II (and the responses) with a great deal of amusement and for once i think the truth is somewhere between what you said in Part I & this gentleman's point.
There is no doubt these days it is great to be a batsman, with Santas (read bowlers) around the corner everywhere, add to that - the quality of bats, pitches, rule changes, weak oppositions, etc, which are increasingly tilting the game in favour of batsmen. The quality of fast men is apalling at the moment and none can deny it.
Your stats on other of Hussey's team-mates and the Indian stars is not a commentary on Hussey, instead is a comment on the declining form of these men who are coming to the end of their careers (apart from Clarke).
I don't want to take anything away from Hussey and his remarkable beginning but I firmly believe that averages are only the cherry on the cake. If it were not so, Jayawardene is a greater batsman than what Viv Richards was!!! (With no disrespect to the former).

Contd. from previous post. Since stats is the flavour of the week, let me throw a few more to put my earlier contention (and Omer's) in the right perspective.
The benchmark has to be atleast 3000 test runs because you need roughly 35-45 tests to achieve, which means one would have played in varied conditions.
Players whose careers have extended till the mid of the first decade of the 21st century are considered here.
There are 9 players currently playing who average more than 50, and another 4 who have recently retired (Lara, Inzy, Waugh and Flower). Add to this 3 other who are in the 49's, Sehwag, Gilchrist and Younis. That makes a whopping 16 in no.
If you take that span to the 70's to 90's (beginning in the 70's or ending by 90's)- there were only 5; King Viv, The Little Master, Greg Chappell, Miandad and Border. Less than one-third!

And here i rest my case.

everyone is talking about his purple patch,yes i admit he is very good player but he started his career very late and now he is at 34,many great people started at 20 or 25 and they started slowly(average around 40) because they were not that mature in cricket,but hussey is having that extra maturity and so he is able to score many runs, and opposition bowling is becoming weak over the past 10 years,any great player is judged by the opposition bowling attacks.tendulkar,ponting,lara are the best when we look at the larger picture

I agree with the fact that Hussey is one of the best batsmen around today,but I would like to make a few comments:
He plays in a era when only his own country has a reputed bowling attack(except Murali for Sri Lanka),and he does'nt have to play against them!I would think then that VVS Laxman,with an average of 62 against Australia in Australia,deserves more praise.
One of the criterions of being called a great batsman is that one has to succeed everywhere and against all attacks.Hussey is yet to pass that test.

All this talk about Hussey and averages and Ponting and Sanga, makes you stop and think.

How unbelievably good Sir Don Bradman must have been!

I would comment on this by saying just see what has happened to Kevin Pietersen........he was averaging stupendous till he played the series against India in England. Since then it has been all downhill.

Dear Sir,

I am writing to you with a lot of hope in my heart. I am a keen follower of cricket all over the world. I pray you will provide me the information I am asking of you herewith.

I have been trying to contact several people on Cricinfo, ICC as well other websites to get an answer to one single question. Can you help me with the answer? My question is as under -

There once was a predictor tool (not available now) that was extremely helpful to indicate the probable rankings of teams when certain results happen on teh offical web site of ICC. I find that feature not unavailable now, and it is making life tough for me. Therefore, Mr Kesavan, Can you be kind enough tell me the margin with which India needs to beat Australai to become the number one Test team in the world? Please use your contacts with the ICC in this regards and keep me informed at the earliest

Regards

Vidyashankar Ramakrishnan
Mumbai, India
Mobile - 9820057881

Hussey is a very good batsman. No doubt. Is he GREAT? Whether he can be bracketed with Viv/Gavaskar/Sachin/Lara category? May be he can be, but only in future, not definitely today. Batsmen in some part of their career hit purple patches lasting for two three years. Greatness is not completed defined by what they did when they hit a purple patch. Of course, if a batsmen has always been in a purple patch in his career, like Bradman, there is no question about greatness. But let us wait for a few more years to see what Hussey does over a long span. You cant compare a three year old career playing mainly in familiar territories with a career of a Sachin that spanned almost two decades over testing conditions all over the world against bowlers from different eras. That is grossly incorrect. A great batsman will eventually play too many years. That should be the minimum criteria. If someone doesnt, either he is not great or very unlucky. Let us leave it at that. You fired the shot early.

Surely India cannot become #1 by winning this series, even if 4-0. If so, the ICC ranking system is more farcical than I thought as Aussies have lost something like 6 tests in 10 years - how can they not be #1 for one bad series ????

I would suggest even a 4-0 win to India would not budge the Australians from the top ??

