On the Sutcliffe v Hutton debate, there is definitely a statistical backing for the idea that Sutcliffe benefited from weaker attacks a little more of the two. When I standardised their averages Hutton's went from 56.67 to 53.94 (95%) while Sutcliffe's went from 60.73 to 56.11 (92%) but certainly neither played in the toughest era to be a batsman by any stretch of the imagination.
Longevity is why I put Hutton ahead though; he got the equivalent of almost 13 years worth of Tests in, while Sutcliffe didn't make 10. Unpopular reasoning for picking someone so I won't go into that again too much.
