Hobbs or Hutton?

[the big bambino]

How is a comparison between all-time greats from vastly different eras supposed to be anything but rampant speculation? How are we to assume that Hutton would not fold to the all time great WI pace attacks that Gavaskar faced and acquitted himself so well against?

It's not a crazy take for mine that Gavaskar would be the greatest opener of all time. But in order to pick one over the other from different eras, you'll always have to make assumptions one way or the other, which could be flawed.

Would be grateful if we didn't go down this tedious route.

 

[Chrish]

I think it’s bit disingenuous to assume that Hutton would have done significantly better had he not have that accident. He modified his technique and became more defensive but that doesn’t mean it necessarily hurt his final average.

Anyways, of those who saw both Hobbs and Hutton, almost no one regards Hutton as a better batsman. I still voted for him because he had to cope with hostile pace bowling from Australian bowlers as well as mystery spinners such as Ramdine and Iverson. 50s saw some of the most bowling friendly conditions post-war; comparable to current era.

 

[Chrish]

Off topic but Pap has a weird hard-on for Gavaskar and Wasim Akram..

 

[BazBall21]

Among Top 50 run scorers

1937-1955
50+ avg - 16
55+ avg - 9
60+ avg - 6

1971-1987
50+ avg - 6
55+ avg - 0

Among Top 50 run scorers

1937-1955
50+ avg - 16
55+ avg - 9
60+ avg - 6

1971-1987
50+ avg - 6
55+ avg - 0

Hutton played around 50% of his career in a notoriously low-scoring decade. That as an opener in England too. Has several great performances in tough conditions including his famous 1950/51 Ashes tour so don’t think the first half of his career being a batsman-friendly period should affect his legacy a great deal.

 

[Tom Flint]

I think it’s bit disingenuous to assume that Hutton would have done significantly better had he not have that accident. He modified his technique and became more defensive but that doesn’t mean it necessarily hurt his final average.

Anyways, of those who saw both Hobbs and Hutton, almost no one regards Hutton as a better batsman. I still voted for him because he had to cope with hostile pace bowling from Australian bowlers as well as mystery spinners such as Ramdine and Iverson. 50s saw some of the most bowling friendly conditions post-war; comparable to current era.

I didn't think now was that that great for batsman

 

[ankitj]

Off topic but Pap has a weird hard-on for Gavaskar and Wasim Akram..

Mike Procter too

 

[chris.hinton]

Len Hutton for me

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Hutton played around 50% of his career in a notoriously low-scoring decade. That as an opener in England too. Has several great performances in tough conditions including his famous 1950/51 Ashes tour so don’t think the first half of his career being a batsman-friendly period should affect his legacy a great deal.

50+avg among top 50 run scorers
1930s - 17
1940s - 19
1950s - 6
1970s - 7
1980s - 5

Hutton had it easier for at least half of the career.

 

[the big bambino]

50+avg among top 50 run scorers
1930s - 17
1940s - 19
1950s - 6
1970s - 7
1980s - 5

Hutton had it easier for at least half of the career.

You are likely skewing the search to get the results you want. By including a lower bar for the earlier eras so that it includes men who had a good series and therefore getting into your count. The later eras had men playing more matches and therefore not as many capable of maintaining that sort of average. Decade averages are much the same with the exception of the 50s. Hutton played in that decade and against one of the best Australian attacks in the 40s. He didn't have it easy.

 

[shortpitched713]

Would be grateful if we didn't go down this tedious route.

**** that noise, I'd love to go down that route. Because I've got evidence:




Those some good averages for Gavaskar.

 

[bagapath]

When Gavaskar selected his dream XI his openers were:

1) Jack Hobbs
With his record of 197 first-class hundreds and playing at a time of uncovered pitches, he must have been an amazing player.
2) Leonard Hutton
The same as above. Fast bowlers got closer to you in those days with the no-ball rule, so he must have been some player to handle the likes of Lindwall and Miller.