(I am not australian, rather a frustrated Englishman)

One more thing: In the discussion about contemporary batsmen, there is one factor that I feel is greatly under-discussed. If you look at any team game, great performers were almost always associated with great teams. That may be the very nature of sports: Competition, Confidence and Freedom for the expression of talent. You get all these only in successful teams. That is why I consider Sachin and Lara as the greatest of contemporaries. In their good times, they did not have a successful team to play with. Everyone else had (including Dravid and Kallis, because in their peak, they had successful sides even if not world conquering). Combine a stifling mediocre team with expectations from a billion fans. Some people say Sachin does not handle pressure. What about this? If not for cricketing abilities, Sachin has already carved a greatness for himself than any other cricketer around. Greatness is not just being effective. It is much more than that.

Hi Guys,
Sorry to pop your bubble, even if Australia loses 4-0 to India they'll still remain number 1. Even if they are beaten by an innings in each. they'll still remain #1.
--Srikanth

What Mukul Kesavan does not tell you:

13 of Hussey's 18 tests have been at home, and he averages 22 runs per innings more at home than de does away. Interestingly, so does every other batsman on Mukul K's list (Kallis is the only exception), with the differences between home and away averages being as follows:

Hussey: Home minus Away average = 22
Ponting = 20
Yousuf = 61
Sangakkara = 46
Kallis = (-)66 (better away than home)

This is pretty much career standard for these batsmen.

Considering that India's batsmen are often criticized for their away performances - recall all the Tony Greig + Ian Chappell + Manjrekar tripe about how our batsmen cannot play overseas - this is a scathing indictment of Mukul K's rag-tag-and-bobtail definition of "greatness", a word which Dean Jones pointed out rather correctly is overused and abused in world cricket now.

Ravi Kumar

Mukul,

Can't u be more generous in saying Omer Admani made a "good point or, an intelligent point"
instead of saying he made a reasonable point?

Apart from the "decline in bowling standards coupled with featherbed pitches have led to a general inflation of batting averages," I believe especially in Hussey's case, the other reason of his higher average is: he has been playing for Australia, which is the current best team in the world and he always came at a juncture where a solid platform has already been laid by the top order such as Hayden, Gilchrist, Ponting etc., so he has been under NO pressure as opposed to players like Yousuf, Younus, Sangakara, Clarke & Kallis. In fact the player who has recently emerged with very good average owing to his steel nerves and, head as cool as a cucumber is Misbah-ul-Haq. In any case, if apples needs to be compared with apples, then Michael Beavan is definitely a much better player than this highly exaggerated over rated Michael Hussey.

3-0 to Australia.

Mr. Kesavan:

The theory of average inflation primarily due to a lower standard of bowling is a very valid one and one which I have maintained for a while.

In the decades 2 decades from 1980 through 2000, World cricket landscape saw by 7 -8 great bowlers (sometimes more) who were playing at any given point in time. Consider the careers of Lillee, Hadlee, Botham, Willis, Kapil, Imran, McDermoitt, Donald, Pollock, Wasim, Waqar, Saqlain, McGrath, Warne, Qadir, Gillespie, Marshall, Holding, Garner, Croft, Roberts, Walsh, Ambrose, Kumble, Srinath as primary strike bowlers followed by an extraordinary support cast (bowlers who were dangerous but did not have long enough careers) such as Bruce Reid, Lawson, Alderman, Lance Cairns, Fleming, Hendricks, Bishop, Patterson, Klusener, Sarfraz, Aaqib, Morrison, Chatfield, Hogg, Rackemann, Foster, et al.

Compare post 2000 to strike bowlers in the form of McGrath, Warne, Gillespie, Bond, Lee, Akthar, Murali, Walsh, Ambrose, Kumble, HS (mostly in the subcontinent), Pollock, Chris Cairns, Vaas, Wasim, & Waqar (winding down as well), Vettori, Ntini, Hoggard, Flintoff, Harmison followed by a less than stellar (compared to earlier) supporting cast (based on number of opportunities) of ZK, Sreesanth, Bichel, Johnson, Malinga, Steyn et al.

And within the strike bowler list (2000 onwards), the impact is significantly diluted with Flintoff (came into his own in 2004-5), Harmison, Bond, Akthar (injuries), Wash, Ambrose, Waqar, Wasim (all winding down), Pollock (injuries, winding down).

In light of this disparity between the quality of attacks, pre and post 2000, it is worth loking at the numbers of some of the modern greats, pre 2000 and post 2000. I have deliberately excluded Lara, SRT, Inzy from the list as their prime was hardly post 2000.

