Viv vs hutton

[OverratedSanity]

Some of the English and Indian attacks Viv played later in his career really were awful though. So he definitely didn't have it harder. If he'd actually had to face WI's assembly line of pacers then yes.

 

[DrWolverine]

Kimber isn't influenced by this forum, he has opinions that massively contradict opinions you'd see on here, such as his rating of Barrington over Headley.

100% justified

 

[subshakerz]

Pretty sure Viv actually wimped out of #3 and moved down the order once he was out of his ultimate peak.

Also in general yes, I would argue batting slowly is harder than batting quickly.

This may be a contrary opinion (to not just kyear, but many of you)

My reasoning is - we often see good-great batsmen getting bogged down and unable to resist the impulse to aggressively whack one and thus, get out. Apparently its more difficult for them to get through a difficult phase. Tailenders, who obviously are team’s worst bats, generally have high strikerates, because its far easier to hit out and get out than hold up an end. Southee’s a pretty **** bat and he has the SR of Sehwag and one of the highest numbers of 6’s in the history of test cricket. Cos you know, its easy.

ODI and T20 batting is piss easy compared to tests, and everyone’s aggressive there.

Being able to score as many runs as Boycs, Sutcliffe and Hutton did at that pace, how many modern bats could have done that? How many can score a lot of runs at a similar pace to Viv? Hmmmmmm

Respectfully disagree.

If we are talking about over an entire career and maintaining consistency and facing quality attacks, scoring at an extra high rate of 70SR is just more difficult. Assuming between the two bats the runs are equal.

The margin for error is simply much higher to play those shots. You are going to be proactive and not just wait for weak deliveries.

And you can see bats who have high SRs with many innings where they buckle down at 40SR to get through a difficult phase. Because no bat who gets to that level without a requisite level of patience.

 

[subshakerz]

So did Hutton ftr. Also Viv played plenty mid attacks over his career as well.

I know I already conceded that.

Hutton has a bit better output than Viv.

 

[sayon basak]

100% stupid

100% fixed.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Nah, NZ were terrible in Hutton's era. However, atleast Hutton made all his big scores vs NZ when Cowie was in the attack. What a chad.

Hutton avg 45 vs NZ, 11 lower than his career average. Cowie was there for the 7 of his 11 matches and he scored mostly in them, and they all were remarkably low scoring even for ENG in general. Think Viv have faced easier challenges than that and India legit might be a better shout.

 

[DrWolverine]

Ken Barrington clearly has a better test record than Headley and it is not even remotely close

 

[capt_Luffy]

I know I already conceded that.

So tell why his average Shan't be brought against someone to average 56 overall, 56 to Australia, 53 to SA and 79 to WI??

 

[subshakerz]

So tell why his average Shan't be brought against someone to average 56 overall, 56 to Australia, 53 to SA and 79 to WI??

It should. I concede Hutton has an advantage over Viv as far as consistency and output.

 

[capt_Luffy]

It should. I concede Hutton has an advantage over Viv as far as consistency and output.

So you agree that you taking Viv is completely a personal stylistic choice??

 

[Coronis]

Respectfully disagree.

If we are talking about over an entire career and maintaining consistency and facing quality attacks, scoring at an extra high rate of 70SR is just more difficult. Assuming between the two bats the runs are equal.

The margin for error is simply much higher to play those shots. You are going to be proactive and not just wait for weak deliveries.

And you can see bats who have high SRs with many innings where they buckle down at 40SR to get through a difficult phase. Because no bat who gets to that level without a requisite level of patience.

Respectfully using two modern samples, which do you think is easier for the batsmen to accomplish?

Dravid/Chanders to score 50 (37)

or Sehwag/Brook to score 50 (188)

 

[ataraxia]

I can't even believe this is something you actually typed out.

The courage to score slower?

I find it hard to imagine someone with Viv's personality, especially someone who dominated ODIs, toning down his run-scoring in order to play the percentages. He simply didn't have the guts to bat properly.

