Viv vs hutton

[Coronis]

Kimber isn't influenced by this forum, he has opinions that massively contradict opinions you'd see on here, such as his rating of Barrington over Headley.

Well this makes me feel bad I haven’t watched any of his videos because clearly he’s been reading my posts.

Note: Headley (and Pollock) are below Barrington due to their unfortunately shortened careers, I have 0 doubt I’d have either above him if they hadn’t.

 

[sayon basak]

I love Hutton, more than most here, but he didn't consistently dominate great attacks more than Viv, no one did.

That's not true. Most people rate him higher than you do. Most people do not make a huge deal out of his S/R either.

 

[subshakerz]

That's not true. Most people rate him higher than you do. Most people do not make a huge deal out of his S/R either.

They should make a bigger deal of SR, though not SR specifically but the capacity to accelerate.

This is something Hutton lacked and Viv had more than anyone.

 

[sayon basak]

They should make a bigger deal of SR, though not SR specifically but the capacity to accelerate.

This is something Hutton lacked and Viv had more than anyone.

Sure. But I think the 6 points difference in average is way more important than S/R, specially when the guy opened in a difficult era.

 

[capt_Luffy]

They should make a bigger deal of SR, though not SR specifically but the capacity to accelerate.

This is something Hutton lacked and Viv had more than anyone.

They should make a bigger deal of a 50s English Opener being able to see off and completely neutralize the new ball, instead of Zak Crawling their way.

 

[subshakerz]

They should make a bigger deal of a 50s English Opener being able to see off and completely neutralize the new ball, instead of Zak Crawling their way.

Sure. But even in his time he was criticized for being sedate and conservative.

Even for an opener, being slow to a more larger degree does come with a negative as far as giving an advantage to opposition.

 

[OverratedSanity]

When it comes to Gavaskar you don't even consider presence of multiple great West Indian pacers as sufficient challenge. You go down to performances by venues. But when it comes to Richards, Willis and Botham is ATG pace attack. smh. Why don't you just admit the obvious that Richards never faced the examination by pace of the kind that likes of Gavaskar and Border did?

Indeed . Remember that he also believes ,unlike most of us, that :

1) The gap between Marshall/McGrath and other ATG pacers is quite significant. But Viv doing well vs those same significantly inferior ATG pacers is somehow solid evidence of him being the GOAT ATG pace bowler destroyer.

2) He thinks that someone like Hadlee is not a top tier pace bowler like those two because he was much more dangerous in NZ than abroad. But then Viv having a terrible record vs hadlee in games in nz (avg 19 in 3 games ) is never brought up. It's enough that Viv scored well vs inferior ATG hadlee in one series at home to conclude that he dominated him.

Not even getting into how he pooh-poohs Gavaskar's record vs the by-his-own-definition significantly better bowler Marshall by giving excuses like either Marshall wasn't at his peak or the pitch Gavaskar made runs vs him was flat etc.

The whole line of posting is an utter joke. Embarassed that I even try to engage with him in good faith at this point.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Sure. But even in his time he was criticized for being sedate and conservative.

Even for an opener, being slow to a more larger degree does come with a negative as far as giving an advantage to opposition.

Not really. Only Compton did.

You are just really really wrong if you think that for a 50s English Opener, or you are Baz

 

[subshakerz]

Sure. But I think the 6 points difference in average is way more important than S/R, specially when the guy opened in a difficult era.

I agree in the sense that I feel Hutton belongs in the BAB category with Viv.

 

[subshakerz]

Not really. Only Compton did.

You are just really really wrong if you think that for a 50s English Opener, or you are Baz

I read several accounts calling him the same. Dour and conservative by his era standards.

 

[Bolo.]

They should make a bigger deal of SR, though not SR specifically but the capacity to accelerate.

This is something Hutton lacked and Viv had more than anyone.

If you aren't arguing that higher SR is intrinsically better, the ability to accelerate must have a counter point. This is the ability to slow things down (ie. stay in longer at the same average).

This ability is much more valuable from an opening bat (ie. Hutton). And Hutton was clearly exceptionally good at it, while Viv was not.

 

[Coronis]

Not really. Only Compton did.

