Johan
Hall of Fame Member
So the usual format, three batsmen, choose the format, ignore Hammond's secondary (pace bowling), Tertiary (ATG slip) and whatever his decent captaincy qualifies as, otherwise he'd easily win.
Hammond – Highest rated of the three, averaged 61 until the second war, probably the greatest batsman to tour Australia in history of the great sport, master on stickies, gracious strokemaker when the need be. Dominated and dismantled Larwood + Voce in first class Cricket, excellent against spin on any kind of surface. Didn't play hook or on the leg side much therefore had an issue with quality turn around his legs.
Sutcliffe – technically flawless, averaged 70 until the first test of the Bodyline series, ATG hundreds on sticky wickets, very healthy record against Larwood in FC, ferocious hooker/cutter/puller of the ball, kind of a shorter career and didn't have a second peak.
Headley – averaged 66 until the war, but played the least by far, two exceptional hundreds in Australia when 21, made 4 hundreds against Voce/Rhodes in 1930, proven in England and against top English bowlers, didn't play Australia much and had a much shorter body of work. Easily had the least support, batted with a lineup almost as pathetic as modern Windies.
Hammond – Highest rated of the three, averaged 61 until the second war, probably the greatest batsman to tour Australia in history of the great sport, master on stickies, gracious strokemaker when the need be. Dominated and dismantled Larwood + Voce in first class Cricket, excellent against spin on any kind of surface. Didn't play hook or on the leg side much therefore had an issue with quality turn around his legs.
Sutcliffe – technically flawless, averaged 70 until the first test of the Bodyline series, ATG hundreds on sticky wickets, very healthy record against Larwood in FC, ferocious hooker/cutter/puller of the ball, kind of a shorter career and didn't have a second peak.
Headley – averaged 66 until the war, but played the least by far, two exceptional hundreds in Australia when 21, made 4 hundreds against Voce/Rhodes in 1930, proven in England and against top English bowlers, didn't play Australia much and had a much shorter body of work. Easily had the least support, batted with a lineup almost as pathetic as modern Windies.
Last edited:
