Sachin Tendulkar and Jack Hobbs

[Richard]

Sorry I meant First Chance Average, not First Class. I would like to know who had better First Chance average and I will decide on the basis of that. Whoever has better FC, is the better bat.

If you want to know, you'd better have a look.

 

[Sanz]

Don't have access to the spreadsheet which keeps track of every lost chance.

 

[silentstriker]

Not a bad question this

Atm pretty close but the little fellow is not finished yet

Not sure that I agree STR is getting better with age? Smarter maybe but not the batsman he once was imho

Reminds me of Bradman (not that I watched him), in that he is scoring as often but talent wise he looked much better earlier in his career

Absolutely agreed. He is not the batsman of 1998.

Jamal Malik is a slumboy, he doesn't spend hours on a Cricket Website. Not an easy question at all.

RICKY PONTING MICHAEL SLATER SACHIN TENDULKAR? BLAAAAAAH!

 

[silentstriker]

So is 199 the most commonly accepted answer? I know Sir Jack and Widen disagree, but in all honestly, depending how much money was on the line, and how many life lines I had left, I probably would of bailed and taken whatever cash I had won by that stage.

I think Wisden is probably the 'official' one, but I don't think they'd actually put that. They could face a lawsuit if you pick the other one.

I'd personally answer 197, but 199 is understandable.

 

[Furball]

Absolutely agreed. He is not the batsman of 1998.

Interestingly, post retirement despite all his achievements after 1919, Hobbs was noted to remark that he wished he'd played as he did before the Great War.

 

[silentstriker]

Yea, Hobbs really preferred his front foot play pre-WWI. As Archie said, even though he was scoring very highly post-WWII, most people who saw him said he was not the same as he was pre-WWII. Obviously, runs count as runs, but there is still that something, that joie de vivre in batting so to speak.

Sachin may be scoring highly, but he is nowhere near the quality he was in 1998. IMO anyway. If he could combine his brain from now and technical skills of 27-28, it'd be amazing. But you can say that about most players. Experience really adds so much, and can make up for a loss of physical skills.

 

[Sir Alex]

Sachin may be scoring highly, but he is nowhere near the quality he was in 1998. IMO anyway. If he could combine his brain from now and technical skills of 27-28, it'd be amazing. But you can say that about most players. Experience really adds so much, and can make up for a loss of physical skills.

He has curtailed the flourish in his strokeplay. But his basic skills particularly the defence has only been polished. I don't know what you are meaning by "skills" here. Sachin used to be particularly raw in those days, used to clobber the ball rather time it, but today's Tendulkar is more like a surgeon, caressing the ball but with the same speed of the bat as well.

 

[Anil]

He has curtailed the flourish in his strokeplay. But his basic skills particularly the defence has only been polished. I don't know what you are meaning by "skills" here. Sachin used to be particularly raw in those days, used to clobber the ball rather time it, but today's Tendulkar is more like a surgeon, caressing the ball but with the same speed of the bat as well.

haha no way is that true...wonderful hand-eye coordination and superb reflexes allowed him to guage the line and length of the ball quicker than most and a naturally aggressive temperament allowed him to take advantage of that, doesn't mean in the least that he didn't time or place the ball well...clobber the ball all the time can be applied to the afridis of this world, not to the likes of sachin tedulkar...

 

[Sanz]

Sachin may be scoring highly, but he is nowhere near the quality he was in 1998. IMO anyway. If he could combine his brain from now and technical skills of 27-28, it'd be amazing. But you can say that about most players. Experience really adds so much, and can make up for a loss of physical skills.

Just don't understand what you really mean by Quality here.

 

[JBH001]

Agreed.

In any case, I for one, prefer Sachin Mark II. It comes down to personal preference but I distrust extravagance and embellishment when it comes to batting in comparison to organisation and method, i.e. I look to the surgeon over the matador. Hence my preference for the artisan like approach of Sachin Mark II.

 

[pasag]

Hobbs averaging 50 over 800 matches in the days of uncovered wickets really is a Bradmanesque stat.