Figures below show –Tests, Innings, not outs, runs, and average

1)
Dravid
Since 1/1/2000:
81 139 20 6985 58.69
Debut till 12/31/1999:
34 58 4 2698 49.96

2)
Ponting
Since 1/1/2000:
79 134 21 7416 65.62 27 28 5
Debut till 12/31/1999:
33 52 5 2092 44.51 6 10 3

3) Kallis:
Debut till 12/31/1999:
32 51 6 1849 41.08
Since 1/1/2000
79 138 25 7348 65.02

4)
Sangakarra - Debut in 2000, so no filter required
71 116 9 6032 56.37

5)
Md Yousuf (Youhanna)
Debut till 12/31/1999:
15 27 1 897 34.50
Since 1/1/2000:
64 107 11 5873 61.17

Yousuf’s career actually shows how good his last 2 years have been, hence a further breakdown
Debut till 12/31/2005
62 103 8 4614 48.56
Since 1/1/2006:
17 31 4 2156 79.85

The numbers tell quite a story about how these batsmen (great they may be) have made the most of easy pickings all around (comparatively speaking). And this is without taking into account the feasting on minnows, the newer bats, smaller fields et al.

As a final point, consider this – Viv, SMG, Chapell, Border, Miandad – the cream of the crop from the prior generation, and all of them arguably better or at worst equal to the batch of players discussed above ended up with career averages of 50-53. Unless someone’s contention is that the newer crop of batsmen are better than the 5 mentioned in this paragraph, its hard not to see how bowling standards or lack thereof have benefitted the current batch.

With all this talk of great batsmen of this generation, I think Cricinfo should devise a method to calculate a players net worth (not in terms of moolah!) to his team similar to an MVP in American sports. For starters, I have noted a couple of points
1. Using a Batting, Bowling & Fielding Index. I think the batting index (Batting Ave divided by standard deviation) was first proposed by S. Rajesh and Travis Basevi on April 28, 2006. It would be practical to combine the three to be fair to allrounders, keepers & specialist fielders. How does Hussey compare with his contemporaries?
The next one may be difficult to put into numbers but matters the most...
2. DART Index (Delivering At The Right Time) e.g. a) setting up wins with huge defining score in 1st innings or saving the match in second innings or shepherding the tail in substantial partnerships b) pressure innings after walking in at 0/4 c) 3 wickets in 4 balls to change the complexion of the game.d) scores in home & away games.

Where this notion of "a decline in bowling standards" comes from is beyond me! There is no objective method of determining that relative to bowlers of different eras. Some aspects of the game have favoured batsmen true, but perhaps batsmen have generally improved, not bowlers declined. That can only be a subjective opinion
not a definitive fact. Murali, Warne, Akhtar, McGrath etc are as good as the best four from any era, in my opinion. Nostalgia always distorts reality and comparisons between eras are illogical and futile. Hussey's an outstanding batsman with enormous concentration, determination, maturity and skill! And those traits might one day make him a great.

Binu Thomas you think that Hussey in future can be compared with King Richards, Lara, Sachin etc? Man are u dreaming or what? Hussey will soon be 33 so whose future are you talking about? I would rate Kevin Pietersen's average of 50 in both forms of the game as far superior than Hussey's 86. Besides Kevin dominates and intimidates the bowlers more than the pussy cat. At number 5 Kevein plays in more difficult circumstances than Hussey. His 158 at Oval Ashes is classic, he hasn't piled up runs against teams like Bangladesh and Zimbabwe but against the likes of McGrath and Warne. Its a shame that we cannot give detailed stats to make a point owing to the blog owners new rules. An adult blog is supposed to be like a two-way street. If Mukul can write in volumes and add bundle of stats to prove his point, then why are the bloggers restricted to a mere 1000 character limit? And can't you guys increase the size of this 3 line window in which we type? This is an arbitrary rule of authority.

Don't forget Viv Richards never had to face the great WI pace attack either.

Hussey is obviously a quality player with a great temperament, however having watched much of his batting in Australia, I always end up with the impression that if anyone will get the benefit of the doubt with an LBW decision or a dropped catch it will be Hussey. I struggle to put him anywhere close to the likes of Lara, Tendulkar and Ponting. Like many I'd like to see him play a five test series in India...I think his current average is 35-40 points higher than it should be.

Agree with Richard Hobbs - doing it in the first 18 Tests is more impressive that doing it "since 2005." It's also true that other people have had high averages over this period, but that's just saying "He averages up there with people chosen with hindsight as having the highest averages over the same period." Some well-credentialled Englishmen might disagree that this is a halcyon batting era of featherbed pitches and incompetent trundlers - the NZ top order might also express some doubts about how easy it is to bat in RSA! Hussey has done exceptionaly in ODIs as well. Yes, he's largely untested in the sub-continent, so it's very premature to declare Don Bradman reincarnated. (Not that it stopped anyone when Tendulkar went through his peak.)

