I've been meaning to write a little about Jack Hobbs and George Headley lately.
Firstly, while stories can become legends that are overrated, there's nothing to be exaggerated about wet-wickets, which is something Hobbs and Headley both mastered playing on. I imagine Hobbs and Headley batting the way Ponting did against Bangaldesh in the first test a month or so ago - always with the straight bat. The pitches were much harder to bat on back then and one thing Jack Hobbs has over Don Bradman was that he did better on wet skiddy wickets. Bradman, with his desire to make runs and make them fast, often went out on wet wickets. Hobbs was always calm and always patient.
Secondly, I think standards are pretty underrated from back then. Spin bowling wasn't any less advanced back then than it is now. In fact if it weren't for Warne, today's spin would look like the stone age compared to back then. Clarrie Grimmet invented the flipper in Hobbs' time and bowled it always right line/length and always on the stump. He could turn the ball. Many Englishmen struggled against South African bowlers who'd keep bowling wrong'uns at them.
What I'm trying to say is that wrong'uns and flippers etc were invented in Hobbs' time and he had to face them and he did it well. If I had to pick one batsmen in history to bat in bad conditions, to a foreign-style bowler, it would be Hobbs because he played with a straight bat, was always calm (very tame fellow) and could ajust very well.
He's no hype - he was the greatest cricketer ever for 20 years or so and the thing is, you can't knock playing on wet-wickets. You can't say, "oh they exaggerated it" because if you batted on a pitch that was rained on, only one thing will happen, the ball will skid, will have an indifferent bounce and you can't play cross-batted shots.
Sad thing about Hobbs, and I don't defend him on this, is that he played a tame sort of cricket in that when he made a century, he'd often deliberately do something to get himself out since he made his century. That annoys and frustrates me because I don't believe you should give an opposition anything in sport, and that in itself is a form of respect.
But his domestic records are amazing and his ability to win the Ashes for England in a series which should have been drawn because of rain is amazing. Hobbs was lucky to turn professional in an era when batting was finally perfected. Names like WG Grace started the back-foot when it's short/front foot when it's full technique. Names like Trumper (who Hobbs played against) played with grace anf fluidity that after the 1st World War, I think Hobbs knew exactly what to do.
George Headley... there's a reason he was called the Black Bradman. Because, and stats don't show this, George was making runs, in his prime, that were extremely close to that of Don Bradman. I believe Headley averaged close to 80 at one stage (that might be Everton Weekes I'm thinking of), and this is something people don't know:
Because Headley only played 20-odd tests, his average was prone to fluctuation as was all his stats. After retiring for a few years, Headley was asked to come back when he (to all who saw him) was clearly not even remotely close to what he used to be. He went out a few times and his average dropped to 60.
Had George Headley not played when he was a shell of himself, his average would nearly be 70! And like Hobbs, he had a better time on wet-wickets than Bradman. In fact, Headley played nearly half his tests on wet-wickets so who's to say what would have happened had he played in sunny Australia more often.
I rate both Headley and Hobbs very very highly and much of what was said of them can't be exaggerated. It's a fact that Headley came back when he was old and washed up. And then there's names like O'Rielly who played against and saw all the greats of the 20th century who rated Headley as the best they bowled to and as good as many.
As for who the 2nd best batsman ever is, I don't know. But I think both are underrated (well Hobbs isn't underrated in England) and both have a case for being the second best batsmen ever. Hobbs has a case for all his Domestic centuries and for withstanding pressure under extreme conditions and for playing well on wet-wickets. George has a case for playing well on wet-wickets and also for having such a great average before he was asked to come back. Bradman's average is much better only because Bradman had an amazing desire to keep going and going and make scores well over 200 quite often (8 times in 70 innings or so I think... amazing). That's certainly not a knock on Bradman, but both Hobbs and Headley have one or two things over the Don.
I think Hobbs, Viv, Sobers, Tendy, Gavaskar, Pollock, Hammond, Headley and maybe Lara (probably not) all have a case for being the second best batsman of all time. Personally I there's one or two who are long shots, but based on one criteria or another they could be rated the second best batsman of all time.
