Tom Shines
First Grade
- Messages
- 9,854
There was a comment in today's paper that Michael Hussey is as good as Michael Bevan was in the ODI side. Do you agree?
Bev had a shocking arm and was quite regularly hid in the deep.willvillain said:Other things to take into account.
Bevan was a handy bowler. Hussey is the better fielder (though Bev was no slouch).
Hussey's ability to hit boundaries is his biggest advantage (even with the ropes being brought in etc these days, Huss would still have the edge here no matter when he played).
At the moment, I will say that I can't split them, Bevan was amazing for a long long time, and Huss has pulled out a couple of innings recently that are worthy of the tag "Bevan-esque", but we haven't seen Australia 6 wickets down for not much recently. 3 down, sure, but even last night Huss batted with Clarke for most of the innings.
Bev was forced to do the magic with the last three or four blokes in the team quite a lot...
Garbage.waltzing Meninga said:Its a no brainer. Hussey is 10 times the player Bevan ever was.
The amount of times we batted first and our innings would stall as soon as Bevan came to the crease to protect his average was ridiculous.
Hussey has a far better technique and has a proven record at test level. Something Bevan could never do