Jack Hobbs vs Viv Richards

[kyear2]

A batsman who's absolute peak was the 1908 - 1914, averaging over 60 at the age of 47 tell us one of two things.

He was every bit the batsman that Bradman was.

Or

The pitches (and the ones in England weren't even as flat as the ones in Australia) were absolute garbage. And I have to say the pace bowlers couldn't have been that special either.

We're talking almost 50 years old.

What? That all of the 14 fast bowlers he faced in those 7/8 years were garbage?

 

[sayon basak]

Oh okay. Nice.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Did we all really just forgot that Jimmy played international Test cricket just fine as a PACER at 42 till this year????

 

[sayon basak]

Did we all really just forgot that Jimmy played international Test cricket just fine as a PACER at 42 till this year????

Yes, we really did forget. And we will keep doing that, because it helps us to underrate the players we don't like.


Don't think we're much better than Pakpassion tbh.

 

[kyear2]

Did we all really just forgot that Jimmy played international Test cricket just fine as a PACER at 42 till this year????

Comparing a medium pacer who's been well managed and with all of the benefits of modern sports medicine, compared to a batsman in 1928 averaging 60.

 

[sayon basak]

Comparing a medium pacer who's been well managed and with all of the benefits of modern sports medicine, compared to a batsman in 1928 averaging 60.

Anderson isn't a "medium" pacer. He was definitely fast Medium.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Comparing a medium pacer who's been well managed and with all of the benefits of modern sports medicine, compared to a batsman in 1928 averaging 60.

So like comparing a bowler bowling 130+ in Tests matches to a batsman??

 

[Coronis]

Yes, kyear doesn’t rate Hobbs or Bradman or anyone pre-WWII. He prefers to only remember history after WWII.

Could make a history joke in very poor taste here but won’t

 

[sayon basak]

Could make a history joke in very poor taste here but won’t

Why not? I'd be more than eager to read that.

 

[Coronis]

Why not? I'd be more than eager to read that.

Treads the lines of some rules I think, and I like the mods here.

 

[kyear2]

Yes, kyear doesn’t rate Hobbs or Bradman or anyone pre-WWII. He prefers to only remember history after WWII.

Could make a history joke in very poor taste here but won’t

That's not remotely true.

Bradman is the GOAT, I've rated Hammond higher than most as a cricketer, and I very much rate O'Reilly.

Doesn't negate anything I've said.

 

[sayon basak]

Treads the lines of some rules I think, and I like the mods here.

Fair enough.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Comparing a medium pacer who's been well managed and with all of the benefits of modern sports medicine, compared to a batsman in 1928 averaging 60.

What. If anything it's harder to do well as a pace bowler at 40+ than it is as a batsman.

 

[capt_Luffy]

What. If anything it's harder to do well as a pace bowler at 40+ than it is as a batsman.

And harder to do in modern Tests than County a Century ago.

 

[Johan]

Yes he did.

A 47 year old man averaging 60 though...

don't think Hobbs is the norm but the outlier, remember, a 40-41 year old Boycott made hundreds over Holding/Garner and all, as well as Lillee and Thommo.

 

[Johan]

A 47 year old scoring century against Larwood???

So, Larwood at least bowled as fast as modern pacers at least in those matches, right?
Isn't that telling how good Hobbs was?

Larwood seemed a yard faster than Constantine who bowled 85mph per Cambridge and some sources imply he bowled 90mph+, so to me Larwood is the first genuine express of cricket, Constantine/Griffith and guys like that are to me the first pacers and old Hobbs also scored against them.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Larwood seemed a yard faster than Constantine who bowled 85mph per Cambridge and some sources imply he bowled 90mph+, so to me Larwood is the first genuine express of cricket, Constantine/Griffith and guys like that are to me the first pacers and old Hobbs also scored against them.

I don't think someone like Tom Richardson or more specifically, Ernie Jones and Charles Kortright, were necessarily slower than Constantine and Griffith.

 

[Johan]

I don't think someone like Tom Richardson or more specifically, Ernie Jones and Charles Kortright, were necessarily slower than Constantine and Griffith.

iirc the English team in 1929 implied that the Windies pace they faced was the fastest and most brutal they've faced on a national level, in domestic some guys might be constantine speed yeah.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Larwood seemed a yard faster than Constantine who bowled 85mph per Cambridge and some sources imply he bowled 90mph+, so to me Larwood is the first genuine express of cricket, Constantine/Griffith and guys like that are to me the first pacers and old Hobbs also scored against them.

Gregory and McDonald weren’t slower than Constantine/ Griffith. Gregory was arguably quicker than Constantine. Larwood was the fastest ofc but Gregory was arguably 2nd.

 

[capt_Luffy]

iirc the English team in 1929 implied that the Windies pace they faced was the fastest and most brutal they've faced on a national level, in domestic some guys might be constantine speed yeah.

I believe that has to do with WWI as well. I remember Peterhrt writing how the standards of cricket fell after the War, and he especially mentioned that before WWI every County atleast had a pacer and after the War there wasn't one in the whole country.
Also, Gregory and McDonald were as faster as the West Indies folks as well.