Sutcliffe

[Shaggy Alfresco]

Everyone talks about how Jack Hobbs was the greatest opening batsman ever, but what about Herbert Sutcliffe, his opening partner who is more impressive statistically? Why does Sutcliffe have superior stats, yet is regarded as the lesser batsman? Is it because Hobbs gave his wicket away to a deserving bowler after a century?

 

[Richard]

That's one of the reasons (it was only a perception, and while there might be some truth in it doing such a thing is IMO poor batsmanship) - and Hobbs' longevity is another. Hobbs was probably at his best after the age of 36, which is nothing short of incredible.

IIRR there's not much difference in their First-Class stats, it's just in Tests that the Yorkshireman trumps the Surrey man.

 

[archie mac]

Everyone talks about how Jack Hobbs was the greatest opening batsman ever, but what about Herbert Sutcliffe, his opening partner who is more impressive statistically? Why does Sutcliffe have superior stats, yet is regarded as the lesser batsman? Is it because Hobbs gave his wicket away to a deserving bowler after a century?

I think it was more the way he scored his runs, he apparently played every shot just like the text book suggests {Archie Mac (the real one) used photos of him to describe how to bat in a book he wrote}

While HS was a real fighter and made his runs in a back to the wall fashion. although he did have a great hook shot by all reports

 

[shortpitched713]

Why does Sutcliffe have superior stats, yet is regarded as the lesser batsman?

Anti northern bias.

 

[Perm]

Hobbs is the second best batsman to ever play the game IMO, Sutcliffe doesn't come close to him despite havng a very good Test record.

 

[iamdavid]

Hobbs is the second best batsman to ever play the game IMO, Sutcliffe doesn't come close to him despite havng a very good Test record.

How can you say this when you've never seen either of them play, meaning the only thing you have to go on are their stats which are just about even and others reports.

 

[Richard]

It's so hard to say conclusively that any one batsman is the 2nd-best ever to play the game as we know it today, really - even if someone had watched all cricket since 1900 they'd still never be able to say IMO.

That said, if I had the chance to pick someone I'd pick George Headley rather than abstain.

 

[shortpitched713]

It's so hard to say conclusively that any one person is the 2nd-best ever to play the game as we know it today

I could be pedantic and mention that most would say pretty conclusively that its Garry, but I know what your talking about.

 

[Richard]

Haha, good spot my man. Post edited.

I'd rank Sir Garfield as the best cricketer ever, myself.

 

[archie mac]

I could be pedantic and mention that most would say pretty conclusively that its Garry, but I know what your talking about.

I think it is easily WG, but I know what your talking about

 

[Richard]

I think it's futile to compare WG to anyone of the 20th century and beyond, TBH. The game he played was not the same as the one that Trumper, Fry, Ranji, Hobbs and everyone from them onwards played.

WG was one thing and one thing alone IMO - far ahead of his contemporaries in the cricket of his day. Of course, he might well have dominated cricket had he played in, say, the 1950s, too. But he didn't, and IMO it's no use comparing.

 

[archie mac]

I think it's futile to compare WG to anyone of the 20th century and beyond, TBH. The game he played was not the same as the one that Trumper, Fry, Ranji, Hobbs and everyone from them onwards played.

WG was one thing and one thing alone IMO - far ahead of his contemporaries in the cricket of his day. Of course, he might well have dominated cricket had he played in, say, the 1950s, too. But he didn't, and IMO it's no use comparing.

Should I mention 1895?

 

[Richard]

Dono, should you?

Try me.

 

[archie mac]

Dono, should you?

Try me.

I expect you to do some research mate, and learn something new

 

[Perm]

How can you say this when you've never seen either of them play, meaning the only thing you have to go on are their stats which are just about even and others reports.

Obviously I have limitations and can't properly judge them, but the conclusion I have come to after doing a bit of reading and taking a look at the stats was that Hobbs was the second best. I don't expect others to agree, or for that conclusion to hold up under intense scrutiny but it's the opinion I have formed.

 

[JBMAC]

Obviously I have limitations and can't properly judge them, but the conclusion I have come to after doing a bit of reading and taking a look at the stats was that Hobbs was the second best. I don't expect others to agree, or for that conclusion to hold up under intense scrutiny but it's the opinion I have formed.

With a Test average of 56.95 from 102 innings you would think Hobbs should be rated number 2 BUT Sutcliffe's average of 60.73 from 84 innings definitely surpasses it.I would be interested where your stats came from Perm...mine are Howstats.com and have always proved reliable in the past.The obscure reference to 1895 is a poser for me as well.

 

[Perm]

With a Test average of 56.95 from 102 innings you would think Hobbs should be rated number 2 BUT Sutcliffe's average of 60.73 from 84 innings definitely surpasses it.I would be interested where your stats came from Perm...mine are Howstats.com and have always proved reliable in the past.The obscure reference to 1895 is a poser for me as well.

Was thinking more about the 197/199 centuries and all that razzamatazz.

 

[archie mac]

With a Test average of 56.95 from 102 innings you would think Hobbs should be rated number 2 BUT Sutcliffe's average of 60.73 from 84 innings definitely surpasses it.I would be interested where your stats came from Perm...mine are Howstats.com and have always proved reliable in the past.The obscure reference to 1895 is a poser for me as well.

1895 was WGs Indian Summer (is that PC these days?) but he was 47 and many of the great players of the Golden Age were around, when he became the first batsman to score a 1000 runs in the month of May, and scored his 100th ton (or so they thought)

 

[JBMAC]

Thanks AM...Had me perplexed.

 

[archie mac]

Thanks AM...Had me perplexed.

No worries mate