Poll: Hussey v Bevan

[Tom Shines]

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?

 

[Tom Shines]

I say better, for the simple fact of Hussey's versatility.
Could be used as an opener if necessary, but he has the ability to turn the strike over like Bevan did, but he can go the tonk with the best of them if the situation warrants (see the game vs World XI where he hit the roof and scored his runs in no time).
And let's not even mention that average...

 

[wittyfan]

Hussey. Can hit boundaries much more regularly.

 

[Matt23]

Hussey, but only just, his versatility got him over the line

 

[hineyrulz]

On Figures alone you'd have to say Hussey, But Bevo Played 240 odd games and kept his average over 50. Plus he was a big reason for 2 world Cup victories. To early to tell IMO. A fairer assement should be made in a few years time.

 

[Roosters_187]

Bevan was a great player the only thing that pist me off was that he couldnt hit over the rope/boundary. I guess its more relevance to todays game with bigger scores etc but hussey AT THIS STAGE is the equal of bevan in regards to working for runs and he can put the fut down when needed.

 

[NK Arsenal]

option number 3.
only becuse bevo played more games, so his average was a bit lower.
time will tell if huss is like him

 

[willvillain]

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...

 

[Twizzle]

cant say yet

Bevo's career is over and Huss is still going

Bevo at this stage but Huss has the potential to do the same

too early to call

 

[lockyno1]

Hussey by a fair margin. His S/R is superior to Bevans. They are as useful as each other whilst chasing targets and finishing chasing targets. But Hussey is a LOT better setting targets as he can hit lots of boundaries!

 

[El Diablo]

Bev

 

[Tom Shines]

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...

Bev had a shocking arm and was quite regularly hid in the deep.
He was actually a pretty poor field.

 

[icewind]

actually before his shoulder injury bevan had an ok arm. not outstanding, but not shocking like after his injury.

As for the debate, nostalgia would say Bevan. May not hit the ball over the rope as much, but was able to save an innings like none other with his ability to place the ball unsurpassed imo, and his running was unbelievable.

That said, Hussey would be more useful in setting targets than Bevan.

Why not have both guys?

ie the all star thread:

Gilchrist
M Waugh
Ponting
Jones
Symonds
HUSSEY
BEVAN
O'Donnell
Warne
Lillee
McGrath

 

[shaggy]

cant split them, both great lower order batsmen who batted at 6, won many a game for australia and both very quick between the wickets

 

[aussies1st]

Hussey just cause of his finishing ability. Both can save teams when needed it appears.

 

[Utey]

Bev, I think he faced much tougher attacks.

 

[waltzing Meninga]

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

 

[Balmain_Boy]

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

Garbage.

Bevo's strike rate was only about 5 runs per 100 balls worse than the majority of his contempories. This was compensated by a hugely superior average. It's offensive to claim he was not a team player - he won more matches for his TEAM than any other Australian player.

 

[Balmain_Boy]

Oh and btw, ODI have changed markedly since Bevan was at his peak - enough to make comparisons difficult. Where once 220 was considered a good score, 270+ seems the norm these days.

 

[lockyno1]

I agree WM. When we were setting targets I always felt Bevan wasted a lot of balls that he could have belted to the boundary. Hussey always treats those balls properly and goes for the bigger shots. Hussey definaely has the better technique and the 4 or 5 test hundreds compared to 0 for Bevan proves this!