Walter Hammond vs George Headley

[the big bambino]

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.

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.

Curiously enough his record against the pace oriented WI of his era wasn't good but I put that down to Constantine having a the wood on him. But overall I agree. His supposed weakness against pace was only comparative when set against his his magnificence against spin. Foot's very good book does mention that he sometimes struggled against pace but goes onto record many famous battles with fine pace men which he won. In particular he put the EA McDonald to the sword and he could be advanced as the best pace man of Hammond's era in all reasonableness.

Also interesting is Miller's recollection of hammond when he bowled to him after the war. He thanked God that Lindwall was there bcos Miller said he couldn't get a ball passed Hammond who was unfit, rusty and 43 at the time.

 

[archie mac]

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.

He would have faced all the English bowlers in county cricket and dominated them all. One Test against the WI he struggled but they were bowling Bodyline. Have not heard this worried by fast stuff before and I have three bios on the great man

 

[kyear2]

It wasn't one match, he played four series and scored one hundred while averaging 35. The West Indies was the only team with decent (not ATG) fast bowlers and he did struggle. Like Bradman though he did feast on India and Soth Africa and also dominated N.Z.

 

[the big bambino]

He only played a handful of games against India (who had Amar and Nissar btw) and NZ. Bradman didn't play NZ at all and only a handful against India. And South Africa were a fine side in that era. And the term ATG is a meaningless concept.

 

[sobers no:1]

voted for headley

tough one

 

[The Sean]

It wasn't one match, he played four series and scored one hundred while averaging 35. The West Indies was the only team with decent (not ATG) fast bowlers and he did struggle. Like Bradman though he did feast on India and Soth Africa and also dominated N.Z.

How did Headley go against India?

 

[kyear2]

He didn't get to play againts India, until after the war and it was a condition of the tour even though he was 40's and well past it and wasn't originally selected.

 

[Coronis]

How did Headley go against India?

He feasted on them too.

 

[kyear2]

He feasted on them too.

Everyone knows that the war wasn't as kind to Headley as to the other greats of the era, and really had no business playing test cricket post war.

 

[the big bambino]

Look - India were a talented team of individuals in Hammond's time. No team of minnows could possess those talents so its a misrepresentation to call them minnows.

However it is true to say they were the most disorgnised, poorly led team you could imagine. Especially after their 1st test tour of England. They were split on almost evey conceivable facet from religion, social station, favouritism to personalities. They were at times led by the prince whose patronage ensured selection and often that man had no business being on a cricket field. This no doubt impacted on their on field performance and opponents doubtless exploited their division, poor leadership and low morale. So maybe Hammond got it easy against India. However he had to fight hard against Australia, South Africa and the West Indies (who gave him some of his roughest moments in cricket). So if he did feast it was only after he affected the kill. No one lay down for him to freely scavenge.

And just quielty the concept of ATG is a nonsense since it invariably favours players who have played many tests than were generally available to be played in Hammond's time.

 

[fredfertang]

India, nor indeed New Zealand, were as lamentably weak as Zimbabwe and Bangladesh have been in recent times so I agree with TBB that minnows is not the right word, though they were undoubtedly second tier - I'm not convinced that makes much difference to Hammond though - India had Amar Singh and Mohammad Nissar, two top class quick bowlers, and New Zealand had Jack Cowie - excepting Larwood all three were as good as anything anyone else had

 

[the big bambino]

Your mention of Jack Cowie made me think of Merv Wallace who was a member of the 37 NZ side to England. Wallace believed a properly selected NZ side would have won that series. He said they should have picked the kiwis playing professionally in England and picked Tom Pritchard on his Hawke Cup form to partner Cowie.

This isn't fanciful as Pritchard certainly dominated that competition which was 1 beneath FC std. The kiwis also picked Donelly for the tour after only 1 FC match. Pritchard eventually showed his class throughout a long career. Additionally they could have picked a chap called Parsloe who could get the ball up and its palusible to see that Wallace just may have had a point. No minnow side could have acquitted themselves as capably.

 

[Slifer]

Ok people can we do away with the revisionist history. India and NZ of Hammonds time were no way near the England/Oz attacks of the time ( incl ENG 2nd or 3rd attack or whatever). Hammond feasted on them and Headley didnt get a chance to play them (in the case of India in his prime).

 

[the big bambino]

I think you need to learn history before you even complain about its revision.

 

[Slifer]

I know my history very well thanks.

Fact: India and NZ of Headley/Hammonds time were well below any attacks fielded by Eng/Oz.

Headley and Hammond imo are more or less equals.

Hammond has the great record and longevity factor but did cash in vs weak attacks (like ne batsman should)

Headley has the 'atlas' factor and also had a great record but he did face one or 2 second Eng attacks and his career was regrettably short.

What history am I missing??

 

[the big bambino]

No attack can be written off if it has Nissar, Amar or Cowie. In fact they were probably better than some of the 2nd string English attacks Headley faced.

Just sayin is all. Headley still one of the best and same class as Hammond.

 

[Red]

I don't really get the "Atlas" stuff, as if you carry the whole team. Sure, if you're the best player in your team, that's good. But I don't see how it adds or subtracts from your personal legacy or how you should be viewed.

 

[kyear2]

No attack can be written off if it has Nissar, Amar or Cowie. In fact they were probably better than some of the 2nd string English attacks Headley faced.

Just sayin is all. Headley still one of the best and same class as Hammond.

The Indian and New Zealamd attacks were not better than the English attcaks that Headley faced, The N.Z attacks were considered to be so weak that Hammond's world record againts them was not reconized as such and when Hutton set his own record he only reconized Bradman's rocord when he passed it.
Regarding India, the attack Hammond faced was considerably better than the attck Bradman slaughtered, and he did face Nissar and Singh three times scoring two hundreds. For the first Wisden went to the extent of pointing out that the pitch was quite flat and for the second hundred in the next match after the dew evaporated the pitch was quite flat and up to that point Hammond was struggling and he was dropped twice before he scored his hundred including a chance when he was on three. But after his rough start he did score a brilliant double.
Also while Nissar was said to be quite brisk, Singh was more medium pace.

Douglas Jardine edges a ball from Amar Singh past slips | Photo | England | ESPN Cricinfo

I also rate them both very highly, just belive that like Weekes he struggled agains good pace bowling and Weekes faced better and faster bowling than he did. I do rate him just above Sir Everton though.

 

[fredfertang]

The Indian and New Zealamd attacks were not better than the English attcaks that Headley faced,

They certainly lacked strength in depth, which is why they didn't test England more than they did, but that doesn't alter the fact that Singh, Nissar and especially Cowie were superb bowlers - and their stats bear that out

 

[kyear2]

I don't really get the "Atlas" stuff, as if you carry the whole team. Sure, if you're the best player in your team, that's good. But I don't see how it adds or subtracts from your personal legacy or how you should be viewed.

So as a number 3 batsman coming behind Ponsford and Woodful, or Morris and Barnes or Hobbs and Sutcliffe isn't easier than coming behind Roach and Hoad, and coming out to bat within the first five overs and being the virtual opener especially knowing that there was no one else after you either? He was the only world class or even very good batsman in the team and the entire opposing attack was keyed towards him and he knew that if he got out, more than likely all was lost.
Yes that would add to your legacy.