Firstly, while stories can become legends that are overrated, there's nothing to be exaggerated about wet-wickets, which is something Hobbs and Headley both mastered playing on. I imagine Hobbs and Headley batting the way Ponting did against Bangaldesh in the first test a month or so ago - always with the straight bat. The pitches were much harder to bat on back then and one thing Jack Hobbs has over Don Bradman was that he did better on wet skiddy wickets. Bradman, with his desire to make runs and make them fast, often went out on wet wickets. Hobbs was always calm and always patient.
Secondly, I think standards are pretty underrated from back then. Spin bowling wasn't any less advanced back then than it is now. In fact if it weren't for Warne, today's spin would look like the stone age compared to back then. Clarrie Grimmet invented the flipper in Hobbs' time and bowled it always right line/length and always on the stump. He could turn the ball. Many Englishmen struggled against South African bowlers who'd keep bowling wrong'uns at them.
What I'm trying to say is that wrong'uns and flippers etc were invented in Hobbs' time and he had to face them and he did it well. If I had to pick one batsmen in history to bat in bad conditions, to a foreign-style bowler, it would be Hobbs because he played with a straight bat, was always calm (very tame fellow) and could ajust very well.
He's no hype - he was the greatest cricketer ever for 20 years or so and the thing is, you can't knock playing on wet-wickets. You can't say, "oh they exaggerated it" because if you batted on a pitch that was rained on, only one thing will happen, the ball will skid, will have an indifferent bounce and you can't play cross-batted shots.
Sad thing about Hobbs, and I don't defend him on this, is that he played a tame sort of cricket in that when he made a century, he'd often deliberately do something to get himself out since he made his century. That annoys and frustrates me because I don't believe you should give an opposition anything in sport, and that in itself is a form of respect.
But his domestic records are amazing and his ability to win the Ashes for England in a series which should have been drawn because of rain is amazing. Hobbs was lucky to turn professional in an era when batting was finally perfected. Names like WG Grace started the back-foot when it's short/front foot when it's full technique. Names like Trumper (who Hobbs played against) played with grace anf fluidity that after the 1st World War, I think Hobbs knew exactly what to do.
George Headley... there's a reason he was called the Black Bradman. Because, and stats don't show this, George was making runs, in his prime, that were extremely close to that of Don Bradman. I believe Headley averaged close to 80 at one stage (that might be Everton Weekes I'm thinking of), and this is something people don't know:
Because Headley only played 20-odd tests, his average was prone to fluctuation as was all his stats. After retiring for a few years, Headley was asked to come back when he (to all who saw him) was clearly not even remotely close to what he used to be. He went out a few times and his average dropped to 60.
Had George Headley not played when he was a shell of himself, his average would nearly be 70! And like Hobbs, he had a better time on wet-wickets than Bradman. In fact, Headley played nearly half his tests on wet-wickets so who's to say what would have happened had he played in sunny Australia more often.
I rate both Headley and Hobbs very very highly and much of what was said of them can't be exaggerated. It's a fact that Headley came back when he was old and washed up. And then there's names like O'Rielly who played against and saw all the greats of the 20th century who rated Headley as the best they bowled to and as good as many.
As for who the 2nd best batsman ever is, I don't know. But I think both are underrated (well Hobbs isn't underrated in England) and both have a case for being the second best batsmen ever. Hobbs has a case for all his Domestic centuries and for withstanding pressure under extreme conditions and for playing well on wet-wickets. George has a case for playing well on wet-wickets and also for having such a great average before he was asked to come back. Bradman's average is much better only because Bradman had an amazing desire to keep going and going and make scores well over 200 quite often (8 times in 70 innings or so I think... amazing). That's certainly not a knock on Bradman, but both Hobbs and Headley have one or two things over the Don.
I think Hobbs, Viv, Sobers, Tendy, Gavaskar, Pollock, Hammond, Headley and maybe Lara (probably not) all have a case for being the second best batsman of all time. Personally I there's one or two who are long shots, but based on one criteria or another they could be rated the second best batsman of all time.