• 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.

Sachin Tendulkar and Jack Hobbs

stumpski

stumpski

International Captain
BoyBrumby said:
Would've been interesting if the Q was how many FC centuries does Sir Jack Hobbs have and two of the options were 197 & 199.

All us cricket nerds would've patted ourselves on the back for getting the reference. :happy:
Click to expand...
Cricinfo and cricketarchive agree, but their total is different from Wisden's, so it depends whether you go with the Web or the old yellow book ...
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
stumpski said:
Cricinfo and cricketarchive agree, but their total is different from Wisden's, so it depends whether you go with the Web or the old yellow book ...
Click to expand...
Wisden refused to acknowledge the retrospective additions that Hobbs was so set against (not sure who was responsible for it, certainly wasn't the ACSAS who generally have an excellent grasp of which matches deserve which status); CricInfo and CricketArchive are generally parrot-style yes-sir merchants and thus go along with whoever was responsible.
 
Burgey

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
zaremba said:
Hobbs clearly the better FC player because he scored more runs
Tendulkar clearly the better Test player because he scored more runs

ergo Tendulkar > Richards in ODIs


No, seriously, it's a nice comparison but sadly I can't see this thread ending much more constructively than any of the others
Click to expand...
This.

Tis an interesting comparison given the longevity of both players. Pretty good shout in the original post imo.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Thinking about it, though, an "and" rather than a "vs" might've been better for a title and might've offered some amount of disincentive to "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" ism.
 
Zinzan

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Richard said:
Thinking about it, though, an "and" rather than a "vs" might've been better for a title and might've offered some amount of disincentive to "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" "no, __ was better!" ism.
Click to expand...
Your typewriter broken?
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
No, just held down the V button a bit longer than I was initially thinking to.
 
Last edited:
Craig

Craig

World Traveller
silentstriker said:
Totally, now that would have been an awesome question.
Click to expand...
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.
 
archie mac

archie mac

International Coach
Not a bad question this:)

Atm pretty close but the little fellow is not finished yet:-O

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:)
 
Sanz

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top