Herbert Sutcliffe vs George Headley

[Johan]

my #11 and #12 in all time best batters, neither is going any down from that, who is the better batsmen?

 

[subshakerz]

No idea honestly

 

[Cricket Bliss]

This is very very close. Will love to see the arguments

 

[Coronis]

Headley was probably more talented. But Sutcliffe had the better career. I’d also say the same of Pollock. Pollock at least is always mentioned as a batsman of great natural talent (I believe? I’ve heard this of Headley too) Oftentimes I see Sutcliffe called a hard worker rather than naturally talented.

Headley’s numbers also, whilst amazing, are indeed boosted by what were termed as some as “second string” English teams that toured the Windies. I don’t know if I’d say that, but they certainly weren’t full strength.

Headley in Windies between the wars
8 matches 14 innings 1188 @ 91.38 5 tons 2 fifties

He certainly proved himself in England. His stats in Australia, whilst not eyecatching include a 102* out of 193, and a crucial century in the test they won that summer (iirc weather influenced but still), all at the age of 21.

Both Headley and Pollock I rank at 19 and 20, because I downgrade them for their shortened careers, in terms of “greatest” batsmen. I do think longevity in both terms of years played and matches played is important

Sutcliffe I have at 8. No doubt both of them would also be in that group with him (or perhaps higher) if we’d been able to get a fuller picture of their careers and talent.

 

[Johan]

I think the argument made for Gavaskar over Headley aka Career is very applicable here as well.

 

[kyear2]

Headley, he was much higher rated during their respective eras.

 

[DrWolverine]

Herbert Sutcliffe had a greater and better career.

 

[Bert]

The best opening partnership is made up of a rock solid batsman who holds up one end and his partner who keeps the score ticking.

Sutcliffe played his role to perfection and could not have asked for a better partner in Hobbs.

Headley had no decent support. The batting depended upon his performance at the pivotal #3 position.

True that Headley had longevity and his average never dipped below 60, yet for the art of batsmanship and the immense burden he carried, I’m leaning towards the Black Bradman

 

[sayon basak]

Headley was better.
Headley was greater.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Sutcliffe. Had him as my no.10 batsman in my latest list.

 

[Johan]

Another big hundred by Sutcliffe on a horrible sticky against Gregory, McCartney, Grimmett and Mailey. Sutcliffe made 161 and Hobbs made 100 clean to lead England to a win, Australia were bowled out for under 150.

"The crux of the match came before lunch on Tuesday, when Hobbs and Sutcliffe excelled themselves. A thunderstorm, accompanied by a good deal of rain had broken over south London on Monday evening, rendering the pitch slow and dead to begin with, and afterwards very difficult. The two batsmen, it is true, enjoyed the advantage of playing themselves in before conditions became distinctly awkward for them, but, admitting this, their performance during the last hour before lunch in withstanding all endeavours to separate them, was an achievement of the highest order."

 

[kyear2]

The best opening partnership is made up of a rock solid batsman who holds up one end and his partner who keeps the score ticking.

Sutcliffe played his role to perfection and could not have asked for a better partner in Hobbs.

Headley had no decent support. The batting depended upon his performance at the pivotal #3 position.

True that Headley had longevity and his average never dipped below 60, yet for the art of batsmanship and the immense burden he carried, I’m leaning towards the Black Bradman

@peterhrt posted an article in another thread yesterday where four former players for the cricketer magazine listed their top 20 players from 1921 to 1971. Headley was one of the few to make every list, Sutcliffe but one.
One of them called Headley the most complete batman they've seen, and Swanton named him in his all time team in '91.

So yes, I'll too go with the Black Bradman.

 

[Johan]

I feel like Sutcliffe gets shorter end of the stick because his percieved natural ability was not as high as Hobbs, Hutton, Hammond or Headley. Though, the fact that he matches their output and has arguably a more well rounded play style than Hammond, all via sheer will, deserves to be recognised too. Honestly feel like he is one of the more underrated Cricketers historically.