Hi All,
Just a couple of points:

To say that Hussey has been under NO pressure is total rubbish.
Despite Australias dominance there are times when Hussey comes to the crease
at 4 for not many runs...Hussey RESPONDS to this pressure and scores runs. That is
why he is such a good batsman....
Michael Clarke did the same thing ON DEBUT in Kolkata and scored 150.

Take a look at the indian side..., Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman, Ganguly (his class is debateable)...
All good batsmen with great Averages....

So why cant they beat Australia? ... because they are a team of greats ... not a great team.

Stats and averages can be debated and used to prove anything.
At the end of the day what matters is Winning and Australia have won every trophy in world cricket that they
are eligible for except the 2020 world cup (congrats India).

Once the next generation of Aussie cricketers get to international level, they will get stronger
in 2020 as well... ;-)

Current Bowling and fielding standards of most teams are so poor (bar Australia). Most teams have couple of stars but when you take the team as a whole lack potency (bar Australia). Most of the pitches around the world are below standard. When Bob Simpson say cricket is in poor standard compared to decades ago you get the point. So Australia winning everywhere and their batsman having great batting averages mean nothing for most of us. I have turned to other sports where there is true world competition and exitement. Cricket is a waste of resources and should be dumped. Howz that!!

Hussey have not played in India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. He has not played in England and New Zealand. The last two have the most bowler friendly pitches and the former three have the most alien pitches to the Aussies. Unless he averages 45+ on thses tracks, it'll be a joke comparing him to Lara and Tendulkar. Even Ponting is not in that class. Ponting needs to prove in India, but Tendulkar and Lara has scored big all over the world. Let's give him few series in the sub-continent under gruelling heat and on dust bowls, with spinners making the all to explode off the pitch and faster bowlers bowling banana reverse swing with the scuffed ball, which are foreign to Hussey.

Hi,
This analysis made me ask you to do me a favor. I have always wanted to know who has had the longest purple patch. I proposed this by looking at the averages over a 20 test match period. This way, you will only be looking at seasoned campaigners. And you can determine who has had the longest lush streak.

Thoughts would be welcome.

Although a good analysis, this just proves why you shouldn't judge players by numbers alone. How do you account for the fact that Sachin is playing cricket for 18 years now. It's possible that Sachin's best years coincided with the best years of some of the great bowlers (Warne, McGrath, Murli, Pollock, Akram, Ambrose to name a few). Now it's generally believed that Sachin is past his best (may be slow reflexes, a tired body etc). So comparing the last 18 tests of Sachin and Hussey is slightly misleading. Another point is Hussey doesn't have to face the Australian attack and he bats under much less pressure than Sachin does. As pointed out earlier by someone, he has yet to prove himself in sub-continent (not because it's the ultimate test for any batsman, but simply because the conditions here are so different from what he is used to). Anyway, he has done well so far, but we have seen in case of Gilchrist how that average drops quickly. So lets wait and see.

Just to put a perspective on what Migara said, while ODIs are a different kettle of fish, I decided to Statsguru Hussey's ODI records in NZ, England and the subcontinent. In NZ he has scored 367 runs at 122.33. In the subcontinent he has scored 286 runs at 71.5. In England he has scored 273 runs at 91. All up he has scored 926 runs @ 92.6 in ODIs in these conditions that Migura feels are the most alien pitches to Aussie batsman like Hussey. Considering his so far remarkable success in Test cricket it will be interesting if he can acclimatise to the foreign pitches as well in the Test arena as he has done in the ODI arena. Only time will tell for Hussey and the sample size of his career span is agreeably too short at present, although the future looks positive for this world class performer.

Mr. Kesavan:

The theory of average inflation primarily due to a lower standard of bowling is a very valid one and one which I have maintained for a while.

In the decades 2 decades from 1980 through 2000, World cricket landscape saw by 7 -8 great bowlers (sometimes more) who were playing at any given point in time. Consider the careers of Lillee, Hadlee, Botham, Willis, Kapil, Imran, McDermoitt, Donald, Pollock, Wasim, Waqar, Saqlain, McGrath, Warne, Qadir, Gillespie, Marshall, Holding, Garner, Croft, Roberts, Walsh, Ambrose, Kumble, Srinath as primary strike bowlers followed by an extraordinary support cast (bowlers who were dangerous but did not have long enough careers) such as Bruce Reid, Lawson, Alderman, Lance Cairns, Fleming, Hendricks, Bishop, Patterson, Klusener, Sarfraz, Aaqib, Morrison, Chatfield, Hogg, Rackemann, Foster, et al.

