• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Was Clem Hill better than Victor Trumper?

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Huh? I'm pretty sure if you asked for the overall CW opinion of those guys, Kippax and Hooper would rank last and May first. IE their stats greatly affect people's opinion

Trumper and Grace are the two that I mainly see are elevated far above their stats. And I believe it's due to playing so long ago. And with Grace also his FC domination
 

a massive zebra

International Captain
Huh? I'm pretty sure if you asked for the overall CW opinion of those guys, Kippax and Hooper would rank last and May first. IE their stats greatly affect people's opinion.
Not sure the CW consensus would be in favour of ranking May over Trumper, tbh.
 

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Fair point. I didn't make it very clear but my next paragraph was meant to indicate Trumper is an exception to that rule. As well as Grace.

The 7-8 batsman in serious discussion for next best after Bradman all average over 50 in tests. When it gets to the best 20-25 batsman of all time as well, I think all would average over 50 except Grace and Trumper and maybe Crowe in some circles.

Certainly on a list of the 50 greatest bats, you'd only find Trumper and Grace on there for guys averaging under 40 in tests on 99% of lists. Although maybe Hill could sneak in but I'm unsure.

And I know this is contradicting my stats don't equal average comment but oh well ha

My reason for the thread is it's funny Hill is nowhere near that top 20-25 discussion despite facing nearly identical conditions/bowlers as Trumper and faring basically the same, in my opinion better due to way more 80+ scores
 
Last edited:

a massive zebra

International Captain
I think some might consider Ranji for a position in the best 20-25 bats and he is another sub 50 batsman, but of course he also played pre WWI.
 

a massive zebra

International Captain
Here is an outstanding contemporary review of Trumper's performances on the 1902 Ashes tour, written by Sydney Pardon and taken from the 1903 edition of Wisden.

Trumper stood alone among the batsmen of the season, not only far surpassing his own colleagues, but also putting into the shade everyone who played for England. In the course of the tour he obtained, despite the wet weather, 2570 runs, thus easily beating Darling's 1941 in the glorious summer of 1899, which up to this year was a record aggregate for any colonial batsman touring this country. Pages might be written about Trumper's batting without exhausting the subject. Having regard to the character of the season, with its many wet days and soft wickets, it is safe to say that no one - not even Ranjitsinhji - has been at once so brilliant and so consistent since W. G. Grace was at his best. Trumper seemed independent of varying conditions, being able to play just as dazzling a game after a night's rain as when the wickets were hard and true. All bowling came alike to him and on many occasions, notably in the Test matches at Sheffield and Manchester and the first of the two games with the M.C.C. at Lord's, he reduced our best bowlers for the time being to the level of the village green. They were simply incapable of checking his extraordinary hitting. Only a combination of wonderful eye and supreme confidence could have rendered such pulling as his at all possible. The way in which he took good length balls off the middle stump and sent them round to the boundary had to be seen to be believed. Though this exceptional faculty, however, was one of the main sources of his strength on soft wickets, he was far indeed from being dependent on unorthodox strokes. His cutting and off-driving approached perfection and he did everything with such an easy grace of style that his batting was always a delight to the eye. Risking so much, he plays what I would call a young man's game, lightning quickness of eye and hand being essential to his success, and for this reason I should not expect him after twenty years or more of first-class cricket to rival such batsmen as Shrewsbury, A.P. Lucas and W.L. Murdoch, but for the moment he is unapproachable. He was not in the smallest degree spoilt by this triumphs, bearing himself just as modestly and playing the game as sternly at the end of a long tour as at its beginning.
Could anyone seriously imagine Clem Hill being spoken of in such revered terms?
 

Bolo

State Captain
and of playing innings of genius on dire wickets that everyone else found impossible to bat on.
They batted on the same wickets and averaged the same. This suggests that hill was (relatively speaking) a ftb. But trumper seems to have had more of a habit of going big. I can't say anything conclusively on where this puts them, but this is typically the realm of ftbs
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
Huh? I'm pretty sure if you asked for the overall CW opinion of those guys, Kippax and Hooper would rank last and May first. IE their stats greatly affect people's opinion

Trumper and Grace are the two that I mainly see are elevated far above their stats. And I believe it's due to playing so long ago. And with Grace also his FC domination
Players who exude class and grace don't need to be fettered by the decimal points of their stats.
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Rohit Sharma is a hell of a lot more stylish a batsman than Chesteshwar Pujara, does that make him better? Certainly not. The human eye, shorn of the context that the numbers provide, is the most deceiving measure of a batsman.

