The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Red]

Which part of Hutton’s career was very hard for batting?

Lindwall, Miller, Johnston, Davidson and Benaud were all Australia's mainstays in Hutton's time. Pretty good attacks.

 

[Coronis]

Yeah looking at it he was the clear standout performer against Australia in the post-war years til his retirement. Definitely right up there in discussion for the 2nd greatest opener of all time (imo). Sutcliffe, Hutton and Gavaskar all tightly bunched behind Hobbs, then a big gap to the next blokes. Shame Barry didn’t get a test career, he’d likely be right up there.

 

[kyear2]

Lindwall, Miller, Johnston, Davidson and Benaud were all Australia's mainstays in Hutton's time. Pretty good attacks.

Before the war he also broke the record vs O'Reilly and did well vs Ramadhin and Valentine

 

[kyear2]

Yeah looking at it he was the clear standout performer against Australia in the post-war years til his retirement. Definitely right up there in discussion for the 2nd greatest opener of all time (imo). Sutcliffe, Hutton and Gavaskar all tightly bunched behind Hobbs, then a big gap to the next blokes. Shame Barry didn’t get a test career, he’d likely be right up there.

Actually quite clear cut as the best opener to have played the game.

Played when the sport transitioned to what can be seen as the modern game, faced much better and a greater variety of bowlers.has the long layoff of the war and with the serious injury that resulted from it. Top tier ATG and played second fiddle to no one.

 

[Coronis]

Actually quite clear cut as the best opener to have played the game.

Played when the sport transitioned to what can be seen as the modern game, faced much better and a greater variety of bowlers.has the long layoff of the war and with the serious injury that resulted from it. Top tier ATG and played second fiddle to no one.

Your opinion only. From what I’ve seen on here and in cricketing circles, its also the minority opinion, with Hobbs being recognised as the greatest by most people.

 

[kyear2]

Your opinion only. From what I’ve seen on here and in cricketing circles, its also the minority opinion, with Hobbs being recognised as the greatest by most people.

Greatest possibly. And I deliberately didn't use that word. Hutton though to me was clearly the best and much better suited to the modern game. He didn't benefit from the old one rule as Hobbs and Sutcliffe did, faced much more professional bowling and fielding outfits and played vs a greater variety of opposition and conditions.

 

[Coronis]

Greatest possibly. And I deliberately didn't use that word. Hutton though to me was clearly the best and much better suited to the modern game. He didn't benefit from the old one rule as Hobbs and Sutcliffe did, faced much more professional bowling and fielding outfits and played vs a greater variety of opposition and conditions.

He also played on much better pitches. Ill give you he probably faced more high quality bowling than Hobbs.

 

[jimmy101]

I'd probably refrain from discussing a player if I didn't have much of an idea about their career.

 

[Coronis]

I'd probably refrain from discussing a player if I didn't have much of an idea about their career.

Is that directed at me?

 

[jimmy101]

Is that directed at me?

kyear2, ever read Roy Webber's Pheonix History of Cricket? Was written in the late-50's but it features a really good contemporary review of Hutton's career in the immediate post-war period.

 

[ataraxia]

When I look at Hobbs' stats I often note that Ranjitsinhji averaged more than him in FC cricket in overall I much harder era. I prefer rating post-WW1 players as basically equals even though I could easily argue that Smith is greater than Bradman. Quite annoying really.

 

[kyear2]

kyear2, ever read Roy Webber's Pheonix History of Cricket? Was written in the late-50's but it features a really good contemporary review of Hutton's career in the immediate post-war period.

I haven't. But I have read and watched other material about him.

What exactly did I get wrong about Sir Len?

 

[jimmy101]

I haven't. But I have read and watched other material about him.

What exactly did I get wrong about Sir Len?

You got nothing wrong about Sir Len, brother. My bad if that was confusing.

 

[Coronis]

I haven't. But I have read and watched other material about him.

What exactly did I get wrong about Sir Len?

Nah he was having a go at me because I didn’t know Hutton’s stats from 1950-55 alongside other batsmen’s. Just a bloody awful error on my part. Contrition is abundant.

 

[jimmy101]

Nah he was having a go at me because I didn’t know Hutton’s stats from 1950-55 alongside other batsmen’s. Just a bloody awful error on my part. Contrition is abundant.

I can tell you're being sarcastic, but if you aren't really all that well-versed on a particular era of the game, why pick at other posters about it with such a condescending tone all of the time? Sometimes it's better to remain quiet & be thought of as a fool than it is to speak up & erase all doubt.

 

[Coronis]

I can tell you're being sarcastic, but if you aren't really all that well-versed on a particular era of the game, why pick at other posters about it with such a condescending tone all of the time? Sometimes it's better to remain quiet & be thought of as a fool than it is to speak up & erase all doubt.

I presume you’re referring to these two posts.

Which part of Hutton’s career was very hard for batting?

Doesn’t seem that hard to me. A literal ton of players averaging 50+ in the 40’s.

First was a genuine question about someone else’s post, the second was in response to a post referencing the immediate post-war era, which I took to mean the 40’s.

You’d do well to take your own advice sometimes.

 

[jimmy101]

Just saying, to square off against other posters like you do it wouldn't hurt to have a basic grasp of cricketing history. For you to be unaware of Hutton's escapades in 1953 & 1954/55 just shows a distinct lack of discern, yet you feel equipped to make Hobbs/Hutton comparisons, talk about how easy it is to average 40+ at Test level & talk about the state of pitches that were using during a series you have no idea about, whilst coming off as sour as a lemon.

Anyway, here's where I let it go. Hope you're contrition subsides soon bud.

 

[Coronis]

When we’re talking about top level cricketers yes it is appropriate to talk about 40+ being a relatively easy average but whatever. Also those pitches weren’t great but again, if you want to compare them to the pre-WW1 pitches Hobbs had to deal with, be my guest.

 

[jimmy101]

When we’re talking about top level cricketers yes it is appropriate to talk about 40+ being a relatively easy average but whatever. Also those pitches weren’t great but again, if you want to compare them to the pre-WW1 pitches Hobbs had to deal with, be my guest.

 

[Days of Grace]

I don’t want to be a ****, but just want to point out that Hutton didn’t have a great tour in 1954/55. He was probably finished as a truly great batsmen by then, He was at his best in 1950/51 and 1953.