Compare post 2000 to strike bowlers in the form of McGrath, Warne, Gillespie, Bond, Lee, Akthar, Murali, Walsh, Ambrose, Kumble, HS (mostly in the subcontinent), Pollock, Chris Cairns, Vaas, Wasim, & Waqar (winding down as well), Vettori, Ntini, Hoggard, Flintoff, Harmison followed by a less than stellar (compared to earlier) supporting cast (based on number of opportunities) of ZK, Sreesanth, Bichel, Johnson, Malinga, Steyn et al.

And within the strike bowler list (2000 onwards), the impact is significantly diluted with Flintoff (came into his own in 2004-5), Harmison, Bond, Akthar (injuries), Wash, Ambrose, Waqar, Wasim (all winding down), Pollock (injuries, winding down).

In light of this disparity between the quality of attacks, pre and post 2000, it is worth loking at the numbers of some of the modern greats, pre 2000 and post 2000. I have deliberately excluded Lara, SRT, Inzy from the list as their prime was hardly post 2000.

Figures below show –Tests, Innings, not outs, runs, and average

1)
Dravid
Since 1/1/2000:
81 139 20 6985 58.69
Debut till 12/31/1999:
34 58 4 2698 49.96

2)
Ponting
Since 1/1/2000:
79 134 21 7416 65.62 27 28 5
Debut till 12/31/1999:
33 52 5 2092 44.51 6 10 3

3) Kallis:
Debut till 12/31/1999:
32 51 6 1849 41.08
Since 1/1/2000
79 138 25 7348 65.02

4)
Sangakarra - Debut in 2000, so no filter required
71 116 9 6032 56.37

5)
Md Yousuf (Youhanna)
Debut till 12/31/1999:
15 27 1 897 34.50
Since 1/1/2000:
64 107 11 5873 61.17

Yousuf’s career actually shows how good his last 2 years have been, hence a further breakdown
Debut till 12/31/2005
62 103 8 4614 48.56
Since 1/1/2006:
17 31 4 2156 79.85

The numbers tell quite a story about how these batsmen (great they may be) have made the most of easy pickings all around (comparatively speaking). And this is without taking into account the feasting on minnows, the newer bats, smaller fields et al.

As a final point, consider this – Viv, SMG, Chapell, Border, Miandad – the cream of the crop from the prior generation, and all of them arguably better or at worst equal to the batch of players discussed above ended up with career averages of 50-53. Unless someone’s contention is that the newer crop of batsmen are better than the 5 mentioned in this paragraph, its hard not to see how bowling standards or lack thereof have benefitted the current batch.

Posted by: Vikram Jadhav 7 hours, 31 minutes ago

With all this talk of great batsmen of this generation, I think Cricinfo should devise a method to calculate a players net worth (not in terms of moolah!) to his team similar to an MVP in American sports. For starters, I have noted a couple of points
1. Using a Batting, Bowling & Fielding Index. I think the batting index (Batting Ave divided by standard deviation) was first proposed by S. Rajesh and Travis Basevi on April 28, 2006. It would be practical to combine the three to be fair to allrounders, keepers & specialist fielders. How does Hussey compare with his contemporaries?
The next one may be difficult to put into numbers but matters the most...
2. DART Index (Delivering At The Right Time) e.g. a) setting up wins with huge defining score in 1st innings or saving the match in second innings or shepherding the tail in substantial partnerships b) pressure innings after walking in at 0/4 c) 3 wickets in 4 balls to change the complexion of the game.d) scores in home & away games.

Posted by: rext 7 hours, 4 minutes ago

Where this notion of "a decline in bowling standards" comes from is beyond me! There is no objective method of determining that relative to bowlers of different eras. Some aspects of the game have favoured batsmen true, but perhaps batsmen have generally improved, not bowlers declined. That can only be a subjective opinion
not a definitive fact. Murali, Warne, Akhtar, McGrath etc are as good as the best four from any era, in my opinion. Nostalgia always distorts reality and comparisons between eras are illogical and futile. Hussey's an outstanding batsman with enormous concentration, determination, maturity and skill! And those traits might one day make him a great.

Thanks Mukul for injecting a bit of the SWAHILI spirit into your blog.

A lot of people have save said that the bowling attacks over the last five years have declined, hence the high averages of the batsmen. But could it not be that the batting skills have generally improved, hence the bowling seems to have "declined". I also venture to make a prediction: over the next five years of cricket, the ball will dominate the bat. If you look around, how many outstanding young batsmen does one see: Peitersen, Yuvraj, De Villiers, Michael Clarke, Alistair Cook. But, if we look at the bowlers, the cupboar looks much more promising: Asif, Umar Gul,RP Singh, Piyush Chawla, Mitchell Johnson, Shayne O Connor, Dale Steyn, Sidebottom, Panesar, Morkel, Shaun Tait, Malinga, etc.

