How come this batsmen is not famous as he should be. Look at his record http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/player/20413.html
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Herbert Sutcliffe?
- Thread starter deira
- Start date
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Sutcliffe was always considered second to his most famous opening partner Jack Hobbs (for reasons which can oft be complex). Had he been considered the pre-eminent opener in England all his career, it's likely he'd be better-known. As it is, "Sutcliffe" isn't heard all that often without the prefix "Hobbs and".
He doesn't get the credit he deserves, though, AFAIC. Undoubtedly one of the greatest batsmen to have played the game. Simply had the misfortune to be most famous for playing mostly alongside someone who was probably even better.
He doesn't get the credit he deserves, though, AFAIC. Undoubtedly one of the greatest batsmen to have played the game. Simply had the misfortune to be most famous for playing mostly alongside someone who was probably even better.
archie mac
International Coach
"I do love a dogfight sir"
BoyBrumby
Englishman
It's a strange one, really. He's usually unquestioningly placed behind Hobbs, yet his test average is a fair bit higher.
Kenny Barrington is also similarly neglected IMHO. The only English batsmen who debuted post-war to end with a test average in excess of 50, yet doesn't quite seem to have the rep of Boycott, Dexter or May, say.
Kenny Barrington is also similarly neglected IMHO. The only English batsmen who debuted post-war to end with a test average in excess of 50, yet doesn't quite seem to have the rep of Boycott, Dexter or May, say.
archie mac
International Coach
Well cricket has always been; not how many, but how
Perm
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
And it shouldn't be.
Perm
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Vastly, vastly under-rated was Herbert Sutcliffe. People rarely mention him when they talk about great Test batsmen.
The only real weaknesses in his record are against India and the West Indies, of which he only played 1 and 5 Tests respectively. Other than that he has an excellent home/away record, while his average across all innings is also very good. UIMM he has the highest Test average of all batsmen who have opened the batting. It's criminal how he doesn't get mentioned more often as a great Test batsman.
The only real weaknesses in his record are against India and the West Indies, of which he only played 1 and 5 Tests respectively. Other than that he has an excellent home/away record, while his average across all innings is also very good. UIMM he has the highest Test average of all batsmen who have opened the batting. It's criminal how he doesn't get mentioned more often as a great Test batsman.
archie mac
International Coach
Maybe you should add in your opinion, at the end of comments like that
It is certainly the main reason I watch cricket
Perm
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
It's the reason I watch cricket too. But ultimately, in the context of acheiving what a batsman/bowler needs to acheive, it's about how many.Maybe you should add in your opinion, at the end of comments like that
It is certainly the main reason I watch cricket
archie mac
International Coach
Perm
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
To put it simply, a batsman who averages 55 is better than a batsman who averages 45, if they played in the same conditions and performed well against every opponennt. Style, grace and attractive batting won't make the batsman who averages 45 a greater batsman than the batsman who averages 55. There is no two ways about it archie.NO! It is not
And I am now holding my breath until you agree with me
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
The reasons for that are many and complex though. Had their careers run more on a parralell, it might well be the other way around. Hobbs has any number of things which made him unutterably remarkable, Sutcliffe's career was, at least to an extent, more "standard". Perhaps, though, were a new Hobbs and a new Sutcliffe born 20 years ago and be about to start careers for Surrey and Yorkshire, Sutcliffe would be considered much the better player.
Equally, it's very conceivable that the different attitudes of the different times would see the new Hobbs be the better performer.
Matt79
Global Moderator
That's why I'm happy to take the testimony of experts who were aware of those factors and based their opinions on it. I see little use in, from 100 years down the track, trying to second guess the virtual consensus of opinion of the people who were best placed to comment. Especially as I'm honest enough to admit that a great many of those people knew more about cricket than I do. No point trying to be revisionist for the sake of it - which is not to say that Sutcliffe is in anyway not a great who deserves his ranking in the top pantheon - its just saying that Hobbs was thought to be better, and that's probably affected his standing - as has the fact perhaps that the end of his career coincided with Bradman.
Craig
World Traveller
Where does that quote come from?
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
...and when.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
What I tend to think is that Sutcliffe's being second to Hobbs affecting his standing is appalling form. It's almost as if people think "well they had Hobbs, they couldn't have had ANOTHER opener who was almost as good at the same time".
As I say - it also interests me hugely how a modern-day exact-replay of the careers of Hobbs and Sutcliffe would be assessed. Along with how the modern influences would alter how such "potential" careers actually panned-out.