 

[kyear2]

I feel like Sutcliffe gets shorter end of the stick because his percieved natural ability was not as high as Hobbs, Hutton, Hammond or Headley. Though, the fact that he matches their output and has arguably a more well rounded play style than Hammond, all via sheer will, deserves to be recognised too. Honestly feel like he is one of the more underrated Cricketers historically.

I would imagine almost everyone who saw both Sutcliffe a d Hammond play came away in the belief that Hammond was better, one would imagine there had to be a reason.

I personally think that he gets overrated,.at least on the forum.

In any event.

Fingleton's comments were the most interesting, especially when quoting Herbie Collins' opinion that Headley was the most complete batsman he ever saw. Fingleton signed off by saying: "I must stress, finally, that statistics didn't matter a tinker's cuss with me

 

[Coronis]

I would imagine almost everyone who saw both Sutcliffe a d Hammond play came away in the belief that Hammond was better, one would imagine there had to be a reason.

I personally think that he gets overrated,.at least on the forum.

In any event.

Fingleton's comments were the most interesting, especially when quoting Herbie Collins' opinion that Headley was the most complete batsman he ever saw. Fingleton signed off by saying: "I must stress, finally, that statistics didn't matter a tinker's cuss with me

So Fingleton just believed in pure eye test. Good on him.

 

[DrWolverine]

Steven Smith fails on pure eye test as well.

 

[Johan]

I would imagine almost everyone who saw both Sutcliffe a d Hammond play came away in the belief that Hammond was better, one would imagine there had to be a reason.

I personally think that he gets overrated,.at least on the forum.

In any event.

Fingleton's comments were the most interesting, especially when quoting Herbie Collins' opinion that Headley was the most complete batsman he ever saw. Fingleton signed off by saying: "I must stress, finally, that statistics didn't matter a tinker's cuss with me

Sure, Hammond was probably the greater Batsmen, but Hammond in 1929 dropped the hook shot from his arsenal to become a more front foot heavy Batsmen, thus leaving himself open to the technical flaw of not having much of a legside game, this left him vulnerable to good spin bowling to the leg stump and shortpitched pace bowling, manifesting in Hammond's home ashes record and record against Learie Constantine being disappointing.
Sutcliffe on the other end, was an extremely fine player of the hook and pull shots and thus combatted short pitched pace better, and the tactic of bowling to his leg stump did not work in England considering Sutcliffe averages 70 to Hammond's 37 in the English Ashes and combatted Constantine/Larwood very comfortably.

Hammond was probably overall a better Batsmen, but his technique was almost certainly more flawed than Sutcliffe's technique and he would have a harder time adapting to different eras and contexts than Herbert. If you take Hammond to current Australia, he'd have a very bad time facing Cummins and potentially Hazlewood, he would've to reinforce and reincorporate his hook and pull shots again before the end of the tour. Sutcliffe on the other hand, would combat the elite pace bowling pretty well. That is the fundamental sign of a superior technique, more adaptable, more well rounded and less flawed.

I meant underrated as in historically, Him being put under Compton is crazy considering the disparity in what they actually did, Compton might've done it in a much more dashing and stylish manner, but at the end of the day, he did less, far less.

 

[peterhrt]

Another Yorkshireman with a cool temperament whose Test record exceeded his reputation was FS (Stanley) Jackson. Before 1914 the best place to bat was Australia. Jackson never went there, playing all his international cricket on the more variable English pitches.

Ten men scored 700 or more runs in England v Australia matches in England before WW1. Their records were as follows (hundreds in brackets):

Jackson 1415 runs @ 48. (5)
Hayward 785 @ 35. (2)
JT Tyldesley 880 @ 33. (3)
Grace 934 @ 32. (2)
Fry 825 @ 31. (1)
Hill 777 @ 28. (2)
Trumper 863 @ 27. (2)
Noble 848 @ 26. (0)
MacLaren 796 @ 26. (1)
SE Gregory 888 @ 19. (2)

Only Boycott has equalled Jackson's five centuries for England in home tests against Australia.

 

[kyear2]

Steven Smith fails on pure eye test as well.

Does he though?

 

[Coronis]

Does he though?

No moreso than Kallis