Oft Forgotten Player Comparison Thread

[weldone]

Having said that, my ranking will be:

1. Hobbs
2. Hutton
3. Gavaskar
4. Sutcliffe

 

[The Sean]

He played in a very different time, of course, but any discussion of the greatest opening bats must surely - IMO - also mention the good Doctor.

 

[Howe_zat]

The reason why some comparison threads are endless is usually because the comparisons are the most apt, to be fair.

Hutton's runs often came against some incredibly varied, quality attacks.

eg:

4th Test: Australia v England at Adelaide, Feb 2-8, 1951 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Quality new ball pace attack in Lindwall-Miller, the greatest medium pacer ever in Johnston, Off spin (Johnson), and an amazing mystery spinner (Iverson).

Hutton>>>all. Hobbs and Gavaskar can suck it.

Fred's 'misleading team sheets' thread comes to mind when I see a point made like this. We've no idea how well the attack bowled at the time going on the reputation of the names.

Still favour Hutton as England's best batsman, somewhat due to how rancid post-war English pitches were compared to pre-war Australian featherbeds, the latter of which Hutton never got to bat on.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Fred's 'misleading team sheets' thread comes to mind when I see a point made like this. We've no idea how well the attack bowled at the time going on the reputation of the names.

Eh, I didn't just look at the scorecard, though

From the Wisden match report:

The poverty of England's reply only served to illuminate Hutton. The speed of Lindwall and Miller, the spin of Iverson and Johnson, and the mixture of spin and swing provided by Johnston held no terrors for him. Against Hutton the bowling looked almost mediocre, but most of the other batsmen made it appear lethal.

And the averages of the bowlers that series:
Johnston: 22 wickets @19
Iverson: 21 wickets @15
Miller: 17 wickets @17.7
Lindwall: 15 wickets @22
Johnson: 7 wickets @ 44

By most accounts I've read Hutton's was one of the great series performances against a strong attack... all in a losing cause.

That's good enough for me. Although I'm happy to be proven wrong by someone wiser than I.

 

[Howe_zat]

Yeah that's more like it

 

[weldone]

Eh, I didn't just look at the scorecard, though

From the Wisden match report:



And the averages of the bowlers that series:
Johnston: 22 wickets @19
Iverson: 21 wickets @15
Miller: 17 wickets @17.7
Lindwall: 15 wickets @22
Johnson: 7 wickets @ 44

By most accounts I've read Hutton's was one of the great series performances against a strong attack... all in a losing cause.

That's good enough for me. Although I'm happy to be proven wrong by someone wiser than I.

Here is another quote from the Gavaskar-fanboy, called Len Hutton.

"I have had the good fortune to have seen many memorable double centuries in Test matches, and Gavaskar's 221 at The Oval in 1979 should, at the very least, be bracketed with Stan McCabe's 232 at Trent Bridge and Wally Hammond's 240 at Lords, particulary bearing in mind the important fact that India started their second innings in the seemingly impossible position of needing 438 runs in 500 minutes to win. Gavaskar was by far the best batsman of either side in the series - and England had Boycott, Gooch and Gower - and at his peak undeniably the world's leading No. 1. If I were to recommend a schoolboy to copy a modern master, I would go for Gavaskar rather than Richards who, though a great player in every sense, depends enormously on his eagle eye."

 

[weldone]

Keith Miller on Gavaskar "I would have stood in the slips, and let others bowl."

 

[fredfertang]

I think that very few posters on this forum are knowledgeable about the greats of pre-1970 era and hence they can't really do a good comparison between the others. I posted a Sobers vs Viv thread and there weren't too many who could really vote properly on the issue. Even Fred didn't post much in that thread (despite having seen Sobers bat I believe, and one of the rare posters on this forum who have actually done so).

Sobers name has cropped up a few times in that sort of thread, but his is certainly one that polarizes opinion, and having extolled his many virtues in the past I probably didn't want to tread the same path again - have also encountered a couple of detractors of the great man's who talk absolute bollocks about him thus making any thread on the subject a place I don't particularly want to go (although tbf neither of the individuals I have in mind have been spotted in CC for ages)

 

[weldone]

Sobers name has cropped up a few times in that sort of thread, but his is certainly one that polarizes opinion, and having extolled his many virtues in the past I probably didn't want to tread the same path again - have also encountered a couple of detractors of the great man's who talk absolute bollocks about him thus making any thread on the subject a place I don't particularly want to go (although tbf neither of the individuals I have in mind have been spotted in CC for ages)

Haha ya reading some of the posters here you'd think that Murali Vijay is a better bowler than Sobers.

 

[Burgey]

As if Gavaskar only faced mediocre bowlers, lol!

Btw, this is what Hutton said about Gavaskar: " I have a feeling that if he had been born English or Australian, many of the better judges would have been tempted to bracket him with Bradman. Gavaskar is not as good as Bradman, but very close, which puts him in the very highest class of batsmen of all time."

Hutton obviously never saw Gavaskar play here against a decent attack. Lillee would have got him out with a tomato. It was pitiful to watch.

 

[Coronis]

Sigh, all the Sutcliffe bashing.

 

[fredfertang]

They know not of what they say

 

[weldone]

Hutton obviously never saw Gavaskar play here against a decent attack. Lillee would have got him out with a tomato. It was pitiful to watch.

Miandad and co. could hit Lillee with a broomstick in Pakistan.

Gavaskar in Australia was 1000 times better than Lillee in Pakistan.

 

[Midwinter]

Morris being an opener and associated strongly with the Invincibles, while Hassett was captain (and most heavily associated) with the boring era that was the 50s, perhaps? That post-Don era wasn't exactly fashionable.

Bit of overlap there

Perhaps because Hassett was Captain when Aus lost the Ashes in 1953 ?

Also Hassett pre war played in stronger batting sides than he did post Bradman and therefore often had to play the sheet anchor which may have influenced those who remember watching him. Not many people around now who would remember pre war cricket.

Also it may be simply Morris has outlived Hassett and therefore been present in the media over recent years.

Remember him as having a good sense of humour when commentating on the radio .

 

[Midwinter]

Victor Trumper v Clem Hill

Artist vs Artisan ?

 

[fredfertang]

Bit of overlap there

Perhaps because Hassett was Captain when Aus lost the Ashes in 1953 ?

Also Hassett pre war played in stronger batting sides than he did post Bradman and therefore often had to play the sheet anchor which may have influenced those who remember watching him. Not many people around now who would remember pre war cricket.

Also it may be simply Morris has outlived Hassett and therefore been present in the media over recent years.

Remember him as having a good sense of humour when commentating on the radio .

Another factor may be the comment that Tiger O'Reilly once made after Hassett hit him for six; "and the little ****er's not even good looking"

 

[Red]

I've heard Morris interviewed a number of times and he is truly the most likeable bloke.

Have also heard him speak really highly of Hassett. I think post-Bradman the choices for captain were Hassett and Morris, and Morris states he unreservedly thought it should've been Hassett. He's very humble.

 

[ankitj]

Bruce Mitchell represent

One of my favorite draft picks.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Remember reading somewhere recently that Morris was rated by the Englishmen as the best post-Bradman batsman from Australia, mainly due to how fluent he was.