All-time Northern vs. Southern Hemisphere

[The Sean]

How?

Well for starters you say that we can't rate Trumper because he only averaged 39 and that we have to take stats at face value. But Barry Richards average of 72 is ignored because of a small sample. Like you said - "either we use stats or we do not".

Then you said that we can make up the difference by including Hammond who averaged nearly 60 to Chappell who averaged 52. Hammond actually averaged mid-58 while Chappell averaged nearly 54...but what is more important is that you had your chance to pick an XI and you DIDN'T pick Hammond. Now you want to, to help the stats argument?

Finally while Sangakkarra's batting average advantage over Gilly is only slightly less than you state it is, Ikki has already pointed out that when Sanga is given the gloves his advantage evaporates and he in fact even drops below Gilly.

 

[L Trumper]

Everyone seems to miss headley in NH team, not even discussing in the team probables seems kinda sad for a man known as black bradman.

As of now SH has 15 to NH's 13. I thought 90% votes go to SH, most of the people seems to underrate don's ability.

@Thread Starter, Brilliant thread; Probably the best one since CW top 50 cricketers' threads.

 

[zaremba]

Everyone seems to miss headley in NH team, not even discussing in the team probables seems kinda sad for a man knowns as black bradman.

As of now SH has 15 to NH's 13. I thought 90% votes go to SH, most of the people seems to underrate don's ability.

@Thread Starter, Brilliant thread; Probably the best one since CW top 50 cricketers' threads.

Were Richard currently with us he'd be including Headley in his team - he rates him as second greatest batsman after the White Headley.

 

[The Sean]

Everyone seems to miss headley in NH team, not even discussing in the team probables seems kinda sad for a man knowns as black bradman.

As of now SH has 15 to NH's 13. I thought 90% votes go to SH, most of the people seems to underrate don's ability.

@Thread Starter, Brilliant thread; Probably the best one since CW top 50 cricketers' threads.

I think Headley got a vote or two - he was really close for me but of the NH middle order players I'd rate him fifth behind Sachin, Richards, Hammond and Lara so he unluckily misses out.

Your ability to recognise great threads also does you tremendous credit.

 

[zaremba]

Not sure where to post this, but I just wanted to mention that today's featured article in Wikipedia is Bill Ponsford

 

[BoyBrumby]

WRT to Headley, because we generally sent less than full strength XIs to the Windies in the 30s I personally don't think he quite has an unanswerable case to be included ahead of yer Hammonds, Richardses, Laras & Sachins myself, given the small sample size we're looking at for his test career.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Well for starters you say that we can't rate Trumper because he only averaged 39 and that we have to take stats at face value. But Barry Richards average of 72 is ignored because of a small sample. Like you said - "either we use stats or we do not".

Then you said that we can make up the difference by including Hammond who averaged nearly 60 to Chappell who averaged 52. Hammond actually averaged mid-58 while Chappell averaged nearly 54...but what is more important is that you had your chance to pick an XI and you DIDN'T pick Hammond. Now you want to, to help the stats argument?

Finally while Sangakkarra's batting average advantage over Gilly is only slightly less than you state it is, Ikki has already pointed out that when Sanga is given the gloves his advantage evaporates and he in fact even drops below Gilly.

I would have taken Barry Richards average at face value had he played more matches. I never said we should not rate Trumper highly, I said if we are going to use stats (Bradman >>>Richards is using stats) then Hobbs' considerable statistic advantage must also be taken into account.


I have not yet picked my team yet - I have just been copy pasting teams although I would not pick Hammond anyway. The point I am trying to make is that one could close that statistical advantage Bradman has by trying different permutations and combinations. 58.5 is "nearly 60",,sorry about Chappel 54 then..I did not check cricinfo.

I am not going to make much of this w/k stat Ikki brings up.It's not like he's going to accept Sachin's better record in England and agree that for the purpose of this exercise at least Sachin > Ponting.

 

[L Trumper]

I think Headley got a vote or two - he was really close for me but of the NH middle order players I'd rate him fifth behind Sachin, Richards, Hammond and Lara so he unluckily misses out.

Your ability to recognise great threads also does you tremendous credit.

Yeah fair enough. Sachin/Lara played spinners probably a bit better compared to headley. Still a FC average around 70 should mean for something. I'd put ahead of hammond, but hammond is a better cricketer overall.
Any Line up with
two of richards/hammond/headley
and one of lara/sachin will be equal in all combos.

 

[The Sean]

I would have taken Barry Richards average at face value had he played more matches. I never said we should not rate Trumper highly, I said if we are going to use stats (Bradman >>>Richards is using stats) then Hobbs' considerable statistic advantage must also be taken into account.


I have not yet picked my team yet - I have just been copy pasting teams although I would not pick Hammond anyway. The point I am trying to make is that one could close that statistical advantage Bradman has by trying different permutations and combinations. 58.5 is "nearly 60",,sorry about Chappel 54 then..I did not check cricinfo.

I am not going to make much of this w/k stat Ikki brings up.It's not like he's going to accept Sachin's better record in England and agree that for the purpose of this exercise at least Sachin > Ponting.

