Hobbs & Hutton
CricZo XI - 3 Draft Winner
Scorecard Draft (2010) V Sehwag, D Amiss, D Bradman (c), C Cowdrey, P Umrigar, A Faulkner, R Marsh +, M Marshall, W Hall, M Hughes, B O'Reilly
Alphabetical Draft (2011) S Watson, G Kirsten, D Bradman (c), K Sangakkara +, C Cowdrey, K Pietersen, A Flintoff, M Marshall, B O'Reilly, F Trueman, T Alderman
The Eras Draft (2014) V Trumper, A Morris, N Harvey, J Kallis, S McCabe, F Woolley, Imran Khan (c), J Dujon +, J Briggs, D Steyn, J Snow
“I'm writing a book on magic”, I explain, and I'm asked, “Real magic?” By real magic people mean miracles, thaumaturgical acts, and supernatural powers. “No”, I answer: “Conjuring tricks, not real magic”. Real magic, in other words, refers to the magic that is not real, while the magic that is real, that can actually be done, is not real magic.”
― Lee Siegel, 'Net of Magic: Wonders and Deceptions in India'
~ Cribbertarian ~
Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
Originally Posted by John Singleton
Grace and Hobbs, anyway.
I'll stick Hutton in at 3 and not bother about Sutcliffe.
Reality of the matter is, though, Grace won't win this vote, so when the middle order votes comes around I'll probably vote for him again.
Last edited by Prince EWS; 01-11-2012 at 04:05 AM.
Jack Hobbs and Len Hutton.
"If that Swann lad is the future of spin bowling in this country, then we're ****ed." - Nasser Hussain, 1997.
On the Sutcliffe v Hutton debate, there is definitely a statistical backing for the idea that Sutcliffe benefited from weaker attacks a little more of the two. When I standardised their averages Hutton's went from 56.67 to 53.94 (95%) while Sutcliffe's went from 60.73 to 56.11 (92%) but certainly neither played in the toughest era to be a batsman by any stretch of the imagination.
Longevity is why I put Hutton ahead though; he got the equivalent of almost 13 years worth of Tests in, while Sutcliffe didn't make 10. Unpopular reasoning for picking someone so I won't go into that again too much.
56.95 --> 55.79 (98%)
He played for bloody ages too; his scorebook average dropped 4 runs in his last 6 Tests, all played after his 47th birthday. He'd probably have a standardised average pushing 60 if his career was Sutcliffe sized or even Hutton sized.
....would score more runs than a more conventional line-up? Such as;
If you do think that your unconventional line-up would score more runs then why not select it? After all, the main objective is to win the Test match, is it not?
I'm torn over whether I'd back that lineup to score more runs than one with May or Barrington in for Sutcliffe and a reshuffle though, for instance. Batting the openers out of position gives the team a higher ceiling (ie. if they take to it then it'll better than the alternative) but also a low floor (you increase the chance of outright failure by doing something largely unproven).
Are there any other hurdles?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)