• 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.

Jack Hobbs vs Len Hutton vs Herbert Sutcliffe vs Sunil Gavaskar

steve132

U19 Debutant
Personally I think Sutcliffe is underrated because, unlike with the other three, there was never a time when he was indisputably the best batsman in the world
As a matter of interest, when was Gavaskar considered "indisputably the best batsman in the world"?
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
At first I saw there wasn't even one West Indian bowler in the XI and I had to do a double check. Fair, though - must have been a few in the shortli.....wait what?
Benaud was not a fan of their style of play.

He said that this XI was not necessarily the best players, but rather the players he would most like to watch play.

The wicket keeper shortlist might get a few Wtfs but there was no serious competition in it. Ian Healy could rightly be upset that his legacy has been diminished by the appearance of Gilchrist. He was voted Australia's best keeper of the 20th century.
 

Grasshopper

State Vice-Captain
Benaud was not a fan of their style of play.

He said that this XI was not necessarily the best players, but rather the players he would most like to watch play.

The wicket keeper shortlist might get a few Wtfs but there was no serious competition in it. Ian Healy could rightly be upset that his legacy has been diminished by the appearance of Gilchrist. He was voted Australia's best keeper of the 20th century.
I would've thought there have been few keepers as aesthetically pleasing as Alan Knott. But hey, it's Benaud's list and he was entitled to be wrong if he wanted to.
 

andmark

International Captain
Benaud was not a fan of their style of play.

He said that this XI was not necessarily the best players, but rather the players he would most like to watch play.
This would also explain the lack of off spinners in the shortlist. Benaud was a leggie who loved leg spin bowling. Without him, we'd still be thinking Warne's flippers were just him getting lucky with dragged down balls.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Reasons Burgey?
Hobbs’ consistency across such a long time and a couple of eras as the game evolved, and the sheer weight of his runs and tons at fc level - 197 fc tons is absurd.

Hutton kind of likewise - but pre-war then the pre-eminent opener for England post-war.

Sunny was a great player but his record vs WI and Australia is mythologised to a large extent when you actually bother to look at the bowlers he faced. Still an ATG mind you.
 
Last edited:

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Rate Hutton's record very highly. He was probably the first batsman to come up trumps against truly great fast bowling attacks.
 

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
He played an absurd number of matches for the era as well, considering how few were played back then and how he lost so many years to the War. Came around in a sort off transition period on terms of tactics, didn't he? Owned elite spinners and pacers. Hammond couldn't cope with short pitched fast bowling when it first gained traction. It's pretty marvellous how well Hutton against pace and spin alike considering he must've learnt his cricket in an earlier spin dominated era.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Hammond was a pretty fair age by the time he faced lindwal and Miller to be fair to him. Australia didn’t really have much in the way of quality quicks in the 30s when he was at his best.
 

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
While Hammond didn’t like the short ball doesn’t mean he couldn’t play it.
Reportedly uncomfortable against it. Even in the 30s, before Lindwall and Miller, he was pissed that 'the game had come to this' and had had enough of it. This would be against Tim Wall, Martindale and Constantine. Not wrong to say bowling underwent a major change and Hutton came out on top.
 

the big bambino

International Captain
Well his era did have body line and ongoing controversies with bumpers. He played a great innings v Martindale and Constantine on a minefield. After the war Miller was grateful for Lindwall because he said he couldn’t get a ball past Hammond.
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
Well his era did have body line and ongoing controversies with bumpers. He played a great innings v Martindale and Constantine on a minefield. After the war Miller was grateful for Lindwall because he said he couldn’t get a ball past Hammond.
Hammond had that extraordinarily successful series in Australia in 1928/29, didn't he. Not that I could tell you much about the strength or nature of the Aus attack in that series.
 
Last edited:

Coronis

Cricketer Of The Year
Hammond peaked in the late 1920s didn't he? iirc he had an extraordinarily successful series in Australia around 1928/29. Not that I could tell you much about the strength or nature of the Aus attack in that series.
Obviously that 905 vs Australia was his peak series, he averaged 63 from that series to before WWII, averaged 70 from this series to that belting of NZ.
 

Pap Finn Keighl

International Debutant
AFAIK

Hutton rated Gavaskar best of his era.
Sobers rated Gavaskar as the best he has seen.
Proctor rated Gavaskar > Barry
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
Sobers rated Gavaskar as number 1 ahead of Pollock , Barry , Viv , Sachin, Lara and himself.
And Hutton was no Bradman to change his views for sure.
Sobers knew his audience, for sure. Apparently he was speaking in Mumbai at an event celebrating the 40th anniversary of India's 1971 win in the Caribbean.
 

Top