Walter Hammond vs George Headley

[Red]

If we're going to take the thread down that route, then personally:

1. Greenidge
2. Worrell *
3. Headley
4. Lara
5. Weekes
6. Sobers
7. Walcott +
8. Marshall
9. Ambrose
10. Garner
11. Gibbs

Viv?

Not sure about Walcott as a keeper. He didn't do it for long enough.

 

[Prince EWS]

Viv?

Nope, but not going to make this thread about that. Been there, done that.

 

[Red]

Nope, but not going to make this thread about that. Been there, done that.

Fair enough, I probably talked to you about it before, but my memory's crap!

 

[marc71178]

AWTA esp the parts bolded. And we really need to put this HEadley faced 2nd string English attacks to rest. Here r the bowlers Headley faced in his series vs England:

W Rhodes (yes The W Rhodes)

Who was 53 at the time...

If it's not the first choice players, which in the main it wasn't, then it is a 2nd string attack, there's no way that can be argued.

 

[archie mac]

Who was 53 at the time...

If it's not the first choice players, which in the main it wasn't, then it is a 2nd string attack, there's no way that can be argued.

Yep, has to be marked down. I think Hammond has the runs on the board

 

[harsh.ag]

I have not read too much about Hammond's deficiency against quick bowling, but if it is true, then from that it must be inferred that his opponents' quick bowling during this era was not of a particularly high standard, otherwise how is it possible for a number 3 with problems against pace to have such a ridiculously good record. Given that, it probably isn't true. Even providing for the fact that Grimmett was the point wicket-taking bowler for Australia, the assertion that a number 3 could have such a record while having a deficiency against pace seems baffling.

Who was 53 at the time...

If it's not the first choice players, which in the main it wasn't, then it is a 2nd string attack, there's no way that can be argued.

Agree with you there. No one is saying they were bad bowlers, just that they weren't possibly the first choice ones. He never even faced Larwood, for god's sake.

 

[kyear2]

Other names besides Rhodes were named, and they were not all 53. Larwood only skipped the first tour but for subsequent contests was being punished as a result of the bodyline fall out. Stats wise though, there.was hardly a difference between Larwood and Voce and Allen, and Headley did face their best bowler of the era in Verity.

 

[Spikey]

If we're going to take the thread down that route, then personally:

1. Greenidge
2. Worrell *
3. Headley
4. Lara
5. Weekes
6. Sobers
7. Walcott +
8. Marshall
9. Ambrose
10. Garner
11. Gibbs

so much wrong about this team tbh

 

[marc71178]

Larwood only skipped the first tour but for subsequent contests was being punished for the bodyline fall out.

Still irrelevant as that is not the full strength attack therefore it's second string.

You cannot escape the fact that he played against relatively speaking sub-standard opposition.

 

[kyear2]

Larwood wasn't available to play againts anyone, so for subsequent tours he couldn't have been considered as part of a first choice attack.

Regarding Hammond and pace bowling, One England and to a lesser extent The W.I had viable pace attacks, and since Hammond couln't have faced his own, the only true test againts fast bowling was againts Constantine and Martindale and at the very least he was found wanting and was known to be quite uncomfortable againts them and wasn't fond of the short stuff.
One needs to be careful and examine the record of the players from an era, where they were only two strong teams and records were often inflated from feasting on the minnows. It was well known, even when Hutton was making his world record score that he referenced Bradman's record rather than his team mates because Hammond's wasn't seen as the true record because it was made vs New Zealand.

 

[marc71178]

One needs to be careful and examine the record of the players from an era,

You mean like how you just completely didn't when saying that the bowlers he faced had similar records to Larwood?

 

[kyear2]

If we're going to take the thread down that route, then personally:

1. Greenidge
2. Worrell *
3. Headley
4. Lara
5. Weekes
6. Sobers
7. Walcott +
8. Marshall
9. Ambrose
10. Garner
11. Gibbs

Weekes wasn't quite in Richards class as a batsman, especially againts pace, if any of the 3W's then Walcott was the most effective againts all opponents, and a pretty good keeper to boot.

 

[kyear2]

You mean like how you just completely didn't when saying that the bowlers he faced had similar records to Larwood?

