Ranking the Auxiliary skills in test cricket

[kyear2]

Nobody is replacing Inzi for Richardson. That's mental. And Hammond and Miller are roughly cricketers as good as each other, it depends on the spot you can have either in an ATG XI.

The real question is if you would have Smith or Hammond over Tendulkar based on slips? No.

It's a bogus analogy.

I probably rate Inzi lower than most, don't think either was that special and Richie buys me wickets.

What I find strange though is that many here would take Imran over McGrath, but not Hammond over Sachin.

In fact many, you included wouldn't even take a non bowling Sobers over Sachin.

Even looking at CW rankings.

McGrath and Sachin are both 2nd respectively.

Imran is ranked 8th and Hammond I believe 9th.

There's no difference between the scenarios.

But hypocrisy reigns.

 

[Johan]

I probably rate Inzi lower than most, don't think either was that special and Richie buys me wickets.

What I find strange though is that many here would take Imran over McGrath, but not Hammond over Sachin.

In fact many, you included wouldn't even take a non bowling Sobers over Sachin.

Even looking at CW rankings.

McGrath and Sachin are both 2nd respectively.

Imran is ranked 8th and Hammond I believe 9th.

There's no difference between the scenarios.

But hypocrisy reigns.

Imran's batting is a significantly bigger factor than Hammond's bowling, though Hammond's an underrated bowler.

anyway, I'm one who'd take Hammond over Tendulkar, Tendulkar being a better bat is unquestionably, the gap is marginal and Hammond's ATG fielding and value as a decent fifth bowler makes up the gap, also helps that he was aa competent captain, no Len Hutton or Allan Border, but still a competent strategist and captain unlike Tendulkar.

 

[kyear2]

Imran's batting is a significantly bigger factor than Hammond's bowling, though Hammond's an underrated bowler.

anyway, I'm one who'd take Hammond over Tendulkar, Tendulkar being a better bat is unquestionably, the gap is marginal and Hammond's ATG fielding and value as a decent fifth bowler makes up the gap, also helps that he was aa competent captain, no Len Hutton or Allan Border, but still a competent strategist and captain unlike Tendulkar.

What makes you think I was comparing Imran's batting to Hammond's bowling.

Hammond's secondary skill and comp here is being the GOAT slip.

The bowling was just icing.

And Hutton was an ultra defensive captain.

 

[Johan]

What makes you think I was comparing Imran's batting to Hammond's bowling.

Hammond's secondary skill and comp here is being the GOAT slip.

The bowling was just icing.

And Hutton was an ultra defensive captain.

Sure, But I don't know how to quantify that in blatant terms, and I don't think most would take Hammond the bowler + Hammond the slip over Imran the bat.

He was a brilliant strategist and made most of his arsenal, didn't have the team to be aggressive but took England from a country in rubble and ruin after the War to a hat trick of Ashes victories, and that's all that really matters.

 

[subshakerz]

I probably rate Inzi lower than most, don't think either was that special and Richie buys me wickets.

What I find strange though is that many here would take Imran over McGrath, but not Hammond over Sachin.

In fact many, you included wouldn't even take a non bowling Sobers over Sachin.

Even looking at CW rankings.

McGrath and Sachin are both 2nd respectively.

Imran is ranked 8th and Hammond I believe 9th.

There's no difference between the scenarios.

But hypocrisy reigns.

Would you select Smith over Tendulkar based on slips,?

If not then you are the hypocrite.

 

[Johan]

Now that was Hammond was discussed, here is an interesting passage from Hutton's book where he likens Sobers to Hammond and praises Sobers by comparing him to Hammond. Claims that Hammond could bowl Leg breaks and googlies of the highest class.

 

[Coronis]

Now that was Hammond was discussed, here is an interesting passage from Hutton's book where he likens Sobers to Hammond and praises Sobers by comparing him to Hammond. Claims that Hammond could bowl Leg breaks and googlies of the highest class.

View attachment 47701
View attachment 47702

iirc general sentiment was Hammond was a far better bowler than his stats showed, but many times he would just not care that much. When properly motivated he could really devastate sides. If he’d had a different mentality and worked on his bowling we might be talking about him in a whole different light, sadly not to be.

