Jack Hobbs vs Len Hutton vs Herbert Sutcliffe vs Sunil Gavaskar

[fredfertang]

AFAIK

Hutton rated Gavaskar best of his era.
Sobers rated Gavaskar as the best he has seen.
Proctor rated Gavaskar > Barry

References for these claims, especially the last one?

Certainly consistent with what Hutton and Sobers say in autobiographies (by their ghosts anyway)

I couldn't see anything explicit in Procter's autobiographies other than in 1974 he wrote ''Richards (Barry) is without a doubt the finest batsman I have ever seen''

 

[cnerd123]

Maybe Gavaskar had greater significance but as players they're impossible to separate. Great at what they each did.

Yea that's basically where I stand

It's quite hard to compare between eras too. Like, Hobbs Vs Sutcliffe is a doable comparison because their careers mostly overlapped, but Hutton and Gavaskar each played in different eras. Different bowlers, conditions, context. It's hard to actually put one above the other.

Hobbs and Gavaskar for me tho. Pretty bland choice, but I pick Hobbs for longevity and weight of accomplishments, and Gavaskar for significance.

 

[trundler]

Can't even split Hutton and Gavaskar on significance tbh. England were pretty poor immediately post war and Hutton held it all together. Must've played a grand role in bringing cricket back to the fore of public interest along with Compton. Absolutely elite skill wise too, obviously.

 

[h_hurricane]

Likewise, check out the West Indian bowlers in the 1971 series. Epic stuff.

That was a significant series in Indian history. We had never ever won anything in England, Australia or West Indies, not even a test. Gavaskar debuted in the series and played a crucial part in both innings of the only test match which produced a result. His overall performance in the series was splendid albeit against bowlers of far lesser quality than their successors.

Imagine Shaw taking india to first series victory in Aus against some bowlers inferior to current Aussie quartet or Akash Chopra taking india to series victory in 2003-04. It will still be lauded.

 

[h_hurricane]

Hobbs, Gavaskar, Hutton followed by Sutcliffe for me.

 

[sunilz]

You beat me to it. Anyone claiming that Gavaskar's 774 aggregate in that series belongs in a discussion about how well he fared against the great WI pace attacks needs their head examining.

The only people who need head examining are those who consider Gavaskar average of 40 against WI pace quartret a failure. How much did Tendulkar and Lara average against Donald and Pollock, Wasim and Waqar , Mcgrath, Gillespie and Fleming . ?

Kindly also check the batting average of Ricky Ponting in 2005 Ashes tour when he faced English pace quartet in the middle of his purple patch.

 

[trundler]

Hutton strikes me as having more X factor than Gavaskar so I'll take him.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Hutton strikes me as having more X factor than Gavaskar so I'll take him.

Gavaskar played his fair share of rapid attacking knocks against great attacks.

 

[wpdavid]

The only people who need head examining are those who consider Gavaskar average of 40 against WI pace quartret a failure. How much did Tendulkar and Lara average against Donald and Pollock, Wasim and Waqar , Mcgrath, Gillespie and Fleming . ?

Kindly also check the batting average of Ricky Ponting in 2005 Ashes tour when he faced English pace quartet in the middle of his purple patch.

Steady on mate, I wasn't questioning Gavaskar's performances as a whole, just pointing out that his runs in the 1971 series were against a very different WI attack. And I'll let others discuss Ponting with you if they're remotely inclined.

 

[sunilz]

While we are examining bowling attack series wise somebody please also inform me whether runs scored by Hayden in 2001 tour of India in 2nd test and 3rd test should be counted or not considering both Kumble and Srinath didn't play in those test . The best Indian bowler was ranked 28 at the beginning of 2nd test
ICC Player Rankings

When Hayden faced both Kumble and Harbhajan in his next series in 2004 and 2008 in IND he averaged 30 . So while calculating batting average of Hayden in IND should we count runs scored in 2001 series ?