 

[shortpitched713]

When Gavaskar selected his dream XI his openers were:
1) Jack Hobbs
With his record of 197 first-class hundreds and playing at a time of uncovered pitches, he must have been an amazing player.
2) Leonard Hutton
The same as above. Fast bowlers got closer to you in those days with the no-ball rule, so he must have been some player to handle the likes of Lindwall and Miller.

I respect your posting and knowledge bagapath, but you know that Gavaskar saying that means almost nothing.

Any player with a shred of humility doesn't pick themself for these kind of slections, and has a strong tendency to to defer to those of the generations before him.

 

[bagapath]

I respect your posting and knowledge bagapath, but you know that Gavaskar saying that means almost nothing.

Any player with a shred of humility doesn't pick themself for these kind of slections, and has a strong tendency to to defer to those of the generations before him.

Agree. Only Qadir and Gibbs pick themselves in the book I like to refer for these conversations . IN A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN 100 CRICKET LEGENDS SELECT THEIR WORLD XI by RICHARD SYDENHAM
but I would be surprised if any of the great openers born before 1955 and who presumably heard Hutton’s name growing up, would actually choose themselves ahead of Sir Len. The reputation of that man is too big for anyone in the game to look beyond. It’s a bit like no leg spin bowler born before 2005 would choose himself, even in a private conversation, over SKW.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

You are likely skewing the search to get the results you want. By including a lower bar for the earlier eras so that it includes men who had a good series and therefore getting into your count. The later eras had men playing more matches and therefore not as many capable of maintaining that sort of average. Decade averages are much the same with the exception of the 50s. Hutton played in that decade and against one of the best Australian attacks in the 40s. He didn't have it easy.

Not True.
Between 1937 and 1955, 17 players scored more than 2000 runs and 9 among them averaged above 50 ( 6 above 55, 4 above 60 )

Between 1971 and 1987, 53 batsmen scored more than 2000 runs, yet only 6 managed 50+ avg.. ( None above 55 ).

Thats a HUGE difference.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

When Gavaskar selected his dream XI his openers were:

1) Jack Hobbs
With his record of 197 first-class hundreds and playing at a time of uncovered pitches, he must have been an amazing player.
2) Leonard Hutton
The same as above. Fast bowlers got closer to you in those days with the no-ball rule, so he must have been some player to handle the likes of Lindwall and Miller.

"I have a feeling that if he had been born English or Australian, many of the better judges would have been tempted to bracket him with Don Bradman. Sunil Gavaskar is not as good as Don Bradman, but very close, which automatically puts him in the very highest class of batsmen of all time. He is a small, compact man, thicker set than Bradman, but of a similar height, and, like all the true champions, can play off both feet with equal facility"
- Len Hutton

 

[trundler]

Benaud picked Gavaskar ahead of Hutton in his all time XI so being snobby about rating one over the other is pretty dumb.

 

[Chrish]

Benaud never saw Hobbs though.. He possibly was biased in favor of the players he did see.

 

[trundler]

Benaud never saw Hobbs though.. He possibly was biased in favor of the players he did see.

He picked Hobbs and Barnes. Played against Hutton and must've seen loads of Gavaskar.

 

[the big bambino]

Not True.
Between 1937 and 1955, 17 players scored more than 2000 runs and 9 among them averaged above 50 ( 6 above 55, 4 above 60 )

Between 1971 and 1987, 53 batsmen scored more than 2000 runs, yet only 6 managed 50+ avg.. ( None above 55 ).

Thats a HUGE difference.

That's not the post i quoted. To get the figures you did for each decade you would have had to included men who say got 300 runs in the 30s to get your 17 men over 50 figure. A man could have a good series and get in so its a skewed stat. If you use another measure, say 15 matches, then it falls to 7 (if you exclude the outlier Bradman) and is little different to the 70s and 80s with 7 and 5 instances. Either way Yours is a shallow measure. Averages over eras and decades is the better measure and there is little difference between any decade - except the 50s -which Hutton played a good deal of his career.

 

[the big bambino]

**** that noise, I'd love to go down that route. Because I've got evidence:

View attachment 32498
View attachment 32499

Those some good averages for Gavaskar.

Yes yes we all know. It's not a measure of the the quality of attacks faced by say Border or Gooch though.