Hammond vs inzamam

[vidiq]

test

 

[Johan]

....What?

Hammond is in the league of the greats, above Gavaskar and Chappell. Inzamam is literally below Alastair Cook and David Gower.

 

[Thala_0710]

Wow

 

[Thala_0710]

The cricketer from Pakistan, closest to Hammond, based on overall quality is probably Wasim. Inzi is no where near.

 

[Johan]

Imran > Hammond > all of Pakistan Cricket

 

[vidiq]

 

[Johan]

that was 2 years ago

 

[Johan]

Hammond in my list is the 9th Greatest Batsmen of all time across eras, across countries, across the more than century old history of the game.

Inzamam, would not even be in the top 10 English Batsmen of all time.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

View attachment 46605

Try inzi vs Clarke instead

 

[subshakerz]

Imran > Hammond > all of Pakistan Cricket

Hammond Im not sure is better than Wasim.

 

[Johan]

Hammond Im not sure is better than Wasim.

all round? I'd put Hammond ahead, 60+ bat before arthritis in 1946, GOAT slip and decent bowler.

 

[subshakerz]

all round? I'd put Hammond ahead, 60+ bat before arthritis in 1946, GOAT slip and decent bowler.

Can I count Wasim the bowler before diabetes?

Wasim was also a decent bat.

 

[Johan]

Can I count Wasim the bowler before diabetes?

Wasim was also a decent bat.

go for it, though I think World War II is something I'd make an exception for.

 

[subshakerz]

go for it, though I think World War II is something I'd make an exception for.

I would argue Wasim before diabetes would likely be rated a top 5 pacer on CW ahead of Ambrose and Lillee.

 

[Johan]

I would argue Wasim before diabetes would likely be rated a top 5 pacer on CW ahead of Ambrose and Lillee.

I don't think he'd be, I don't see him being rated ahead of Barnes, and think Imran would always be rated ahead, maybe he'd be rated 7 or 8 with those numbers among bowlers, Hammond is already 9 among bats mostly and would only go up if he didn't come back to play after the second war.

 

[vidiq]

Is it true that Hammond and Sutcliffe batting average is heavily inflated because of batting friendly era?

 

[subshakerz]

I don't think he'd be, I don't see him being rated ahead of Barnes, and think Imran would always be rated ahead, maybe he'd be rated 7 or 8 with those numbers among bowlers, Hammond is already 9 among bats mostly and would only go up if he didn't come back to play after the second war.

Nah. Wasim already with a relatively higher average and lower WPM gets rated in the top 10 bowlers on CW comfortably.

Here is Wasim before diabetes. Far more presentable stats. Combined with a super high rep and I think he surpasses Ambrose.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/43547.html?class=1;spanmax1=31+Dec+1997;spanval1=span;template=results;type=allround

 

[subshakerz]

Is it true that Hammond and Sutcliffe batting average is heavily inflated because of batting friendly era?

Hammond and Sutcliffe were so Uber they transformed it into a batting era.

 

[Johan]

Is it true that Hammond and Sutcliffe batting average is heavily inflated because of batting friendly era?

that's the Bradman effect, in actuality

Hammond (before the war)
6,883 runs @ 61.45 with 22 hundreds in 127 innings
Rest of English batters
30,897 runs @ 32.62 with 63 hundreds

Sachin Tendulkar
15,921 runs @ 53.78 with 51 hundreds in 329 innings
Rest of Indian batters
85,112 runs @ 32.89

and this is consistent, the era was actually fine minus Bradman who raised the average by multiple points.

 

[Johan]

Nah. Wasim already with a relatively higher average and lower WPM gets rated in the top 10 bowlers on CW comfortably.

Here is Wasim before diabetes. Far more presentable stats. Combined with a super high rep and I think he surpasses Ambrose.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/43547.html?class=1;spanmax1=31+Dec+1997;spanval1=span;template=results;type=allround

people will still point out high averages in Windies, England and India to shove him out the top 5 behind Imran and Steyn, top 4 kinda locked