What's the deal with old English openers?

[shortpitched713]

If you look at it in terms of their nominal stats, even era adjusted stats, the trio of Hobbs, Sutcliffe, and Hutton scored at a far better rate than any opener who has ever played or is playing in the era after.

Hobbs > Sutcliffe > Hutton >>>>>>>> Gavaskar, Hayden, etc.

But once you start looking at the scorecards, you realize that these guys rarely had to ever play anyone of much note using the new ball. In particular, Hobbs stands out in this regard, especially his big pre Great war scores, he's racking them up against absolute new ball no names. The only threats he looked to have were spinners. At least Hutton eventually had to face Miller, Lindwall, Johnston, etc, but even that was against one particular team, for a portion of his career.

Looking into that context not only do I bring them a lot closer, so for me

Hutton > Sutcliffe > Hobbs > Gavaskar > Hayden, with roughly equal gaps between.

But also I have to re-envision their roles, because they really weren't a dourly defensive "protection" minded opener that became the standard in the modern pace era. They really had reign to be accumulating more freely right from the off, akin to a middle order bat but starting at the top, and their scoring record obviously would show that.

Anyway, just some thoughts I had on this. Digging through old scorecards and reading up really does one a treat.

 

[Flem274*]

Hobbs can't be expected to predict and perform to future standards though. It's about as relevant as how Joe Root would go on a sticky.

 

[shortpitched713]

Hobbs can't be expected to predict and perform to future standards though. It's about as relevant as how Joe Root would go on a sticky.

Should have averaged 80, for mine.

 

[ataraxia]

Sutcliffe > Hobbs

wrong

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Hobbs>>Hutton>Sutcliffe>=Rest openers

Hobbs is clearly the best ever.Hutton just edges Sutcliffe and Sutcliffe is as good or better than rest openers in history.

 

[shortpitched713]

They're better run scorers than any more modern opener, sure. And I get that they can't be judged by things they never faced. But their ability against truly quality pace bowling is kind of less known. Hutton a little less so, but Hobbs especially we just don't know how he would cope. I think any of them would be pretty great if transplanted into a modern middle order. Just imo might be a bit underwhelming at start of innings against the new ball and two genuine capable quicks, at least in comparison to their gargantuan reputations.

 

[trundler]

Yeah and Gordon Greenidge wouldn't last a spell on a sticky wicket.

 

[the big bambino]

Cotter, Gregory, McDonald no names.

 

[Red]

Played without helmets on uncovered wickets against some pretty decent attacks (saying they didn’t face anyone noteworthy is incorrect).

They were masters of difficult conditions that we don’t even see in modern tests. A guy like Hobbs transplanted directly into the modern era and playing in India on a turning wicket would absolutely kill it imo.

 

[Coronis]

Just because modern English openers are **** doesn’t mean you should denigrate the great ones of the past.

 

[shortpitched713]

Yeah and Gordon Greenidge wouldn't last a spell on a sticky wicket.

Yeah, that's kind of the point. These guys are "overrated" in terms of the skillset that we see modern cricket being about. This thread isn't designed to "disparage" the old openers, otherwise I wouldn't rank them above all the modern ones like I still do. Just meant to spark some discussion, especially about what their skillsets actually are, and speculate what they would struggle/excel at.

 

[shortpitched713]

Played without helmets on uncovered wickets against some pretty decent attacks (saying they didn’t face anyone noteworthy is incorrect).

They were masters of difficult conditions that we don’t even see in modern tests. A guy like Hobbs transplanted directly into the modern era and playing in India on a turning wicket would absolutely kill it imo.

I like this take. I honestly would see a Hobbs as something akin to a Miandad or Dravid. Just extreme reflexes and ability to play very late being the key fortes. If not the absolute most hard-nosed punch of an opener like Hayden who just sits on and eats alive the short stuff.

 

[Red]

I like this take. I honestly would see a Hobbs as something akin to a Miandad or Dravid. Just extreme reflexes and ability to play very late being the key fortes. If not the absolute most hard-nosed punch of an opener like Hayden who just sits on and eats alive the short stuff.

Guys like Hayden walking at someone like Shoaib is a thing, but there’s no massive physical risk. The older, pre helmet guys just played back, and differently.

And bowlers like Jack Gregory and Tibby Cotter from those early eras were plenty quick.

 

[shortpitched713]

Maybe so, but 1) they were more rare, and 2) generally they weren't as good or consistent as many modern quicks. Not even as a value judgement, their records bear this out. Especially if you Era adjust for bowler friendly conditions for a great period.

Basically, it's the spinners from an older Era who come out as being the real forces during the time of these openers, especially Hobbs' time.

 

[Ashes81]

I really don't buy this theory that some players play in an 'easier' or more difficult era.

If you played for any length of time, you will have played against a variety of opposition, some obviously better than others. In every era there are strong and weak opponents.

Players who are great in their era, would be great in any era.

 

[the big bambino]

Maybe so, but 1) they were more rare, and 2) generally they weren't as good or consistent as many modern quicks. Not even as a value judgement, their records bear this out. Especially if you Era adjust for bowler friendly conditions for a great period.

Basically, it's the spinners from an older Era who come out as being the real forces during the time of these openers, especially Hobbs' time.

you don’t appear to realise that if you play against a stronger opponent more frequently your average will be higher.

it is modern bowlers figures that are flattered because they play more often against mediocre or minnow opponents.

 

[Molehill]

I really don't buy this theory that some players play in an 'easier' or more difficult era.

If you played for any length of time, you will have played against a variety of opposition, some obviously better than others. In every era there are strong and weak opponents.

Players who are great in their era, would be great in any era.

Possibly, but a player like Atherton picked a particularly bad time to be an opener. I would always mark his average up a notch given the strength of new ball bowlers in that period. There was no let up from Aus, Windies, SA, Pakistan.

 

[shortpitched713]

you don’t appear to realise that if you play against a stronger opponent more frequently your average will be higher.

it is modern bowlers figures that are flattered because they play more often against mediocre or minnow opponents.

It goes both ways, actually.

But the spinners' averages, guys like O'Reilly, for instance, weren't nearly as effected as the new ball pace bowlers, hence the observation that their quality likely wasn't as good as the spinners.

 

[the big bambino]

It goes both ways, actually.

But the spinners' averages, guys like O'Reilly, for instance, weren't nearly as effected as the new ball pace bowlers, hence the observation that their quality likely wasn't as good as the spinners.

it doesn’t actually. It affects O’Reilly just like everyone else. He averages more against strong opposition than weaker opposition. If the proportion of his matches weren’t so heavily biased toward Eng, his ave would be lower too.

Just because O’Reilly was the best of his generation doesn’t necessarily translate to “spinners are better”.

 

[Gob]

Fully agree with the opening post

Transport Rory Burns to the early 20th century and he would have statistics very similar to Hobbs/ Sutcliffe etc. Same for Zack Crawely too

I do rate Hutton much higher though at least he faced up to Lindwall and Miller