 

[sunilz]

Steady on mate, I wasn't questioning Gavaskar's performances as a whole, just pointing out that his runs in the 1971 series were against a very different WI attack. And I'll let other discuss Ponting with you if they're remotely inclined.

I consider Hobbs as No.1 opener followed by Gavaskar just to make my stand clear.

 

[h_hurricane]

Steady on mate, I wasn't questioning Gavaskar's performances as a whole, just pointing out that his runs in the 1971 series were against a very different WI attack. And I'll let other discuss Ponting with you if they're remotely inclined.

Yes, Gavaskar's overall average of 65 and 13 hundreds against WI are often highlighted while discussing how great he was against ATG attacks. While getting into detail, it is easy to find that some of these knocks have come against low quality attacks as well.

Having said that, I would say that 40 is a good benchmark average for an ATG batsman against ATG attacks. Gavaskar comfortably achieved that I reckon.

 

[wpdavid]

Yes, Gavaskar's overall average of 65 and 13 hundreds against WI are often highlighted while discussing how great he was against ATG attacks. While getting into detail, it is easy to find that some of these knocks have come against low quality attacks as well.

Having said that, I would say that 40 is a good benchmark average for an ATG batsman against ATG attacks. Gavaskar comfortably achieved that I reckon.

Of course it is, and nobody 's saying otherwise. Thankfully most CWers are able to cope with something a bit more nuanced too.

 

[trundler]

I don't think many great batsmen would be greatly successful against an attack with no weak links at all. A major part of batting is playing out the dangerous bowler and scoring off the others. They're still humans.

 

[trundler]

Gavaskar played his fair share of rapid attacking knocks against great attacks.

True. It's a hair's breadth either way, as I say.

 

[wpdavid]

I consider Hobbs as No.1 opener followed by Gavaskar just to make my stand clear.

I really wouldn't know how to separate them. I couldn't argue any more with your choice than with someone including Hutton and/or Sutcliffe. Given their track records, it's all guesswork really.

 

[h_hurricane]

Can't even split Hutton and Gavaskar on significance tbh. England were pretty poor immediately post war and Hutton held it all together. Must've played a grand role in bringing cricket back to the fore of public interest along with Compton. Absolutely elite skill wise too, obviously.

Hutton was immense following WWII, however England had been strong at some point in history well before he debuted. India after Gavaskar's debut, won immediately in WI and England. Those 6 months were the most significant in the first 50 years of our cricket history. Nothing else in indian context does not even come close.

To draw a parallel, Pujara's contribution in the current series in Australia will be far more significant than Kohli's in England and SA even though all those efforts were praiseworthy.

My post is only about their relative significance to their country's history, not about their relative merits as batsmen.

 

[wpdavid]

Hutton was immense following WWII, however England had been strong at some point in history well before he debuted. India after Gavaskar's debut, won immediately in WI and England. Those 6 months were the most significant in the first 50 years of our cricket history. Nothing else in indian context does not even come close.

To draw a parallel, Pujara's contribution in the current series in Australia will be far more significant than Kohli's in England and SA even though all those efforts were praiseworthy.

My post is only about their relative significance to their country's history, not about their relative merits as batsmen.

Yes, I think that's absolutely fair.

 

[h_hurricane]

I don't think many great batsmen would be greatly successful against an attack with no weak links at all. A major part of batting is playing out the dangerous bowler and scoring off the others. They're still humans.

This. I remember Lara seeing off Mcgrath many times while scoring a lot off the other bowlers. He was shrewd enough to give respect where deserved while also knowing how to score big.

It is difficult to foresee an ATG batsman averaging 50 against ATG attacks. I am struggling to find any such examples. Possibly Bradman, but I am not sure.

 

[trundler]

Hutton bringing the Ashes back after 2 full decades must be as big. Anyone who holds a definitive position on who was more skillful and indeed, more significant is bull****ting. Unless they're like 80.