For all those who believe that Aus no 1 can not be changed, my guess is that if we beat them 2-0 or 3-0 or even 3-1, our rating will definitely improve as also their rating will come down which could result in we replacing them at the top of the table. We might end up gaining some 15-17 points and Aus losing 20 plus points in the process. I beleive this should be enough to propel us to the numero uno spot, albeit temporarily..............

Regds

Vidyashankar Ramakrishnan

Excessive of ODIs is the main reason of high averages. Before 90s batsmen were not used to scoring with high run-rates. But present days they are scoring at high runrates even more than 4 an over. With this rate they have now an opportunity to score big runs. Statistics shows since 2000 many teams are scoring 360 runs in 90 overs. In 5 days total No. of overs are 450 overs. e.g. if Austrailia scores 550 in 150 overs in 1st inng of a test with Hussey makes 130-150 runs and bowls out the oponent in 100 overs then in 2nd innings Hussey again can get another opportunity to score runs e.g Austraila manages to score 350 in 90 overs with Hussey again scoring century and then bowls out the opponent within 110 overs and wins the match. Thats why nowadays a batsman has high average because he has enough overs to play with high run rate. The think tanks of the cricket must think about this factor as they will find scoring with high run rate is the main factor of their higher averages of batsmen.

Don't forget the not outs!

Hussey's average decreases dramatically when the not outs are eliminated i.e., divide the total runs by the number of innings. Compared to the other three 'modern greats' the percentage decrease is highest for Hussey. He might be able to maintain a high number of 'not outs' in ODIs (like Bevan did) and maintain his average, but its more difficult in tests. He's already got 7 NOs in 29 innings while Lara managed only 6 in 232 innings!!

Difference in overall average & runs per innings

Tests (Career Average,Runs per innings, % Diff)
Hussey - 86, 65, 24%
Lara - 52, 51.52, 0.9%
Tendulkar - 55, 49, 10%
Ponting - 59, 51, 13%

ODIs (Career Average,Runs per innings, % Diff)
Hussey - 57, 33, 41%
Lara - 40, 36, 10%
Tendulkar - 44, 40, 9%
Ponting - 44, 39, 11%

Figures above are rounded off.
(Stats obtained from Cricinfo.com)

Statistics at best provide an indication rather than proof of a player's ability and performance. We know that Ponting, Jaywardene and Yousuf have turbulent early careers before settling down and making a mountain of runs. Are they as good as Lara and Tendulkar (at their peak?at their usual level? what criteria do we use?). Anyone from the sub-continent will argue Ponting has a dreadful record and hence cannot be great. He visited India when he was early in his career (and couldn't play spin) and was injured during the last series. In Australia he has crucified Indian attacks, I suspect he will really want to replicate this in India.

Hussey is like a milder Hayden who did not have an early debut. Hence his much higher average. He developed into a consummate professional.

The difference between the 1980s and now is most attacks have either 1 class bowler (as opposed to 2), while the weaker ones can't even get one on the park. A lot of national comps are weak and teams lack balance

I know it when I see it - a US supreme court justice used this to describe "Obscenity"
I believe a similar parameter needs to be applied to "Batting greatness" - and by that logic I would say that the only Australians in recent years who I can call great - were Steve Waugh and Glenn McGrath. As in India I would consider Kapil Dev and Sachin great.Or Ian Botham in England and not Geoff Boycott. Or Dravid. Your opinion can differ-but that is the thing with greatness - being the most talented or most prolific batsman doesnt count- I think it has to do with what a person evokes in us.
Yes its been said before - but I really find it silly when people keep debating this with numbers - a higher average doesnt make Dravid a greater batsman than Sachin - so how does a Hussey with a higher average become better than a Ponting or a Chappell or a Yousuf better than Inzy! You know it when you see it!

Hussey Pietersen - yeah, and I would like to rate Mark Waugh's average of 41 above Hussey's 86, but then I remember what an average is. A measurement of WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Then I remember I can't bend time and space, and Hussey irrefutably has a better record than Mark Waugh, no matter who I might think is cooler.

Andrew, u must be kidding...Ponting last played a full series in India back in 2001. i.e. when was 27 with close to 7 years of int experience. So you cant really claim he was way too young then.
Move over, the guy does look to have a technical problem facing good spinners on rank turners, offering plenty of bounce (owing to his batting shuffle & stance)

Teece

1. I was comparing players of the same era.

2. Mike Hussey has played in 18 test only. It is very likely that his average will go down and he has a long way to prove his consistency. And he is almost 33 years of age by now. So, do you and Binu Thomas wants him to play for another 50 years?

