Jack Hobbs vs Viv Richards

[peterhrt]

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

Post from last year.
==============================================================================================
Between his fortieth birthday in December 1922 and the end of the 1930 English season, when he last represented England aged 47, Hobbs scored 20,530 first-class runs at an average of 60.02, with 76 centuries. He had 378 innings.

In exactly one third of those innings,126, there was at least one fast bowler in the opposition. Chronological list as follows:

English: Arthur Gilligan (pre-injury while still fast), Gubby Allen, Larwood, Nichols, Voce, Bowes, Nobby Clark
West Indian: George Francis, Constantine, Herman Griffith
Australian: Tim Wall, Gregory, McDonald, John Scott (South Australia)

Between the ages of 40 and 47, Hobbs' record in first-class matches when these 14 bowlers opposed him was 6,552 runs, average 57.98, with 19 centuries.

He scored at least one century against all of them, apart from Bowes and Clark, against whom he only played four innings, passing fifty each time.

Hobbs was dismissed 113 times in these games, but only on 28 occasions by the quicks. Larwood got him seven times and McDonald five. Unlike other English batsmen, he rarely had much trouble with Gregory, either before or after his fortieth birthday.

The West Indian George Francis dismissed him cheaply the first three times they met, but Hobbs followed up with a couple of hundreds and a fifty. Gubby Allen had sixteen attempts to get him out and never succeeded, Hobbs averaging 87 with a highest score of 316*.
==============================================================================================

 

[Johan]

Post from last year.
==============================================================================================
Between his fortieth birthday in December 1922 and the end of the 1930 English season, when he last represented England aged 47, Hobbs scored 20,530 first-class runs at an average of 60.02, with 76 centuries. He had 378 innings.

In exactly one third of those innings,126, there was at least one fast bowler in the opposition. Chronological list as follows:

English: Arthur Gilligan (pre-injury while still fast), Gubby Allen, Larwood, Nichols, Voce, Bowes, Nobby Clark
West Indian: George Francis, Constantine, Herman Griffith
Australian: Tim Wall, Gregory, McDonald, John Scott (South Australia)

Between the ages of 40 and 47, Hobbs' record in first-class matches when these 14 bowlers opposed him was 6,552 runs, average 57.98, with 19 centuries.

He scored at least one century against all of them, apart from Bowes and Clark, against whom he only played four innings, passing fifty each time.

Hobbs was dismissed 113 times in these games, but only on 28 occasions by the quicks. Larwood got him seven times and McDonald five. Unlike other English batsmen, he rarely had much trouble with Gregory, either before or after his fortieth birthday.

The West Indian George Francis dismissed him cheaply the first three times they met, but Hobbs followed up with a couple of hundreds and a fifty. Gubby Allen had sixteen attempts to get him out and never succeeded, Hobbs averaging 87 with a highest score of 316*.
==============================================================================================

Thank You! so my idea was correct, an old Hobbs did prove himself against Larwood and 30s pacers. also proved himself against Constantine (consistent 85mph) at the age 47.

 

[kyear2]

Thank You! so my idea was correct, an old Hobbs did prove himself against Larwood and 30s pacers. also proved himself against Constantine (consistent 85mph) at the age 47.

Yes he did.

A 47 year old man averaging 60 though...

 

[sayon basak]

A 47 year old scoring century against Larwood???

Harold Larwood was rated as possibly the fastest bowler of all time in a book "The Fast Men" by David Frith (Corgi Books, 1977, p114). It quotes a recorded speed of 96mph (154.5 kph)

So, Larwood at least bowled as fast as modern pacers at least in those matches, right?
Isn't that telling how good Hobbs was?

Syd Barnes, SF, I've always put at the very top. He was the best bowler ever. I dont think even now there was anyone better, although, I admit, there are others almost his equals, like Bill ORielly. Syd hated batsmen. He had the leg break, the off-break and he was FAST...tall and made the ball get up unpleasant heights"

And after facing pacers at 47 and averaging 60, when you call SF Barnes the GOAT, what does it say about Barnes?

 

[kyear2]

A 47 year old scoring century against Larwood???

