Top ten greatest bowlers and batsmen of all time

[Zinzan]

Aus

Bradman
G.Chappell
Trumper
Harvey
Border
S.Waugh
Ponsford
Smith
McCabe
Hill

McGrath
OReilly
Warne
Lillee
Lindwall
Davidson
Grimmett
Turner
Johnson
Miller

Assuming you've omitted Ponting by error

 

[Zinzan]

Don't buy the hype surrounding Trumper.. Everything I read about him, he seems pretty much like VVS. Elegant player capable of playing mesmerizing innings once in a while but otherwise inconsistent. Gets overrated for being first of his kind.

"stats aren't everything" argument can only go so far. And other than nostalgia and romanticism for past, I don't see any reason to leave Ponting out of top 3 all time Aussie batsmen.

It's not so much a 'stats aren't everything' argument. It's that his Test average of 39 was excellent in his era.

 

[Coronis]

At least we can all agree Clem Hill was better than Trumper.

 

[Chrish]

It's not so much a 'stats aren't everything' argument. It's that his Test average of 39 was excellent in his era.

My point is both Ranji and Hobbs outscored Trumper. Trumper averaged 39 while Ranji averaged almost 45 and Hobbs averaged well over 50 (Ranji didn't even play SA).

In Ranji’s case if we agree about the sample size of 26 innings is too small then we have to look at their FC records. Ranji almost averaged 12 runs higher than Trumper. And he too played on uncovered wickets against some class English bowlers of that era like Lockwood and Richardson in the county circuit.

He falls fair bit behind some of his own contemporaries who faced each other as the strongest opposition of that time.

 

[Zinzan]

My point is both Ranji and Hobbs outscored Trumper. Trumper averaged 39 while Ranji averaged almost 45 and Hobbs averaged well over 50.

In Ranji’s case if we agree about the sample size of 26 innings is too small then we have to look at their FC records. Ranji almost averaged 12 runs higher than Trumper. And he too played on uncovered wickets against some class English bowlers of that era like Lockwood and Richardson in the county circuit.

He falls fair bit behind some of his own contemporaries who faced each other as the strongest opposition of that time.

That's fair, but Hobbs was a bit of a freak for his era.

 

[cnerd123]

The appeal of Trumper was never weight of runs tho. It was his approach and his style. Don't know why people would argue otherwise.

 

[Red]

My point is both Ranji and Hobbs outscored Trumper. Trumper averaged 39 while Ranji averaged almost 45 and Hobbs averaged well over 50 (Ranji didn't even play SA).

In Ranji’s case if we agree about the sample size of 26 innings is too small then we have to look at their FC records. Ranji almost averaged 12 runs higher than Trumper. And he too played on uncovered wickets against some class English bowlers of that era like Lockwood and Richardson in the county circuit.

He falls fair bit behind some of his own contemporaries who faced each other as the strongest opposition of that time.

Hobbs played in a different era.

And no one is saying that Ranji wasn't a great.

 

[indiaholic]

Great read this: Trumper, in light and shade | The Cricket Monthly | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Red]

Assuming you've omitted Ponting by error

Oversight. He'd slot in between Border and Harvey

 

[OverratedSanity]

Hobbs played in a different era.

And no one is saying that Ranji wasn't a great.

Hobbs played a chunk of his matches in the same era.

On the bolded part, no one is saying Ranji is better than Ponting, though. And that's where it's quite possible that there's some romanticism when it comes to Trumper.

 

[Red]

Hobbs played a chunk of his matches in the same era.

Well, yehnah. Only four years overlapped. Hobbs played his last test eighteen years after Trumper finished. So kind of not.

On the bolded part, no one is saying Ranji is better than Ponting, though. And that's where it's quite possible that there's some romanticism when it comes to Trumper.

It's not romanticism. He was good, great. As was Ranji. There's no reason to not discuss whether Ranji or Trumper were greater than or equal to Ponting. All were considered among the elite of their time.

 

[Flametree]

This topic always intrigues me too. I am as guilty of over-rating earlier eras as anyone but I struggle a bit with Trumper's elevation to ATG status when no-one seriously considers Hill or Bardsley similarly. If you're going to put Trumper in the Australian first xi, then don't you have to put Ranji in the England xi? And no-one seems to do that.

Maybe it's because there are no outstanding candidates for the Australian opening positions (by outstanding, I mean, standing out from the crowd, not "very good"). You can make a claim for any of Trumper, Bardsley, Woodfull, Ponsford, Barnes, Morris, Simpson, Lawry, and Hayden for the first team alone. That's 9 contenders for two slots, and each of us might have a secret liking for someoine like Boon, Taylor, Slater, Langer, Warner, to make it a round 10. Hell, argue that you need an offspinner for some variety and Bob Cowper can be in the mix....

 

[Flametree]

All of which got me thinking of an xi of "players who are usually considered much better than their averages suggest, (even if their averages were pretty good....) "

Trumper
Gooch
Majid Khan
Viswanath
de Silva
Waugh M
Constantine
wk ???
Larwood
Wes Hall
Mailey

I didn't include Jimmy Cook and Peter Kirsten, whose test careers arrived at the wrong time. DS de Silva from Sri Lanka might be another in that category...
There are a few openers you could consider, Greenidge, Haynes, Slater, Boon, Taylor.

 

[Gob]

Aus

Bradman
G.Chappell
Trumper
Harvey
Border
S.Waugh
Ponsford
Smith
McCabe
Hill

McGrath
OReilly
Warne
Lillee
Lindwall
Davidson
Grimmett
Turner
Johnson
Miller

Did you fell on your head as a kid or just misspelled Ponting as Ponsford

 

[Burgey]

Stacky as an opener belongs in the discussion too, from an Australian POV

 

[Gob]

Oversight. He'd slot in between Border and Harvey

Well poo didn't see this. Sorry guy

 

[Coronis]

Well, yehnah. Only four years overlapped. Hobbs played his last test eighteen years after Trumper finished. So kind of not.

So gloss over the point, which was the number of matches they played at the same time (about half) and their records in those matches.

 

[Red]

So gloss over the point, which was the number of matches they played at the same time (about half) and their records in those matches.

Sure.

1908- Hobbs avgd 43, Trumper avgd 36

1909- Hobbs avgd 26, Trumper avgd 26

1910- Hobbs avgd 67, Trumper avgd 73

1911- Hobbs avgd 72, Trumper avgd 72

1912- Hobbs avgd 64, Trumper avgd 25

 

[Coronis]

Sure.

1908- Hobbs avgd 43, Trumper avgd 36

1909- Hobbs avgd 26, Trumper avgd 26

1910- Hobbs avgd 67, Trumper avgd 73

1911- Hobbs avgd 72, Trumper avgd 72

1912- Hobbs avgd 64, Trumper avgd 25

Overall from the time they played together, Hobbs 2022 runs @ 56.16, 5 centuries 12 50's. Trumper 1433 runs @ 44.78, 4 centuries 5 50's. Difference is quite clear.

 

[Red]

Overall from the time they played together, Hobbs 2022 runs @ 56.16, 5 centuries 12 50's. Trumper 1433 runs @ 44.78, 4 centuries 5 50's. Difference is quite clear.

I'm not arguing Hobbs wasn't an absolute great. I acknowledge he was probably a greater player than Trumper was.

Unsure what point you're trying to make here.