3. Kevin Pietersen has played 33 tests and they are the current players, so I was comparing them.

4. Your comparison with Mark Waugh is ridiculous because Waugh has played 128 test irrespective of time and space there is no way you can put him in the same bracket to compare.

If you think an average is only a measurement of WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED then there are so many batsmen whose average could be closer to or over 100 and they may have played just a few matches.

Pakistan's former wicket-keeper Taslim Arif played only in 6 matches, scored an unbeaten 210 against Australia and his average is 62.62 Do you rate him above Sachin Tendulkar?

Compare apples with apples and not with oranges.

I haven't read all the other comments so someone may already have mentioned it, but I believe that Hussey (and Ponting and the rest of the Aussies) have a real advantage - they don't have to play against best team in the world. I wonder how other batter's stats would change if you removed the games against Australia from their records, I'd guess that they'd improve (almost) without exception.

Have the batting standards improved? Or have the bowling standards gone down?Its debatable, but if we look at the current bowlers today- Murali has 710+, Warne has 708, McGrath and Kumble both are 550 +- as against the bowlers of the 80s - Kapil 432, Botham 370 odd, Imran 360 odd- who bowled on pitches were much more helpful to the bowlers than the batsman, then it seems as if the bowling standards are much better. And if batsman are able to average 55+ against the current bowlers than it shows that the batting standards have improved. Also, consider the fact that these players play 30+ ODIs,15+ tests and hardly get time to acclimatise on tours or rest between them,it shows that the quality of cricket is of a higher standard compared to the 80s. How many catches that the fielders take today were taken in the 80s? The great catches of the 80s are regulation catches today. Hence, saying that the standards are poor compared to the earlier eras is tonotacknowledgethe improvementin the game

HussyPeterson, the point that I was trying to make is this: Mukul's 1500 runs criteria is not enough to determine a great batsman. It should be much much more than that. At the same time, if Hussey plays till the age of 38, he would have played eight seasons of intl cricket, roughly around 70 tests, may be 110-120 innings. If he keeps an average of at least 70, he is going to make around 8000 runs in these eight years. Won't that make him a candidate for greatness? But, you cannot compare him with Lara/Sachin/Ponting NOW, just after 18 tests. I think we both agree to that.

Perhaps Hussey's average is inflated, perhaps not. I feel disappointed though that he seems to be receiving a lot of critism rather than praise, not only for his achievements so far in the game, but also for the struggle and effort he put in over a decade to become an Australian test cricketer, and his desire to stay there. His over night success was the reult of many years toil in Shield and County cricket. It is also great to hear that he still radiates the enthusiam of a child when he speaks of his joy everytime he puts on the baggy green. He is a fantastic role model for any young person in any field, showing that hard work and discipline can be keys to success, as much as natural talent. He may well be averaging 86 as much through his determination, as much as lack of bowling talent.
And to "A Reasonable Suggestion" you mention that Hussey has always come in with a stable platform. Incorrect he began as an opener in tests, his 3rd knock a hundred. Please get your facts right.

There has been a decline in quality fast bowling -you simply cannot deny this...

Many of the current batsmen would have struggled against a pace quartet, think about the fact that the West Indies in the late 70s and 80s even won in India with 4 quicks, that should tell you something about their pace.

How many current teams in the world have four quality pace bowlers ? - the key word being quality

I really don't rate Ricky Ponting - the only great innings he has scored recently was the hundred to save a game in England in 2005.

Greatness is the ability to make a match-winning or match-saving hundred when the team has needed it most - Hussey has loads of class and is on the right track for greatness...

For mine in batting terms Lara was great, Steve Waugh was great, Gilly is great...

Just think about the guys who have come in and changed a game - and done this more than once, that is greatness...

"Mr Cricket" is another example of Australia's production line of talent.

Sure, we have Tendulkar, arguably the best since Bradman, but they seem to lose a great player and an even better one steps up.

Also-- while our bolwing is in decline, our fielding is also second rate. Basic errors.

Here's what the Aussies are saying about us: www.sportnewds.tv

oh well....look here...jus one failure in the first innings & Hussey's avg is down to 82 from 86!!!!

Hussey in 30 consecutive Innings has scored 1898 runs.

