Jack Hobbs vs Viv Richards

[DrWolverine]

Two legends

 

[kyear2]

This was done only this year.

But for me, right now I have Viv 3rd and Hobbs 5th.

As I said, for by BAB category I rate them more or less as equals and rate them by strength of attacks faced. Hence Viv 3rd.

 

[capt_Luffy]

It's one of those comparisons where I think the players are close but don't think I can switch the order.

 

[sayon basak]

Hobbs.

 

[Johan]

Hobbs is THE best after Bradman

 

[sayon basak]

Hobbs is THE best after Bradman

Hobbs is simultaneously best before Bradman and Best after Bradman.


Phenomenal stuff!

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Yeah Hobbs and Sachin I’d put above Viv.

 

[sayon basak]

Yeah Hobbs and Sachin I’d put above Viv.

+1

 

[ankitj]

Jack Hobbs vs Viv Richards

.

www.cricketweb.net

 

[number11]

I dont think a truly valid comparison can be made as the conditions were way too different. That said, if a h2h must be done: Viv wins.

He faced incredible bowling, dominated like no one before or after and was far ahead of his time.

 

[DrWolverine]

Jack Hobbs vs Viv Richards

.

www.cricketweb.net

Viv. A modern tested bat without Hobbs' gentlemen cricket runs.

Except for Bradman, I find it hard to rate the legends of the past ahead of modern day greats.

 

[Johan]

Viv is about as far from today as Hobbs was from Viv, so is Viv sub Babar Azam then?

 

[DrWolverine]

Test cricket changed much more from 1908 to 1975 than it has changed in the last 50 years.

 

[Johan]

Other than pace bowling, basis for that?

 

[sayon basak]

Viv is about as far from today as Hobbs was from Viv, so is Viv sub Babar Azam then?

This is actually a good argument. Some may try to say crickets initial stages faced more improvement. But when Hobbs started playing, it had been more than 40 years since overarm bowling was legalized. And professional cricket was more than 150 years old.

 

[sayon basak]

I dont think a truly valid comparison can be made as the conditions were way too different. That said, if a h2h must be done: Viv wins.

He faced incredible bowling, dominated like no one before or after and was far ahead of his time.

Same (even stronger, actually) argument could be made about Hobbs. Look at the stats of other batters vs Hobbs in the same match and you'll know.

 

[Johan]

This is actually a good argument. Some may try to say crickets initial stages faced more improvement. But when Hobbs started playing, it had been more than 40 years since overarm bowling was legalized. And professional cricket was more than 150 years old.

yeah, not to mention Even express argument doesn't work as Hobbs at 47-48 scored centuries against Larwood who is every bit as fast as most express pacers bar the ceiling (Thommo/Shoaib/Lee/Tait) without a helmet, not tommention Hobbs was ill and all.

 

[kyear2]

Other than pace bowling, basis for that?

It is the pace bowling.

 

[kyear2]

yeah, not to mention Even express argument doesn't work as Hobbs at 47-48 scored centuries against Larwood who is every bit as fast as most express pacers bar the ceiling (Thommo/Shoaib/Lee/Tait) without a helmet, not tommention Hobbs was ill and all.

Have links with scoreboards?

 

[Johan]

Have links with scoreboards?

some scores I've read suggest he averages 58 against Nottinghamshire from 1925-1930 so I reckon as an opener he would've to make centuries for that, I'd love if @peterhrt has some more in-depth statistics than mine