What's your point? For us to not rate Hobbs?
Hobbs is the greatest batsman before Bradman.
I find it hard to compare him with modern day greats since the game is evolved and more professional today.
I think Hobbs was the greatest batsman before Bradman, think he's also the closest batsman to Bradman, to the point where I don't think they're far apart at all. Like same tier.
But as stated above, I find it hard to rate or compare him to post war batsmen. There's the fact we can never seen him in action, the lbw rules, and the limited competition. He was a batsman who was at his absolute peak before WWI, an era I generally don't rate with cricketers who emerged between the wars, and for many of the same reasons listed above.
I've similarly never seen Barnes, none of us can even agree with what he bowled and it's impossible to believe the Barnes ball. His record is awfully skewed by a minnow team where he gorged his numbers and enhanced his reputation.
So no, I rate Hobbs quite highly, just can't quite place him in an AT team scenario as I have no idea how he would go. Think quite a few of us are in that range or higher, that he was in at the time he retired, someone of that age couldn't survive today, not averaging 60 for sure. That just calls the level of quality a bit into doubt for me.
But to answer your question, no, that's not the objective.
youtube.com
