Jack Hobbs vs Steve Smith

[subshakerz]

Both average 56 and both coincidentally are batsmen. Who is better?

 

[ataraxia]

Both average 57 and both coincidentally are batsmen. Who is better?

Don't think that's much of a coincidence tbh

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Hobbs. Longevity wise transcended eras(post and pre war). His dominance over peers in pre-war era, was only bettered by Bradman's dominance over his peers. Plus Hobbs was successfull across some of the greatest extremities of conditions: sticky wickets in English, bouncy surfaces in Australia(and the infamous gluepot wicket), and matted surfaces in SA(the first batsmen to dominate those google bowlers).

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Hobbs is also maybe the nicest cricketer ever

 

[subshakerz]

Wow. Smith getting blown away here.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Wow. Smith getting blown away here.

As he should.

 

[subshakerz]

His stock really has fallen then.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

His stock really has fallen then.

And generally Hobbs and Tendulkar are a bit untouchable, in terms of reputation

 

[Coronis]

His stock really has fallen then.

Uh no, on here, Hobbs has always been regarded as better.

Also, wrong forum

 

[PlayerComparisons]

His stock really has fallen then.

The series vs India later this year is huge for him

 

[subshakerz]

The series vs India later this year is huge for him

No. It won't change anything unless he has an epic series.

 

[Socerer 01]

His stock really has fallen then.

not really
its a case of someone being objectively better

 

[Aidan11]

No contest.

 

[Slifer]

As much as I think Smith is s gun, gotta go with John Berry.

 

[Line and Length]

Hobbs was an opener while Smith's efforts at the top of an innings have failed to impress.

 

[_00_deathscar]

No. It won't change anything unless he has an epic series.

So it will change something then…