• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Jack Hobbs vs Viv Richards

Viv Richards vs Jack Hobbs

  • Total voters
    27
Johan

Johan

International Coach
@sayon basak @capt_Luffy @kyear2 some of Jack's performances against Larwood, remember he was born in December 1882, that should give you age



here is one against Constantine and Griffith


and one masterful inning against Grimmett


Truth be told from what I see Larwood did completely outperform other pacerd against Hobbs but that's expected goven Hobbs was elderly and Larwood had been watching Hobbs his whole life, still performed though against 30s phenoms as well
 
subshakerz

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
kyear2 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Isn't it contradictory to rate him so high as a cricketer but not trust him in an ATG scenario though? I struggle with that as I share your concerns but can't resolve this.
 
kyear2

kyear2

Hall of Fame Member
Johan said:
why doesn't Boycott being 43-45 and scoring runs in county in 1980s also eliminate the credebility of bowlers from the 80s?
Click to expand...
Was Geoffrey playing tests at 47? Think he retired at 41.

Was he scoring hundreds consistently between 40 and 45? Was he averaging 60?

None of this is new, and don't know it's turned into a conversation piece.

I don't rate players prior to WWI. Period. Not with modern ones..

This doesn't, shouldn't impact anyone's opinions at all.

I also have a general start off point from the mid 30's, because of the lbw rules etc. that still fully leaves in guys like Bradman, Hammond, O'Reilly etc who I have as tier 1 ATGs. I think Hutton, a pre WWII guy as the best opener ever and I've seen and read about Lindwall and Miller, Sonny and Valentine etc. He also played in the first modern live ball era and thrived, even despite his injury.

We can all see things differently.
 
Johan

Johan

International Coach
kyear2 said:
Was Geoffrey playing tests at 47? Think he retired at 41.

Was he scoring hundreds consistently between 40 and 45? Was he averaging 60?

None of this is new, and don't know it's turned into a conversation piece.

I don't rate players prior to WWI. Period. Not with modern ones..

This doesn't, shouldn't impact anyone's opinions at all.

I also have a general start off point from the mid 30's, because of the lbw rules etc. that still fully leaves in guys like Bradman, Hammond, O'Reilly etc who I have as tier 1 ATGs. I think Hutton, a pre WWII guy as the best opener ever and I've seen and read about Lindwall and Miller, Sonny and Valentine etc. He also played in the first modern live ball era and thrived, even despite his injury.

We can all see things differently.
Click to expand...
I don't really have a statistical analysis on Boycott's averages in his final years but he did make runs against Holding/Dev and Hadlee as well as McDermott I think, not a bad lineup to score against in your mid 40s.

anyway I respect your stance, I just have a question, do you rate Hobbs due to his late 20s work alongside Hammond who I'm certain you rate?
 
kyear2

kyear2

Hall of Fame Member
subshakerz said:
Isn't it contradictory to rate him so high as a cricketer but not trust him in an ATG scenario though? I struggle with that as I share your concerns but can't resolve this.
Click to expand...
Rod Laver is an ATG, don't think he would beat Sinner.

There's also a reason tennis is divided in the open and pre open era.

Re Hobbs, I've not seen him, I've not seen Barnes, think Grace played a different game all together.

Let's just rate the pre WWI guys together. Hobbs escapes because he played beyond that period, but still.

If I had a time machine and I was selecting an XI for the earth to survive if we win, I'm not going back to 1914 to collect Sir John Hobbs. Not over 2 guys who I'm sure can do it.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Hall of Fame Member
I find it fascinating when people state that Tennis or football players from the 70s and 80s will loose to those playing today badly, but cricketers will come out on top AND going back another 30 years, they won't any longer........ Pick a lane y'all. Cricket neither became professional only in the 70s nor did it had any major breakthroughs in sports science.
 
kyear2

kyear2

Hall of Fame Member
Johan said:
I don't really have a statistical analysis on Boycott's averages in his final years but he did make runs against Holding/Dev and Hadlee as well as McDermott I think, not a bad lineup to score against in your mid 40s.

anyway I respect your stance, I just have a question, do you rate Hobbs due to his late 20s work alongside Hammond who I'm certain you rate?
Click to expand...
I rate Hammond more for his all round game than per batting alone, though I do respect him for at least travelling to the Caribbean.

Before the war his average was 61, 75 in Australia and that was probably even so low due to, in no small part Tiger O'Reilly. Those pitches were the definition of flat.

The initial post war pitches were just as bad if not worse. Morris averaged 79 vs England, Harvey 86.

But yes, the fact that Hobbs kept going on is the reason I do rate him. And he must have been absolutely amazing, and as I said, I probably rate him closer to Bradman than anyone on this forum. He's in my top 4 best after Bradman category and distinguished and distanced himself better than any of the other members of that little club.
Not to mention his best days were even before the great war, where he just separated himself from the competition.
These were all phenomenal players, but the same way many discount the runs and averages from the 2000's, this era was even worse.
 
subshakerz

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
kyear2 said:
If I had a time machine and I was selecting an XI for the earth to survive if we win, I'm not going back to 1914 to collect Sir John Hobbs. Not over 2 guys who I'm sure can do it.
Click to expand...
Yeah but that means you agree that whatever skill Hobbs exhibited in his career gives us zero confidence that it is translatable to a modern era or across eras. That's my suspicion as well.

And with Bradman, we can allow it give the statistical outlier. But outside a career in the real tested international standard of cricket in the post WW2 era, we can't?
 
kyear2

kyear2

Hall of Fame Member
capt_Luffy said:
I find it fascinating when people state that Tennis or football players from the 70s and 80s will loose to those playing today badly, but cricketers will come out on top AND going back another 30 years, they won't any longer........ Pick a lane y'all. Cricket neither became professional only in the 70s nor did it had any major breakthroughs in sports science.
Click to expand...
Athletes have become bigger, stronger and faster. Equipment have also improved.

Skills really haven't.

What happens in the 50's were than England started to recover a bit from the war, and even with Lindwall and Miller, ATG pacers started to emerge. But the main factor of the pitches were the pitches becoming more sporting. Lindwall I'm confident could step into today's cricket and be world class, O'Reilly, Bradman as well.

It's a judgement call for every individual.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Hall of Fame Member
kyear2 said:
Athletes have become bigger, stronger and faster. Equipment have also improved.

Skills really haven't.

What happens in the 50's were than England started to recover a bit from the war, and even with Lindwall and Miller, ATG pacers started to emerge. But the main factor of the pitches were the pitches becoming more sporting. Lindwall I'm confident could step into today's cricket and be world class, O'Reilly, Bradman as well.

It's a judgement call for every individual.
Click to expand...
The pitches hardly were more sporting in the 2000s or 40s than the 30s
 
Johan

Johan

International Coach
I don't think physicals matter all that much in test cricket, I mean, have you ever seen Vernon Philander and Inzamam Ul Haq?
 
kyear2

kyear2

Hall of Fame Member
capt_Luffy said:
The pitches hardly were more sporting in the 2000s or 40s than the 30s
Click to expand...
Mid 20's, all the 30's and the 40's were flat as hell.

The 2000's were flat, but there were still titans in the game, variety of conditions (SL spinning / SA lively), and even then we discount runs from that era.

I said in the 50's the pitches, outside of the WI became much more sporting, and the era of the fast bowlers was truly on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top