So, Larwood at least bowled as fast as modern pacers at least in those matches, right?
Isn't that telling how good Hobbs was?

And after facing pacers at 47 and averaging 60, when you call SF Barnes the GOAT, what does it say about Barnes?

What does it tell you?

There's only one of two conclusions.

And this is taking into consideration that Hobbs was at his absolute best prior to WWI.

 

[sayon basak]

What does it tell you?

That they were great and comparable to modern day greats??

 

[DrWolverine]

or Larwood wasn’t that good?

 

[sayon basak]

or Larwood wasn’t that good?

If Larwood wasn't that good, how do you rate Bradman as the GOAT? He only averaged 56 in the BODYLINE series (less than Sangakkara's career average)

Larwood was the one of the, if not the fastest bowler of his time. He definitely bowled at over 150 kmph in his prime.

Harold Larwood was rated as possibly the fastest bowler of all time in a book "The Fast Men" by David Frith (Corgi Books, 1977, p114). It quotes a recorded speed of 96mph (154.5 kph)

 

[sayon basak]

Are we really becoming PakPassion?

 

[DrWolverine]

If a 50 year old is scoring well against a great bowler at his peak, there are possibilities:

1. The bowler isn’t that great

2. The batsman is great

3. Too much luck involved

 

[sayon basak]

If a 50 year old is scoring well against a great bowler at his peak, there are possibilities:

1. The bowler isn’t that great

2. The batsman is great

3. Too much luck involved

And the 3rd option is stupid.


At this point, you are not making a point. You are just being dishonest with yourself and not wanting to rate Hobbs.

 

[DrWolverine]

The chances of a 51 year old Sachin coming back today and scoring a century against Cummins or Bumrah is zero unless it is an exhibition match.

 

[kyear2]

That they were great and comparable to modern day greats??

A batsman who's absolute peak was the 1908 - 1914, averaging over 60 at the age of 47 tell us one of two things.

He was every bit the batsman that Bradman was.

Or

The pitches (and the ones in England weren't even as flat as the ones in Australia) were absolute garbage. And I have to say the pace bowlers couldn't have been that special either.

We're talking almost 50 years old.

 

[sayon basak]

The pitches (and the ones in England weren't even as flat as the ones in Australia) were absolute garbage. And I have to say the pace bowlers couldn't have been that special either.

We're talking almost 50 years old.

A 48 year old taking on fast bowlers half his age is impressive regardless of the pitch, don't you think?

 

[sayon basak]

The chances of a 51 year old Sachin coming back today and scoring a century against Cummins or Bumrah is zero unless it is an exhibition match.

Again, did anybody say Larwood was as good as Cummins or Bumrah?

I said that he was "good enough" to cause the Don trouble and was fast. He definitely bowled over 150 kmph. So, averaging 60 against such pacers is definitely impressive.

And him getting lucky is a bizzare take. Do you really think anybody can be lucky enough to score 19 centuries between 40 to 47 years of age?

 

[kyear2]

A 48 year old taking on fast bowlers half his age is impressive regardless of the pitch, don't you think?

I must first ask how old you are.

When you get there you'll understand.

But respectfully, no.

There's no way a modern batsman, even in this era of personal care and nutrition can make it to 45, far less average 60.

Let's even forget how it was virtually impossible to get lbw's etc, the pitches had to be absolute concrete, which to be fair we were kind of aware.

 

[sayon basak]

But respectfully, no.

Let's agree to disagree then.


And not really sure how age is related to any of these.

 

[ataraxia]

I must first ask how old you are.

When you get there you'll understand.

But respectfully, no.

There's no way a modern batsman, even in this era of personal care and nutrition can make it to 45, far less average 60.

Let's even forget how it was virtually impossible to get lbw's etc, the pitches had to be absolute concrete, which to be fair we were kind of aware.

The pitches were much worse than today's lmao. County averages were way lower as well.

 

[kyear2]

The pitches were much worse than today's lmao. County averages were way lower as well.

Well there were two options given.

 

[sayon basak]

Well there were two options given.

What? That all of the 14 fast bowlers he faced in those 7/8 years were garbage?