 

[SJS]

About five years ago, when Sachin had run into a prolonged period of poor form and what looked, at least to me, like more than a modicum of self doubt, I had written here that Sachin wasn't past his best because he had never reached the best he was so clearly capable of. While I had expressed doubts whether or not he would be able to get out of the rut he was in and reach the great heights he was capable of since his biological age would start going against him very soon, I had no doubt that he could have bettered the great heights he achieved in his early 20's by adding to it the maturity that would come to a prodigy by the time he reaches his prime at about thirty.

I suspect, Sachin has now added his maturity to his game and is playing like a "seasoned great" but time has taken its toll on his body as have injuries. We are surely seeing a master batsman at the peek of his skills but probably a tad below his physical peak.

Interestingly the same may have happened to Jack Hobbs who did not start early like Sachin and was in his 26th year when he made his Test debut. Hobbs was a great free stroking batsmen before the first world war came and broke his career into half at the worst possible time. Hobbs was in his 32nd year and at the peak of his physical powers and a greatly skilled batsmen.

By the time the five years ended, Hobbs was about as old as Sachin is today and while he continued playing Test cricket for another decade, he was less free flowing even if more masterly in his maturity and skill particularly in adverse conditions.

Of course Hobbs lived in a time of much less international cricket and no shorter version of the game.

Maybe Sachin, if his body allows him, could go on for another 4-5 years but are we going to be as kind to him as cricket lovers were to Hobbs after the war? Everyone agreed that Hobbs was not the stroke player he used to be but no one ever talked of his being a lesser batsman, because he wasn't. Nor is Sachin today.

The other day, I was watching his 200 against South Africa on youtube (having missed the entire SAfrican tour due to my vacation) and I saw him play a short rising ball that rose awkwardly towards his armpit, very fine and within 3 feet of the diving keeper. It brought oohs and aahs from the commentator as it looked like a close one for the master batsman but replays showed how he was absolutely in control of the shot and played it exactly where it went. The expression on the face of the bowler, Parnell I think, said it all since he realised he had seen a master at work dealing with a very awkward delivery.

A younger Sachin may have clobbered that one over square leg (maybe) but I loved the shot he played the other day. There is a lot to admire in the new sachin.

Similarly, the 175 he scored earlier against the Kiwis in an odi was an absolute masterpiece and one of his finest odi innings I have seen and i have seen 90 percent of them

Lets give him his due for age is against him and his body is wracked yet he is putting up for us a display that only a great master with the added experience of twenty years at the top can. Sit back and enjoy the show for there isn't too long for it to last.

 

[Sir Alex]

Thanks SJS. That was one excellent post to read. Any comparison between these two masters is a futile exercise.

 

[SJS]

So. I learnt something today. One can change/correct/modify the title of a thread. Will those who helped change the vs. to and in the title of this one educate all of us how to do it please. We have all felt the need to do it at times.

Thanks in advance.

 

[honestbharani]

So. I learnt something today. One can change/correct/modify the title of a thread. Will those who helped change the vs. to and in the title of this one educate all of us how to do it please. We have all felt the need to do it at times.

Thanks in advance.

Think only the mods or admins can, SJS... Not sure if as a Staff Member u ll have the privileges for it. Mods, correct me if I m wrong..

 

[Furball]

Thanks SJS. That was one excellent post to read. Any comparison between these two masters is a futile exercise.

Yeah, as stated in the original post, the comparison was between the similarity in their careers and how they were perceived by their peers as opposed to a "Sachin's better cos he hits sixes" argument.

 

[Furball]

Also, cheers to whoever changed the title.

 

[Richard]

Don't have access to the spreadsheet which keeps track of every lost chance.

That's because there isn't one. If you want to know absolute details, you have to have a look yourself - there's no spoon-feeding.

 

[DingDong]

i'm no expert on batting technique but some of these shots look terrible! just how bad was the bowling in those days?

YouTube - Jack Hobbs in 1914

YouTube - Jack Hobbs in 1914 part 2

 

[Spikey]

you just don't get it.