Hussey should be considered as one of the greats

Ain't that the same attack that Pat Symcox also scored his only test hundred against? If I can remember correct he scored that century and was dropped the next test. Incidentally SA scored 364 to be exact in that drawn test match http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63789.html

haha 200 against Bangemdesh

All time greats is probably a big call, I'd have him in the Australian 2nd XI off all time though. One off the best modern day batsmen going around but just not in the same class as Ponting, Lara, Tendulkar, Kallis or Sangakarra are/were. Probably around the Dravid, ul-Haq, Chanderpaul class.

Jason Gillepsie for me. What a batsman.

One thing you all forget when talking about Hussy never making a double hundred is that he bats at no.6. Most of the others you mention are openers or 3 or 4. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/230344.html Hussey is one of the greats and it was a mistake not picking earlier.

Clanger did it harder, his debut 20 and 54 vs West Indies in 1992 for example was epic in an epic match. He was gutsy and a half. The Huss is a great player but not a great. Langer certainly got some easy runs at timesand some gifts ( even he admits he was out against Pakistan in Hobart ) but he got them from the perilous top of the order. Huss is a great rebuilder and a great finisher.

I think flat track bully is a bit harsh but I agree, Hussey is short of the "great class".

Yeah, you're right...I was only pulling the chain with the double stuff...but I'm quite serious about the first bit I wrote.

Someone's got a man crush on langer by the sounds of it!!! Sure he was good, but not in the same class as hussey.

I know you aren't being serious Nick but for what it's worth, Herbert Sutcliffe (54 test at an average of over 60; 50,000 First class runs with 151 centuries) never hit a test double ton. Until 12 months ago, neither had Kallis.

Geoff Marsh - 50 tests 4 centuries avg 33.18 - those figures definitely rank him in the tier below the tier of average players to play for Australia (still much better than me though). Debut in '85 - scored 3 tons in '86 and his only other ton in '89 (in the unbeaten opening stand with Taylor at Trent Bridge if memory serves), final match in '92. With those figures you'd have to say Border was successful in getting him selected for about 35 more tests than he deserved. Dean Jones - I looked up his record and it's better than I remember (which only indicates that I'm getting on). I'd be prepared to say he was in that next tier of guys even though there's this nagging suspicion that he wasn't one to bat Aus out of a crisis. His figures put him ahead of Mark Waugh in many ways, but Waugh did save and win matches for Australia several times and I'd take Waugh over Jones any day (but that's an argument for another day because Waugh would have to be almost the best example of wasted talent going around). Deano's 210 was his first century for Aus and I'd argue he never quite hit those heights again (even though he scored 216 against WI at Adelaide - by that time WI had the series won 3-1). Justin Langer – maybe in the next tier but I don't like to admit it. His most prolific year was 2004 in which he scored 1481 runs at 54.85, a top effort. Looking more closely though in those tests he faced the fearsome might of India, Sri Lanka, NZ and Pakistan - look those tests up, none of those teams had what you'd call the most scary of fast men – but I’ll concede, he still had to score the runs. All his top 5 scores came in home tests, and even with that record he averaged less than 50 in at home and barely more than 41 away. Not my favorite to watch and certainly not amongst the best 30 Aussies to ever play the game (in my opinion, for what it’s worth) . And so to Hussey – definitely in the next best tier if only for his average and consistency, and before you argue, just look at his stats. Even is his worst year he scored at least one ton. And even though he’s never scored 1000 runs in a calendar year he’s been remarkably consistent with at least fifty runs every 2.3 innings (against Langer 3.4, Jones 3.6 and Marsh 4.9). There’s more but I think it’s an easy sale.

He's a great player alright but it bothers me that he hasn't had a shot at the troublesome no.3 spot. Clarkey and he are being disengenious when they talk about their own excellent form and then lament the troubled top 3 and the alleged lack of door knockers. Punter usually speaks the same language but currently has things to worry about.

Furthermore, 'great' batsman need to be able to hit a double century, the true mark of an unshakeable batsman in a test innings. Hussey's 195, while very good, doesn't make the cutoff.

This is ridiculous to think he should be a great. He is a very very good player, but not a great, unless we are seriously expanding the once select group of great players. Hussey has not even come close to dominating overseas...ever. He has 18 test centuries, and just 5 have come overseas. 5. Three of them on batting roads in the subcontinent. Most centuries he has scored here have been on road wickets. Hussey has always found it hard to shake off the flat track bully tag. Hussey also has a massive tendency to score centuries in innings where Australia already have set up a massive advantage. I can think of three in the past year (Adelaide just now, Brisbane last week, and in Sydney in January). Each time Clarke had set up the innings with a MASSIVE score and Hussey just padded on with no pressure at all. Hussey has only 2 or 3 times scored centuries when he was against the wall. Hussey's away record against some the better opponents of his era is dreadful. He bats at 31 in England, 32 in South Africa, and a fairly respectable 44 in India. He bats a woeful 39 in the West Indies (where he has the problem on batting on pitches not entirely conducive to batting...SHOCK!) In NZ, again on bowler assisting pitches he only hits at 31, but he has only played 2 matches there so we can give him a little break. 'Great' batsman dominate most everyone, everywhere, anytime. Thats why they are considered great. Lets keep the fact that Hussey has chipped in a couple of centuries on home soil, after the ground work has been done by other batsman, on pitches offering no assistance to bowlers in perspective please!

Well thats just plain wrong because Adam Gilchrist was never dropped.

Hopefully Huss will end up with more runs at a better average than that miserable grump Neil Harvey.

Hussey has carved out a very good career from what was a late entry into international cricket. Not many players debut at the age of 29/30 and rack up the kind of numbers that he has. He's probably not up with the likes of the very, very good Hayden, Mark Waugh, Boon types jiust yet, but if Hussey manages to play another couple of years he may well end up sitting very comfortably within that group of very, very good players who sit just outside the top echelon of alltime greats.

Yeah I forgot to add "to not be dropped". it should be "Michael Hussey is the only Australian player in the last 20 years not to be dropped"

Maybe 50 tests averaging over 50?