Fair enough mate - I'd assumed the teams listed in post 80 were your personal selections. Well I'm really enjoying this thread so let's leave it at that.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Taking only averages to distinct teams is kinda pointless, when talking about teams that are spread over a century.

Agree mate but then how else would I compare a Trumper to Lara for instance? I have never seen Trumper......

 

[BoyBrumby]

Agree mate but then how else would I compare a Trumper to Lara for instance? I have never seen Trumper......

Compare Trumper's record to his contemporaries for a more accurate guage of his worth as a batsman. Batting averages were generally a lot lower in his era.

A lot's been written about the great man too.

 

[L Trumper]

WRT to Headley, because we generally sent less than full strength XIs to the Windies in the 30s I personally don't think he quite has an unanswerable case to be included ahead of yer Hammonds, Richardses, Laras & Sachins myself, given the small sample size we're looking at for his test career.

Yeah. Good point, I missed it completely. Probably weeks had a better shout at the team than headley. But even weeks himself feasted on sub par attacks. So 3 of hammond, richards, lara, sachin seems anonymous choice for 3,4,5.

Another thing, why gavaskar is chosen ahead of hutton? Hutton is a better player isn't he? Add to the fact that we are assuming the english conditions where gavavskar traditionally suffered a bit.

 

[bagapath]

Compare Trumper's record to his contemporaries for a more accurate guage of his worth as a batsman. Batting averages were generally a lot lower in his era.

A lot's been written about the great man too.

if you compare trumper's average (39) to the average of his contemporaries (24) and normalize it to the overall batting average of the present era (31), it would come to 46. and he scored at the speed of light (SR 69). i would say he was probably as good and as exciting as a pietersen or a hayden or a sehwag.

 

[L Trumper]

if you compare trumper's average (39) to the average of his contemporaries (24) and normalize it to the overall batting average of the present era (31), it would come to 46. and he scored at the speed of light (SR 69). i would say he was probably as good and as exciting as a pietersen or a hayden or a sehwag.

Yeah. I said it before. He did this whole sehwag thing a full 100 years ago. In now-a-days conditions one can assume he'd average around 45-50 with a SR above 100.

 

[bagapath]

Another thing, why gavaskar is chosen ahead of hutton? Hutton is a better player isn't he? Add to the fact that we are playing in english conditions where gavavskar traditionally suffered a bit.

not really that clear to me. gavaskar played for a much inferior team (like headley) and consequently shouldered a lot more responsibility than hutton. also, since sunny played in an era of superior bowlers compared to hutton's, he has got more critical support in this issue, i assume.

at the end of 79 tests (the same as hutton's final tally) gavaskar had scored about the same amount of runs and his average was 3 points less than hutton's 56. but he had scored 25 centuries compared to hutton's 19. it is very difficult to split them.

of course, my indian bias is probably playing up here. because sir len has a stellar record any which way you see it. you cant diss that great man at all.

 

[BoyBrumby]

not really that clear to me. gavaskar played for a much inferior team (like headley) and consequently shouldered a lot more responsibility than hutton. also, since sunny played in an era of superior bowlers compared to hutton's, he has got more critical support in this issue, i assume.

at the end of 79 tests (the same as hutton's final tally) gavaskar had scored about the same amount of runs and his average was 3 points less than hutton's 56. but he had scored 25 centuries compared to hutton's 19. it is very difficult to split them.

of course, my indian bias is probably playing up here. because sir len has a stellar record any which way you see it. you cant diss that great man at all.

Ooo. Debateable at best, IMHO. Oz had quite a few genuine AT greats overlapping with Sir Leonard's career.

 

[The Sean]

You can pretty much throw a blanket over Hutton and Gavaskar, they're so close IMO. Gun to my head I've probably got Hutton fractionally ahead (this week at least) but both men deserve all the praise they get.

 

[L Trumper]

not really that clear to me. gavaskar played for a much inferior team (like headley) and consequently shouldered a lot more responsibility than hutton. also, since sunny played in an era of superior bowlers compared to hutton's, he has got more critical support in this issue, i assume.

at the end of 79 tests (the same as hutton's final tally) gavaskar had scored about the same amount of runs and his average was 3 points less than hutton's 56. but he had scored 25 centuries compared to hutton's 19. it is very difficult to split them.

of course, my indian bias is probably playing up here. because sir len has a stellar record any which way you see it. you cant diss that great man at all.

Those points merit sunny's inclusion. But hutton lost his prime years to war and had to adjust his play because of the injured shoulder. Before war broke out, public assumption is that hutton would take bradman's mantle.
Selecting openers for NH is lot difficult compared to SH though.
Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hutton, Gavaskar, Greenidge all these 5 worth a shout. I'd take hobbs and hutton.

P.S. I am an indian too. But I tends to give preference to what wisden said over my bias.

 

[JBH001]

For my money, Hutton was clearly better.

 

[Matt79]

You can pretty much throw a blanket over Hutton and Gavaskar, they're so close IMO. Gun to my head I've probably got Hutton fractionally ahead (this week at least) but both men deserve all the praise they get.

Sums up my feelings on the subject. They're a clear =3 in opener stakes, behind Hobbs, and ahead of Sutcliffe and Richards and the mythical Grace and Trumper.