I don't actually think this, but it follows logically from the assumption that he would have had a significantly higher average if he'd scored slower.

 

[Bolo.]

Tougher job than coming in at 3 in the 70's and 80's?

There's a reason why most of the "top batsmen" of the recent era started batting at 4, and the top 3 is collectively called the top order.

And Viv didn't have an output problem, he had a decline at the end of his career. He also never had the benefit of facing minnows or having a flat pitch era to ease the tradition through the end of his career.

Yes Hutton played in a tough era, but as far as opening is concerned, the only elite threat was Australia. And none of this takes away from the fact that lacking that extra gear isn't a positive...

Opening is harder than anywhere below it.

Viv batted 1/3 of his innings at 3. He batted more at 5, which is a very easy spot to bat.

Hutton faced only 1 elite attack. Viv faced zero, cos he didn't play WI. The WI attack was the reason the era was toughish for batting. Viv didn't have to face the majority of top tier bowlers from his era, cos most of them were in his team.

Hutton had tougher home conditions.

Ya, unless you want to argue progession over time, Hutton had it tougher. It's just that and the fact that he played a number of games vs some pretty crap RSA and India teams for me that put him as low as 4 in my batting rankings, and the first point isn't particularly valid.

Viv very much had an output problem in relation to Hutton. Compare their averages or RPI. And it's not just a late career decline. He averages 43 over his last 79 tests. That's about 2/3 of his tests.

 

[subshakerz]

So you agree that you taking Viv is completely a personal stylistic choice??

No I think Viv lifestyle of gameplay had a net advantage and Huttons a net negative more than just the runs.

 

[subshakerz]

Respectfully using two modern samples, which do you think is easier for the batsmen to accomplish?

Dravid/Chanders to score 50 (37)

or Sehwag/Brook to score 50 (188)

For a single innings, Dravid Chanders. But then Sehwag and Brook aren't in the same class as batsmen.

But if you are telling me is it more difficult for Dravid to achieve a career SR of 120 or Sehwag 30 odd with same output I would say Dravid.

 

[honestbharani]

OS and his esteemed cronies

He is his own cronies, IYKYK.

 

[Coronis]

For a single innings, Dravid Chanders. But then Sehwag and Brook aren't in the same class as batsmen.

But if you are telling me is it more difficult for Dravid to achieve a career SR of 120 or Sehwag 30 odd with same output I would say Dravid.

Really? I chose those guys specifically because Sehwag is rated ahead of Chanders, and Brook is seemingly on a trajectory to put him up there with Dravid, who people have behind Root already.

Point is, its easier to accelerate. In fact neither Sehwag nor Brook ever had a 50+ score with an SR of 50 or lower (Brook 60 even), well above Dravid and Chanders’ career SR. While both of them showed in meaningful innings the ability to accelerate up to and beyond the other two.

In essence though in what it comes down to - facing more balls = facing more chances at a dismissal = harder

 

[capt_Luffy]

No I think Viv lifestyle of gameplay had a net advantage and Huttons a net negative more than just the runs.

So you just are a Bazball guy....

 

[subshakerz]

So you just are a Bazball guy....

No. I just think I give aggressive bats more of a qualitative edge, all other factors relatively equal. And Viv was the best in the aggressive category.

 

[subshakerz]

Really? I chose those guys specifically because Sehwag is rated ahead of Chanders, and Brook is seemingly on a trajectory to put him up there with Dravid, who people have behind Root already.

Point is, its easier to accelerate. In fact neither Sehwag nor Brook ever had a 50+ score with an SR of 50 or lower (Brook 60 even), well above Dravid and Chanders’ career SR. While both of them showed in meaningful innings the ability to accelerate up to and beyond the other two.

In essence though in what it comes down to - facing more balls = facing more chances at a dismissal = harder

Yeah I just disagree. I think playing aggressively and creating more chances is riskier than just dead batting over a course of a career.

If Sehwag committed to bunker down and play slower, I favor his odds of career success than Dravid trying to play ultra aggressively.

In fact the point to me seems obvious.