Sir Gubby Allen | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo

Bill Voce | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo

Harold Larwood | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Prince EWS]

Weekes wasn't quite in Richards class as a batsman, especially againts pace, if any of the 3W's then Walcott was the most effective againts all opponents, and a pretty good keeper to boot.

Well yeah that's probably why I picked him in my team, as wicket keeper...

 

[harsh.ag]

Larwood wasn't available to play againts anyone, so for subsequent tours he couldn't have been considered as part of a first choice attack.

Regarding Hammond and pace bowling, One England and to a lesser extent The W.I had viable pace attacks, and since Hammond couln't have faced his own, the only true test againts fast bowling was againts Constantine and Martindale and at the very least he was found wanting and was known to be quite uncomfortable againts them and wasn't fond of the short stuff.
One needs to be careful and examine the record of the players from an era, where they were only two strong teams and records were often inflated from feasting on the minnows. It was well known, even when Hutton was making his world record score that he referenced Bradman's record rather than his team mates because Hammond's wasn't seen as the true record because it was made vs New Zealand.

You clearly are not willing to concede that Headley didn't face England's first choice attacks. An attack doesn't consist of one or two bowlers, it means a whole attack.

The only time he faced a complete first choice attack was in the first test of the 1933 series against Macaulay, Allen, Verity and Robins. He scored 13 and 50. Second test in which Allen didn't play, 169 and 24. Third test in which Nicholas, Clark and Marriot were the bowlers, he scored 9 and 12.

In 1930, the attack was Voce, Haig, Stevens, Astill and 53-year old Rhodes. Against Australia that year, the attack had been a mix of Larwood, Tate, Tyldesley, Allen, Robins and Geary.

In 1934/35, the attack was a mix of Farnes, Smith, Hollies, Paine and Smith. Earlier that season, the attack against Australia had been a mix of Farnes, Bowes, Verity, Allen, Clark and Geary.

There is something here, unless I am mistaken.

Regarding Hammond, yes he did struggle against Constantine and Martindale. The Australian fast attack was quite woeful during this period, with only Tim Wall being the decent pacer.

 

[Liquidity.Trap]

Regarding Hammond, yes he did struggle against Constantine and Martindale. The Australian fast attack was quite woeful during this period, with only Tim Wall being the decent pacer.

Hammond's FC record is fantastic though, and he was clearly facing the best English fast bowlers on the domestic circuit, one can presume. So, it doesn't fit that he should be described as weak against quick bowling. Obviously, no batsman (apart from maybe Viv) actually relished quality fast bowling

 

[fredfertang]

Hammond's FC record is fantastic though, and he was clearly facing the best English fast bowlers on the domestic circuit, one can presume. So, it doesn't fit that he should be described as weak against quick bowling. Obviously, no batsman (apart from maybe Viv) actually relished quality fast bowling

I think it's fair to say that Douglas Jardine did, there being no better example than when he took his only Test century from the West Indian attempt at Bodyline in 1933 an occasion when Hammond is alleged to have said words to the effect of "If this is what the game has come to it's time I got out"

 

[harsh.ag]

I think it's fair to say that Douglas Jardine did, there being no better example than when he took his only Test century from the West Indian attempt at Bodyline in 1933 an occasion when Hammond is alleged to have said words to the effect of "If this is what the game has come to it's time I got out"

There should be a book written titled "Jardine: An Ironwill, An Untamed Heart".

 

[Goughy]

George Headley makes my all time WI XI if I ever decide to write one down. However, it is hard to look past Hammond on this one. Weight of numbers and similar Test average etc swing the deal. Sure it is close and an argument can be made for Headley but it would, IMO, be flawed and weak.

In this regard Headley is a victim of circumstances beyond his control. Like B. Richards, Proctor and Pollock they didn't play as much as we would wish nor against the opponents we would have liked.

It is conceivable that Headley was the better batsman than Hammond but the distance of time means we can only really rely on the secondary evidence and that is heavily weighted to one side.

 

[fredfertang]

There should be a book written titled "Jardine: An Ironwill, An Untamed Heart".

The sub-title of his biography is "Spartan Cricketer", which has always struck me as entirely appropriate