• 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.

Trumper vs Hill

Who was the better batsman? (And please don't JUST consider Test cricket)


  • Total voters
    23

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Yes, a question that has always fascinated me beyond almost all others. I confess I'm not particularly well-versed on the legend of Victor Trumper (though Bradman's devoted haters clung steadfastly to the idea that Trumper was better than he) but Clem Hill's dominance of the game has always been something that's hugely impressed me.

As well as giving people the chance to say who they think was better, it'd be good to hear some more of probably the first two indisputably top-class Australian batsmen. Certainly the first of the 20th-century.
 

archie mac

International Coach
Yes, a question that has always fascinated me beyond almost all others. I confess I'm not particularly well-versed on the legend of Victor Trumper (though Bradman's devoted haters clung steadfastly to the idea that Trumper was better than he) but Clem Hill's dominance of the game has always been something that's hugely impressed me.

As well as giving people the chance to say who they think was better, it'd be good to hear some more of probably the first two indisputably top-class Australian batsmen. Certainly the first of the 20th-century.
As some know I am currently researching a book on Clem Hill, and one of the chapters (first one I am writing atm), is a comparison between these two greats.

Clem once said 'as a batsman I am not fit to lick Vics boots'

So I will vote for Trumper here, but for a period Clem was the best Aussie bat, he lost a little towards the end of his career, but then so did Trumper
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
I think in favour of Trumper and my reasons are simple and twofold.


One - so many have written of Trumper being the greatest Australian batsman till Bradman came on the scene. Soooo many. I dont remember similar sentiments expressed about Hill. There has to be a reason for so many who saw them and played with or against to put one on such a higher pedestal.

Two - the few photographs that are available of the two show Trumper as very classy and elegant and Hill as somewhat ungainly and awkward. This affects my bias towards technical orthodoxy :)
 

Isolator

State 12th Man
Two - the few photographs that are available of the two show Trumper as very classy and elegant and Hill as somewhat ungainly and awkward. This affects my bias towards technical orthodoxy :)
Not that this necessarily contradicts the above, but wasn't Trumper the one who played a sort of slog-sweep quite frequently? He was nicknamed "The Croucher" or something, am I right?
 

pasag

RTDAS
Trumper, but not by a whole lot you'd think. Hill is one of our finest cricketers, without a doubt.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Modesty can mean dishonesty, however, and the latter is worse than the former as it misleads others.
 

bagapath

International Captain
Modesty can mean dishonesty, however, and the latter is worse than the former as it misleads others.
but not always. like beauty, this assessment is also in the eye of the beholder. being a great bat himself, clem must have known the nuances of his craft better than others and probably appreciated victor's mastery wholeheartedly. i will give him his due and take this as a reflection of his modesty. (at the turn of the last century a famous indian writer, bankim chandra IIRC, was told by one of his peers that he appreciated chandra's writing a lot. he added that he always wondered why an inferior writer like tagore (the nobel laureate) was appreciated more than him by others. chandra replied that it could be because he wrote for inferior writers like him while tagore catered to readers of chandra's caliber)

i would vote for trumper. this poll must be similar to lara vs sachin threads we are so familiar with. two absolute masters of a craft just one of them more stylish than the other.

arthur mailey's article and the anecdote about the bat sponsorship have certainly made trumper immortal.
 
Last edited:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
but not always. like beauty, this assessment is also in the eye of the beholder. being a great bat himself, clem must have known the nuances of his craft better than others and probably appreciated victor's mastery wholeheartedly.
That's fine (if true - not saying it neccessarily is) but it's not because of modesty that Hill would think such a thing - it's because of his ability to offer honest assessment.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Is that fence your sitting on giving you splinters or mild electric shocks? :p
No, making a point that those who speak so authoritatively about players who last pulled on the pads almost 100 years ago lack justification for their confidence.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Modesty can mean dishonesty, however, and the latter is worse than the former as it misleads others.
I think you over react here Richard. Clem Hill wasn't thinking of the stats enamoured followers of the game of the 21st century when he said that (if he did) to show the qualitative difference between himself and the Champion batsman of the day.

When Rahul Dravid said, on the off side first there is God and then Saurav Ganguly he was just making a point that he felt neeed to be emphasised. He could have even said,

"first there is Saurav and then there is God, and the batsmen like me and others are not even on the same page"

or

" my off side play is not worth talking about when compared to Saurav's"

All exaggeration but dishonesty definitely not.

We all exaggerate to make a point. I have done it a zillion times before. :)

I bet that brought a smile, a mile long, on your face :laugh:
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
That previous comment of mine wasn't neccessarily aimed at Hill regarding Trumper, it's a good general observation. The modesty of players can lead to people who read what they said years later (or, indeed, at the time) getting mistaken impressions.

I've no doubt whatsoever that there were ways in which Trumper trumped (yeah, yeah...) Hill. However, IF Hill were to take an overtly modest stance on the matter, and we were to take his word as gospel, that might mean we potentially didn't get a fair impression of the true comparison between the players.

If Player A is a great admirer of Player B (and from the fairly little I've read pretty much EVERYONE was an admirer of Victor Trumper, and not without good reason) and Player A is a modest one, there's no way he's ever going to consider himself better, even if an honest appraisal might be that he was.

Not saying Hill and Trumper is neccessarily one of these cases (ie, of Hill being so in awe of Trumper that he underestimated himself). But one that I do indeed feel fits the bill is Hadlee and Lillee. And I'm sure there are many others.
 

neville cardus

International Debutant
No, making a point that those who speak so authoritatively about players who last pulled on the pads almost 100 years ago lack justification for their confidence.
Unless you are endowed with ESP, there is little justification that you could possibly have for your confidence in that illation.
 
Last edited:

Top