You are just really really wrong if you think that for a 50s English Opener, or you are Baz

iirc it was also specifically in reference to tests played against a weak side (iirc NZ?) Commonly people push aside weak performances against weak sides here anyway so why would those same people here care at all about a weak sr against weak opponents?

 

[capt_Luffy]

I read several accounts calling him the same. Dour and conservative by his era standards.

Provide some please. Not that they will prove he was worse or its necessarily even a bad thing, but still provide some accounts.

 

[Coronis]

btw, average SR in Hutton’s career was 39.2

Hutton’s was 38.3

How awful

 

[subshakerz]

If you aren't arguing that higher SR is intrinsically better, the ability to accelerate must have a counter point. This is the ability to slow things down (ie. stay in longer at the same average).

This ability is much more valuable from an opening bat (ie. Hutton). And Hutton was clearly exceptionally good at it, while Viv was not.

Viv wasnt an opener.

And yes defending and survival is important for an opener but not having an extra gear to dominate after survival is a detriment.

Unless you are arguing Hutton was perfect as a bat.

 

[subshakerz]

Provide some please. Not that they will prove he was worse or its necessarily even a bad thing, but still provide some accounts.

Ugh I checked some time ago. I believe his slow scoring was mentioned in his Wisden Almanack and a few biographies.

 

[ma1978]

btw, average SR in Hutton’s career was 39.2

Hutton’s was 38.3

How awful

The average SR is why that era should be seen as a lesser one

 

[capt_Luffy]

Viv wasnt an opener.

And yes defending and survival is important for an opener but not having an extra gear to dominate after survival is a detriment.

Unless you are arguing Hutton was perfect as a bat.

Did Viv had that Gear 1 though? His consistency points otherwise

 

[Bolo.]

Viv wasnt an opener.

And yes defending and survival is important for an opener but not having an extra gear to dominate after survival is a detriment.

Unless you are arguing Hutton was perfect as a bat.

I think that lacking a higher or lower gear are both flaws. I'm not denying your point, just showing that a corollary exists. It is very common to point out that a bat is flawed for lacking the ability to accelerate while not acknowledging the flip side of the coin.

Both of these guys are flawed in different ways. As to which is the bigger flaw, I don't think Hutton's is that meaningful due to opening. The ability to stay in is much more valuable. From someone batting 6 or 7 (who is quality), the ability to accelerate is more valuable. Which gear a number 4 lacks doesn't matter that much either way as a general rule. In Viv's case, the ability to accelerate was more important given the strength of his team. But I'm not going to rate that as highly as Hutton's ability to stay in, which has value that is not dependent on the team he happened to play for.

 

[peterhrt]

Two recent books, by David Woodhouse and Richard Whitehead, covering English tours to West Indies and Australia during the mid-1950s, offer a good analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of Hutton both as batsman and captain. His philosophy was formed in the Yorkshire dressing room of the 1930s and never changed. Treat the game as seriously as you would a real battle. Don't take risks. Give opponents nothing. Research everything cricket-related in minute detail: form, pitches, character of teammates and opponents, etc. Ignore anything not directly affecting the result of matches. Coming up against Bradman reinforced those beliefs, as the Australian appeared to share them.

Hutton had a superb defensive batting technique, perhaps as sound as anyone's. With a classical style he always looked good. He read a pitch better than others. When captain his more controversial selections usually proved justified.

But he was a deeply shy man and suffered acutely from stress. Laker said he was the biggest worrier he ever met. Before the third Test in Melbourne on New Year's Eve 1954 Hutton suffered a nervous breakdown and announced he was not playing. Ironically he was persuaded to change his mind by three men whose off-field excesses he despised as unprofessional: Compton, Edrich and Evans.

Hutton's inter-personal skills were often poor. On the way out to Australia in 1954 he told Peter Loader he would not be playing in any of the Tests then ignored him for the rest of the trip. Reluctant to assert himself with the bat, he stifled others' attacking instincts by ordering them to play in the same cautious manner.

When he retired Hutton was generally considered the fourth greatest English batsman after Grace, Hobbs and Hammond. Decades later some began to place him above Hammond, then Grace. Very few critics rated him as highly as Viv Richards whose capacity for altering the course of a match in a single session was on another level entirely. When the all-time World XIs of 100 ex-Test players (and one umpire) were published in 2010, Richards was chosen in 65 teams, Hutton in 21.