PlayerComparisons
International Debutant
A batsman that averaged 50 vs a batsman that averaged 60
-
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.
Viv Richards vs Herbert Sutcliffe
- Thread starter PlayerComparisons
- Start date
Coronis
Cricketer Of The Year
ezpz
Adorable Asshole
International Regular
Viv easy. 20s and 30s were extremely batting friendly era.
PlayerComparisons
International Debutant
What do you think Sutcliffe would average in Viv’s era?
Adorable Asshole
International Regular
Coronis
Cricketer Of The Year
Aggregate/overall records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com
Aggregate/overall records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com
Tell me more tell me more, like did he have a car?
Adorable Asshole
International Regular
Skewed by minnowsAggregate/overall records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com
stats.espncricinfo.com
Aggregate/overall records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com
Tell me more tell me more, like did he have a car?
For the first one do only for Eng and Aus
For the second one do only for Eng,NZ,AUS,PAK,IND,WI
Coronis
Cricketer Of The Year
And Viv’s is exaggerated by covered pitches.
Uncovered pitches and average are the only things in Sutcliffe’s favour, Viv faced far better bowlers, especially pace in far more pace friendly conditions, hence in overall far tougher batting conditions, favourable matchups against some of the best pace bowlers, had a far better SR, averaged 40+ across all conditions(Sutcliffe played most of his matches in Aus and Eng), had better peaks(hitting 800+ runs in a series despite having missed a match, Sutcliffe never even crossed 500, hitting 900+ ICC rating, hitting some 4700+ runs at an average of around of 65 from 76-80, if you World Series cricket). Even for Sutcliffe’s average advantage refer Viv’s performance from 76-80, hitting more career runs than Sutcliffe at a higher average.
a massive zebra
International Captain
This is completely wrong. Sutcliffe did pass 500 runs in a series multiple times, for instance 734 runs in the 1924-25 Ashes and 513 runs against South Africa in 1929.
Coronis
Cricketer Of The Year
This is why Tendulkar suffers in many people’s rankings on here. ICC ratings are practically the word of god.
Also measuring someones entire career vs a peak because of the difference in the number of tests played now is stupid.
I am just using ICC ratings as one factor out of others to determine better peak performance only. Tendulkar didn’t have a good ICC rating because he was monstrously consistent, averaging 59 for 18 years, rather than having a temporary phenom peak like Ponting, Viv etc or scoring 500+ runs in a series(although he did come close to that a couple of times). Tendulkar has a different type of peak. And fine, I’ll be give that average point to Sutcliffe, but Viv has the better peak out of the two batsmen due to his output from 76-80(including WSC). And my bad, Sutcliffe did pass 500+ runs in a series.
Coronis
Cricketer Of The Year
Nobody denies that Viv has a better peak, least of all me, its up there as one of the greatest of all time. Sutcliffe was also extremely consistent, given that he had a 60+ average his entire career. I don’t count WSC, considering this discussion is test related. Sutcliffe wasn’t selected earlier sadly due to WWI and England afterwards having a sad propensity for picking players who had played pre-war or were clearly inferior to him in county cricket. The SR thing is not something I’m too worried about, especially for blokes like Sutcliffe and Hutton who struck around 40, in an era with uncovered stickies and timeless tests, scoring as many runs as possible was more important than the rate at which they scored. I’m sure both Sutcliffe and Viv would need to adapt a fair bit in different eras. Yes Viv had those amazing peak years, but that means he scored the rest of his test runs (over a period where he was aged the same as Sutcliffe throughout his career) at an average of 40-45. Clearly you give a far greater emphasis to peak than I do.
Line and Length
Cricketer Of The Year
Opener v Middle Order. Who has the hardest job?
Plus Suttclife played half the matches Viv did, so consistency(which for Viv would increase if you include WSC, to averaging about 47 in his career except 76) isn’t that much of a factor for me in this comparison. Also considering Viv made 1/5th of his test runs in 1976, doesn’t seem fair to exclude this from this career, and if at all you want to, exclude his last two years who were quite bad to get a better idea. I don’t remember this accurately, but excluding 76,90,91 and including WSC, he averages 48-49, which is still unprecedented given his attacking play as evidenced by his high SR.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I don't know why you keep mentioning this. Sutcliffe having a 60+ average his entire career doesn't really show consistency. It merely shows he had a phenomenal start to his career, averaging 75+ in his first 3 series. He had some bad series later on but because his good series came early in his career, he had a buffer which allowed his cumulative average to stay up. If you simply switched up the order of these series and Sutcliffe had started off with a few series averaging in the 30s and then had massive series later to slowly get his average up to 60 would you say he was less consistent? Of course not.
Also, Sutcliffe low key has a pretty big skew between his peak vs the rest of his career too. He averaged 70 in his first 38 tests. And only averaged a shade above 40 with only 1 hundred in his last 16.
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com
That's not quite as consistent as you're making out imo.
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
The circumstances in which Sutcliffe's career abruptly ended are pretty lame. Lost form, broke his leg, got dropped and then 2 years later Hutton debuted as he turned 43. The skew in his numbers do justify the axing but one of the titans of FC cricket when it still matters who also held the test record for the most tons going out like that is pretty crappy. That said though, a decade-ish averaging 60 on roads should put him somewhere on the Ponting-Barrington spectrum. I'd say he's justifiably put at the top of that grouping because of opener tax. Top 12ish for me and the forum rankings so hardly underrated.I don't know why you keep mentioning this. Sutcliffe having a 60+ average his entire career doesn't really show consistency. It merely shows he had a phenomenal start to his career, averaging 75+ in his first 3 series. He had some bad series later on but because his good series came early in his career, he had a buffer which allowed his cumulative average to stay up. If you simply switched up the order of these series and Sutcliffe had started off with a few series averaging in the 30s and then had massive series later to slowly get his average up to 60 would you say he was less consistent? Of course not.
Also, Sutcliffe low key has a pretty big skew between his peak vs the rest of his career too. He averaged 70 in his first 38 tests. And only averaged a shade above 40 with only 1 hundred in his last 16.
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com
That's not quite as consistent as you're making out imo.
Excellent summary tbh.
Side note: I've developed a habit of calling Sutcliffe "Sutters Sutcliffe" for some reason. I don't know how it started but I blame @Shady Slim and his shadyisms.