Not to say that 'classy' batsmen aren't nice to have, they are on the entertainment front, but style doesn't win games, it's the substance that counts.
 

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
They batted on the same wickets and averaged the same. This suggests that hill was (relatively speaking) a ftb. But trumper seems to have had more of a habit of going big. I can't say anything conclusively on where this puts them, but this is typically the realm of ftbs
Flat tracks? They batted on uncovered stickys a lot of the time didn't they?
 

Magrat Garlick

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Was there possibly some added romanticism with openers back then that boosted their reputation and influenced the opinion that Trumper > Hill?

Grace, Shrewsbury, Fry, Trumper, Hobbs. It feels like that's where you sent in your best bat in the Golden age(Hammond/Bradman changed that spot to number 3).Maybe it was considered noble or couragous to face the opening bowlers and lead the charge. I'm just spitballing but the world had weird views and customs before world war 1
also spitballing but I was under the impression that the effect of the new ball and therefore the challenge of opening wasn't so pronounced before WWI (as far as I understand it not before "pure" fast bowling became common, so probably not before 1930). although the pitch would often be pretty bad after an interruption but that could happen mid-innings too.
 

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Jeez, so many golden age stars in one match. Literally the whos who of the pre WW1 guys

Trumper
Noble
Hill
Macartney
Armstrong

against

Hobbs
Rhodes
Gunn
Barnes
 

h_hurricane

International Vice-Captain
Jeez, so many golden age stars in one match. Literally the whos who of the pre WW1 guys

Trumper
Noble
Hill
Macartney
Armstrong

against

Hobbs
Rhodes
Gunn
Barnes
Jack Crawford too. Great FC record though a short and underwhelming test career.
 

tony p

State Regular
trumper's runs were made in a more stylish & entertaining way than hill's, however i'm sure the english & south african bowlers of the day were glad to see the back of both of them.

hill has always been criminally undervalued in my book, most likely as his runs were not as thrilling to watch.
he also had consecutive test innings of 99, 98 & 97 against england, among 5 scores in test cricket in the 90s.

who was the best. don't really know, but i wish there was decent film of both of them batting.
 

Bolo

State Captain
Jeez, so many golden age stars in one match. Literally the whos who of the pre WW1 guys

Trumper
Noble
Hill
Macartney
Armstrong

against

Hobbs
Rhodes
Gunn
Barnes
This goes to the very top of the "wish I could have seen that" pile. WG, spofforth, faulkner and ranji would complete my list.
 

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
trumper's runs were made in a more stylish & entertaining way than hill's, however i'm sure the english & south african bowlers of the day were glad to see the back of both of them.

hill has always been criminally undervalued in my book, most likely as his runs were not as thrilling to watch.
he also had consecutive test innings of 99, 98 & 97 against england, among 5 scores in test cricket in the 90s.

who was the best. don't really know, but i wish there was decent film of both of them batting.
Yeah I think that 90s stat is really interesting. He actually had six scores there by my count, one was a not out though. He also had a 191. And had five 80s against Trumpers two

Someone mentioned Trumper was better at going big. He was the only one of them to score a test 200, and had one extra 150+ score, so point Trumper.

But really, big is relative. Back then average scores were far lower. Hill scoring nearly double the amount of 80+ scores meant he played a higher amount of important innings and affected more tests with his batting. The fact they had the same average meant Hill probably made way less starts than Trumper, but was better at turning 20s and 30s into 80s and 90s. It's unfortunate we value that 100 stat so much, a 90 can be almost as game changing.


I know I'm kinda drawing an arbitrary line with the 80+ score, since it was only 19 fifties to 13 it means from the scores in the 50-79 range, Trumper must have had the edge(edit it's 11-8, not too huge) I remember that 80+ figure was used to big up Stephen Fleming, who had a crazy amount of dismissals from 80-99, meaning his 100s stat looked crap and he ended up undervalued by pundits.
 
Last edited:

Borges

International Regular
The much maligned and ridiculed Joe Root looks like a master converter in comparison; once Root gets to 80, he is odds on to score a century.
 

Top