Brian lara vs steve smith

[Johan]

Yeah righto

yeah

 

[DrWolverine]

Samaraweera averaged 48.77
It shocks me he has the 3rd best batting average in SL

 

[capt_Luffy]

Samaraweera averaged 48.77
It shocks me he has the 3rd best batting average in SL

And really close to 2nd Jayawardene. What really shocks me is he almost averaged 50 not by a samplesizelol like Voges, but overall 81 Tests across 12 years!!!

 

[Johan]

ight Runs in 2000s Pakistan are invalid.

 

[kyear2]

It's mostly just Compton, and I don't need to spin anything, this is the era where hyper aggressive players played under 50 strike rate. Hutton's scoring tempo was simply not seen as a problem by anyone, his ability to attack is something even Compton agreed that he was one of the best at, how about we let the greatest English captain since the war decide how to bat instead of trying to enforce Bazball on him?

There's a difference between bazball and a strike rate in the mid 30's.

And it wasn't only Compton as you're so intent on framing it as.

And no one's saying he's to a top tier batsman, he's been one of my favorites for years to the point Coronis used to literally criticize me for it. But he batted slowly, even for that era.

And there's a difference between the ability to attack and actually doing it.

But yeah, no one's saying he had to bat like Punter, but you're tying to portray him as perfect, which I guess is required for the lofty perch of 3rd or 4th all time that you've assigned him.

For me personally he neither faced the quality of depth of bowling of the guys I rate above him and didn't demonstrate the ability to take over games and dominate like they did. For you that apparently matters less, obviously.

But 1st team all time for me and the best opener ever, and gains extra credit for doing it in the 50's. 7th for me.

 

[kyear2]

The perception of him was someone with perfect technique and one of the best strokemakers in the game who could effortlessly switch between the two.

Ok, now you're just making stuff up.

 

[kyear2]

Yes. I just argue for the best of the best ever I was them to be as complete as possible, and that means generally aggressive.

At least the ability to be, and demonstrated with some regularity.

 

[Johan]

There's a difference between bazball and a strike rate in the mid 30's.

it all really just comes down to blind strike rate reading huh? I guess Hammond and Headley were ultra defesive batters now because they were not that far ahead of Hutton in Strike rate.

And it wasn't only Compton as you're so intent on framing it as.

It is very much only Compton who presented it as a negative thing.

And no one's saying he's to a top tier batsman, he's been one of my favorites for years to the point Coronis used to literally criticize me for it. But he batted slowly, even for that era.

He literally didn't, Compton was considered an aggressive dasher and he literally batted 3 Strike rate points higher, May was 2 points higher than Hutton, and these guys were middle order Batsmen, not openers, Headley and Hammond were MOs from much flatter era and even their strike rates weren't relevantly ahead of Hutton.

And there's a difference between the ability to attack and actually doing it.

Let him decide when it's logical to attack..? Who are you or Subs to decide when he should bat defensive or aggressive?

But yeah, no one's saying he had to bat like Punter, but you're tying to portray him as perfect, which I guess is required for the lofty perch of 3rd or 4th all time that you've assigned him.

one of the most respected and best users on this site has Hutton at #2, just because that placement does not align with your beliefs does not mean manu don't have him as the best of the best, and Yes, he is probably the most perfect batsman of them all.

For me personally he neither faced the quality of depth of bowling of the guys I rate above him and didn't demonstrate the ability to take over games and dominate like they did. For you that apparently matters less, obviously.

FINALLY, that's an actual point, but It does matter to me what you do against high class bowling, I just rate Hutton's achievements against one of the greatest attacks ever assembled from 1946 Ashes to 1953 Ashes one of the greatest showings ever against high class bowling, better than anything Sobers or Sachin would've to show in that regard. Again, their argument to being better will always boil down to being "better" on flatter wickets.

Ok, now you're just making stuff up.

literally am not, Compton pretty much said that much too

 

[kyear2]

Hutton. Sunny. Sutcliffe.
3 of the 4 best openers had a defensive style
The 5th best was an ultra defensive batsman as well.

Difference between mid 30's a d mid 40's.

And Sutcliffe as much as he's revered today wasn't seen to be in the same breath as Bradman, Hobbs, Hammond, Headley or Hutton.

When we look at the most successful test teams, they all had at least one proactive opener who were able to provide impetus at the start of the innings.

There definitely is an advantage to having someone up front who can provide a foundation up front while also putting the bowlers under some amount of pressure and causing change in tactics. How that's ignored in these discussions is beyond me. It's easier to be slower, doesn't always mean it's better.

 

[DrWolverine]

Sutcliffe will gain more fans in the future.
The only player to retire with 60+ average and 53 Tests

 

[Johan]

Sutcliffe's technique is probably top 5 best in the history of the game, more full proof than Hammond.

 

[Coronis]

Difference between mid 30's a d mid 40's.

And Sutcliffe as much as he's revered today wasn't seen to be in the same breath as Bradman, Hobbs, Hammond, Headley or Hutton.

When we look at the most successful test teams, they all had at least one proactive opener who were able to provide impetus at the start of the innings.

There definitely is an advantage to having someone up front who can provide a foundation up front while also putting the bowlers under some amount of pressure and causing change in tactics. How that's ignored in these discussions is beyond me. It's easier to be slower, doesn't always mean it's better.

Who was the aggressor on the Invincibles?

Was it

a) Sid Barnes (41)
b) Bill Brown (41)
c) Arthur Morris (42)

 

[DrWolverine]

For a very long time the purpose of an opener was to not get out and take the sheen off the ball

 

[subshakerz]

Compton was considered an aggressive dasher

And Hutton was considered a dour defensive bat.

We don't need to get into a long debate on SRs really if we just accept his reputation and that we have different preferences for top tier.

 

[capt_Luffy]

And Hutton was considered a dour defensive bat.

We don't need to get into a long debate on SRs really if we just accept his reputation and that we have different preferences for top tier.

The preference for an 50s English opener to be preferable if he struck at mid 50s than mid 30s is simply so wrong though.......

 

[Johan]

And Hutton was considered a dour defensive bat.

We don't need to get into a long debate on SRs really if we just accept his reputation and that we have different preferences for top tier.

As Coronis posted, and the SRs of Hammond and Headley were posted earlier, the 'aggressive' bats have a barely hogher strike rate than Hutton, almost like everyone played conservative and slow Cricket back then.

 

[subshakerz]

The preference for an 50s English opener to be preferable if he struck at mid 50s than mid 30s is simply so wrong though.......

Hutton is fine as a dour opener as it was a necessary evil.

I prefer bats in top tier who are aggressive.

 

[subshakerz]

As Coronis posted, and the SRs of Hammond and Headley were posted earlier, the 'aggressive' bats have a barely hogher strike rate than Hutton, almost like everyone played conservative and slow Cricket back then.

You can't do this, when convenient you point to reputation of the time for Compton and when not you point to SR for Hutton.

He was a defensive bat. Get over it.

 

[Coronis]

I think aggressive and slow bats both have their place. Ideally a team should have both and I don’t really have a preference when rating batsmen.

Controversial take

 

[subshakerz]

I think aggressive and slow bats both have their place. Ideally a team should have both and I don’t really have a preference when rating batsmen.

Sure. But my overall balance will tilt aggressive.

What I get annoyed with are those who pretend aggressive batting style doesn't have an effect on gameplay.