His best season in England, early in his career

1928
35 matches 84 @ 23.10 6 5’fers 2 10’fers SR 51.45

(also scored 2825 runs with 9 tons and took 79 catches that season)

 

[Johan]

iirc general sentiment was Hammond was a far better bowler than his stats showed, but many times he would just not care that much. When properly motivated he could really devastate sides. If he’d had a different mentality and worked on his bowling we might be talking about him in a whole different light, sadly not to be.

His best season in England, early in his career

1928
35 matches 84 @ 23.10 6 5’fers 2 10’fers SR 51.45

(also scored 2825 runs with 9 tons and took 79 catches that season)

Yeah, Bradman found Hammond almost as good as Maurice Tate, Hutton thought of Hammond pretty highly and compared him to Sobers in all round ability (suggested Hammond is the better bat), Bedser said he was a far better bowler than his numbers show etc.

 

[Coronis]

Yeah, Bradman found Hammond almost as good as Maurice Tate, Hutton thought of Hammond pretty highly and compared him to Sobers in all round ability (suggested Hammond is the better bat), Bedser said he was a far better bowler than his numbers show etc.

iirc it may have been his 8/25 a few years later but iirc there was an article somewhere about someone pissing him off when he was batting or something else and him coming out and smashing the side. Can’t remember the exact story or source.

 

[kyear2]

Sure, But I don't know how to quantify that in blatant terms, and I don't think most would take Hammond the bowler + Hammond the slip over Imran the bat.

He was a brilliant strategist and made most of his arsenal, didn't have the team to be aggressive but took England from a country in rubble and ruin after the War to a hat trick of Ashes victories, and that's all that really matters.

That's the problem, because it's not easy to quantify it ignored by many here, doesn't make it less important.

Yes, the combination of Hammond's skills are just as critical if not more so than Imran's.

And I've never seen the work brilliant used to describe Hutton's captaincy, outside of you of course.

Good, yeah. Even effective. Never brilliant

 

[kyear2]

Now that was Hammond was discussed, here is an interesting passage from Hutton's book where he likens Sobers to Hammond and praises Sobers by comparing him to Hammond. Claims that Hammond could bowl Leg breaks and googlies of the highest class.

View attachment 47701
View attachment 47702

I'm pretty sure that Hammond would have been the standard as a barring all rounder before Sobers.

 

[kyear2]

iirc general sentiment was Hammond was a far better bowler than his stats showed, but many times he would just not care that much. When properly motivated he could really devastate sides. If he’d had a different mentality and worked on his bowling we might be talking about him in a whole different light, sadly not to be.

His best season in England, early in his career

1928
35 matches 84 @ 23.10 6 5’fers 2 10’fers SR 51.45

(also scored 2825 runs with 9 tons and took 79 catches that season)

That's incredible and invaluable.

 

[ataraxia]

That's incredible and invaluable.

Is it? Just looks like standard county pacer fare, except a WPM less. I'd expect a better peak a level below tbh.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm pretty sure that Hammond would have been the standard as a barring all rounder before Sobers.

Faulkner maybe, although his batting output in Tests seems to be a lot higher than his actual batting reputation.

 

[Johan]

Faulkner maybe, although his batting output in Tests seems to be a lot higher than his actual batting reputation.

I think that comes down to him neglecting his bowling and focusing on his batting in Australia, on easier batting wickets (in comparison to South Africa and England of the time) he was able to make 750 runs in 10 innings but did tank with the bowl, I suspect his Test stats outside of Australia would look very similar to his overall FC numbers.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I think that comes down to him neglecting his bowling and focusing on his batting in Australia, on easier batting wickets (in comparison to South Africa and England of the time) he was able to make 750 runs in 10 innings but did tank with the bowl, I suspect his Test stats outside of Australia would look very similar to his overall FC numbers.

Tbf his overall FC stats of 37 batting and 17 bowling are pretty WAC. And it is pretty much that of a balanced allrounder given the Era.