Most Runs in Consecutive 30 innings. (indication of form of batsmen in 30 cons. innings)

Test no Rank player Runs score for v.. I M Season venue
292 1 Bradman, DG 3006 127* Aus Ind 3 3 1947-48 Melbourne
1678 2 Ponting, RT 2436 257 Aus Ind 2 3 2003-04 Melbourne
1830 3 Mohammad Yousuf 2426 83 Pak SAf 1 3 2006-07 Cape Town
498 4 Sobers, GStA 2382 132 WI Aus 1 1 1960-61 Brisbane
870 5 Richards, IVA 2265 76 WI Aus 1 3 1979-80 Adelaide
1851 6 Sangakhara 2254 152 Sri Eng 3 1 2007-08 Kandy
439 7 Walcott, CL 2206 90 WI Eng 2 1 1957 Edgbaston
863 8 Gavaskar, SM 2184 21 Ind Pak 4 2 1979-80 Delhi (Feroz SK)
1183 9 Gooch, GA 2178 2 Eng NZ 1 1 1991-92 Christchurch
1703 10 Lara, BC 2122 120 WI Ban 2 2 2004 Kingston
423 11 Weekes, EdeC 2105 156 WI NZ 1 3 1955-56 Wellington
269 12 Hammond, WR 2091 120 Eng SAf 1 3 1938-39 Kingsmead
1697 13 Dravid, RS 2076 270 Ind Pak 2 3 2003-04 Rawalpindi (CS)
1680 14 Hayden, ML 2066 67 Aus Ind 2 4 2003-04 Sydney
1736 15 Kallis, JH 2059 136* SAf Eng 3 5 2004-05 Centurion Park
1562 16 Flower, A 2057 199* Zim SAf 3 1 2001-02 Harare
1153 17 Javed Miandad 2050 55 Pak NZ 3 3 1990-91 Faisalabad
1765 18 Sehwag, V 2029 44 Ind Zim 2 1 2005-06 Bulawayo (QSC)
312 19 Compton, DCS 2011 25 Eng SAf 3 4 1948-49 Ellis Park
613 20 Simpson, RB 1997 153 Aus SAf 1 2 1966-67 Cape Town
601 21 Barrington, KF 1983 32* Eng Aus 3 5 1965-66 Melbourne
1465 22 Tendulkar, SR 1980 217 Ind NZ 1 3 1999-00 Ahmedabad (GS)
1682 23 Gibbs, HH 1968 192 SAf WI 1 4 2003-04 Centurion Park
1450 24 de Silva, PA 1965 72 SL Pak 1 1 1998-99 Dhaka
1813 25 Younis Khan 1957 173 Pak Eng 2 3 2006 Headingley
859 26 Viswanath, GR 1942 96 Ind Aus 2 5 1979-80 Calcutta
180 27 Hobbs, JB 1936 142 Eng Aus 1 5 1928-29 Melbourne
741 28 Amiss, DL 1920 79 Eng Ind 2 3 1974 Edgbaston
172 29 Sutcliffe, H 1904 51 Eng SAf 1 5 1927-28 Kingsmead

There are 29 batsmen who made more runs than hussey during their purple patch.

Obviously Hussey is a very good player, but I would like to see him facing Akram, Waqar, Ambrose, Marshall, Donald and Pollock while they were in their prime. And...he is playing for the team with the best bowling attack over the last two years. So his average alone indicates very little of his ability. Cutting his teeth in Australian domestic cricket means he has faced Macgill, McGrath, Gillespie, Lee, Warne, Kasprovich, Bichel, Bracken. Much easier than many Test attacks around today.

hussey is the best one in australia

I find it interesting that there has been a highly-anticipated Test running for three days now and there has been no new blog started by Mukul.

I believe the American term is "Monday morning quarterback".

I'm sure that once the result of this Test is decided we'll get a missive from Mukul saying that he always knew that result was inevitable.

As an Aussie who thinks the Indians have incredible riches in the batting department, I have to say that the likes of Laxman have the means to chase down 499. I don't think it's likely, but I can't tell you how much I would like to see it become a close-run thing.

One reason for the change in averages has not been mentioned: helmets. Ask any 1970s batsman about the long-term effect of this technology and I'm sure you'll see it accounts fo several percentage points.

Mr Cricket just keeps coming through when needed. His century today certainly helped Australia get the win. It's easy to trot out statistics & over analyse but so far his impact on helping his team win has been excellent. And any team would be happy with 8 50's & 8 centuries in 33 innings! Let's wait until he retires to put his career into perspective!

memo to arjun: if you wouldn't pay to see Sangakkara you obviously didn't see his innings in Hobart. He almost won the match single handedly for SL - It was brilliant!

I don't get why people try and shut him down. He has made a Test century against every nation he's played against and averages 80 odd FFS yet people still try and criticise him.