CW Ranks the Batsmen

[adharcric]

1. Hobbs
2. Sobers

 

[Athlai]

Hobbs 10
Sobers 4
Grace 2
Richards 2

 

[Redbacks]

1. Hobbs
2. Hammond

 

[bagapath]

come on guys JBH was a master test batsman, no doubt. but viv richards was a master of the other form also besides being a champ in tests himself. i think viv behind bradman and followed by hobbs

 

[The Sean]

come on guys JBH was a master test batsman, no doubt. but viv richards was a master of the other form also besides being a champ in tests himself. i think viv behind bradman and followed by hobbs

You could throw a blanket really over the next half dozen (or even more) after The Don and put them in any order. Viv's an all time favourite of mine personally and I have him certain top 10 and pushing top 5, but not quite top 2-3.

 

[G.I.Joe]

(1) Sachin Tendulkar
(2) Brian Lara

 

[fredfertang]

1. WG
2. Herbert Sutcliffe

 

[The Sean]

1. WG
2. Herbert Sutcliffe

Herbert over Jack? Surprises me Fred, always picked you as a Hobbs man for sure.

 

[Athlai]

Hobbs - 12
Grace - 4
Sobers - 4
Richards - 2
Tendulkar - 2
Lara - 1
Hammond - 1
Sutcliffe -1

 

[Maximus0723]

what so great about Jack Hobbs?

/serious question.

 

[bagapath]

what so great about Jack Hobbs?

/serious question.

he was so good for so long that it is not funny. he started his career in 1908 and by the time test cricket stopped for WW1 he was the best in the world. when the game resumed after 5 years he started all over again and retired ten years later, as the best in the world.

his test record today would be to die for. in his days you can kill to have those numbers; plus maximum runs in FC and maximum ceturies in FC and consistency over so many decades across changing rules and wickets and new generations of bowlers. had this poll been only for test cricket he would have been my second choice behind bradman.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

1. Sir Donald Bradman
2. Sachin Tendulkar

 

[pasag]

1. Grace
2. Hobbs

 

[Athlai]

1. Sir Donald Bradman
2. Sachin Tendulkar

Bradman is already number 1, you are voting your primary and secondary choices for 2nd.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Bradman is already number 1, you are voting your primary and secondary choices for 2nd.

Oh.

1. Sachin Tendulkar
2. Sir Vivian Richards

 

[DaRick]

1) Jack Hobbs
2) Herbert Sutcliffe

 

[fredfertang]

Herbert over Jack? Surprises me Fred, always picked you as a Hobbs man for sure.

I suppose it's a protest vote - it irritates me that despite Sutcliffe's peerless record (Hobbs included) that he seldom gets a mention in these debates - I have heard it said that he never faced any great fast bowling, which is true, but it's not his fault he wasn't selected to play against Gregory and MacDonald and his record for Yorkshire against Notts (ie Larwood and Voce) is fine

What is also of some concern to me is why, as a Lancastrian, I should care at all

 

[The Sean]

I suppose it's a protest vote - it irritates me that despite Sutcliffe's peerless record (Hobbs included) that he seldom gets a mention in these debates - I have heard it said that he never faced any great fast bowling, which is true, but it's not his fault he wasn't selected to play against Gregory and MacDonald and his record for Yorkshire against Notts (ie Larwood and Voce) is fine

What is also of some concern to me is why, as a Lancastrian, I should care at all

Ha ha all fair enough - Sutcliffe is generally under-mentioned in these kind of discussions, it's true. As an English opener in that period he was always going to be in The Master's shadow, and with England having produced four of the top six openers in the history of the game (IMO) he's competing with some serious immortals to get recognition.

He'd probably be more appreciated had he either a) put together the exact same Test record but from no.3 rather than at the top of the order, or b) been an opener for anyone other than England.

 

[bagapath]

Ha ha all fair enough - Sutcliffe is generally under-mentioned in these kind of discussions, it's true. As an English opener in that period he was always going to be in The Master's shadow, and with England having produced four of the top six openers in the history of the game (IMO) he's competing with some serious immortals to get recognition.

He'd probably be more appreciated had he either a) put together the exact same Test record but from no.3 rather than at the top of the order, or b) been an opener for anyone other than England.

i think his almost boycottish slow batting worked against his legacy. also, i have noticed that batsmen who never scored double hundreds are usually under rated compared to players who have scored double hundreds but with similar records. think of haynes, richie richardson, vengsarkar, cowdrey, mark waugh, damien martyn, jacques kallis on one hand and pit them against greednige, de silva, vvs laxman, peter may, doug walters, david gower, rahul dravid and you'll get my drift.

for someone who played in 54 tests and who had amazing powers of concentration sutcliffe's top score being only 194 (or something like that) speaks of his snail like pace which might have sullied his reputation just a little bit.

 

[nightprowler10]

1. Jack Hobbs
2. Viv Richards