Hobbs or Hutton?

[shortpitched713]

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

I was talking about a feat achieved by Gavaskar that would put him in good stead w/r to a comparison with Len Hutton. Why are you mentioning Border and Gooch?

 

[the big bambino]

Because you are comparing chalk with cheese. If Border or Gooch had the fortune to play against some of the attacks Gavaskar faced you'd probably compare them with Hutton instead.

 

[shortpitched713]

Because you are comparing chalk with cheese. If Border or Gooch had the fortune to play against some of the attacks Gavaskar faced you'd probably compare them with Hutton instead.

But they didn't, and we don't, so not sure what we're getting at? Also Border wasn't an opener, so once again, why the **** are you bringing up his name in a comparison of ATG openers?

If Gavaskar was making so much hay against such weak WI bowling attacks, there would need to be some evidence this was the case, and also it should be measured against what the typically fielded bowling attack was by the WI, not just a "theoretical best" of the time.

 

[trundler]

You'd think a debutant scoring 700 runs to win a series where his country had never won before would be worth celebrating.

 

[the big bambino]

If Gavaskar was making so much hay against such weak WI bowling attacks, there would need to be some evidence this was the case, and also it should be measured against what the typically fielded bowling attack was by the WI, not just a "theoretical best" of the time.

Yes, that's it. There is a reason you plucked out the WI stat, and that is to impress us with their reputation which was arguably the best ever fielded. Then setting that reputation to boost Gavaskar's. But it contains a fraud and if you were trying to sell it I'd advise people to hang up on you. You can rate Sunny all you like. He was a great player and comparable with the best but your chosen stat is misleading.

 

[shortpitched713]

Yes, that's it. There is a reason you plucked out the WI stat, and that is to impress us with their reputation which was arguably the best ever fielded. Then setting that reputation to boost Gavaskar's. But it contains a fraud and if you were trying to sell it I'd advise people to hang up on you. You can rate Sunny all you like. He was a great player and comparable with the best but your chosen stat is misleading.

Right, so he made hay against a relatively weaker WI attack in his debut series.

Even excluding that series he's averaging 53.37 against them. Still quite a feat, even given this is a statistic SELECTIVELY CHERRY PICKED AGAINST HIM.




There's a weird thing that happens here on cricket web when it comes to judging batsmen. Batsmen make hay on the weaknesses offered by opposing bowlers, conditions, just any weaknesses they have to pounce on, exploit, and make the most of. The fact that we hold this against them (often selectively, mind) just blows my mind.

 

[Coronis]

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.

Shockingly it is harder to maintain a higher average over a longer period of time and a larger number of tests.

 

[Days of Grace]

Right, so he made hay against a relatively weaker WI attack in his debut series.

Even excluding that series he's averaging 53.37 against them. Still quite a feat, even given this is a statistic SELECTIVELY CHERRY PICKED AGAINST HIM.

View attachment 32503


There's a weird thing that happens here on cricket web when it comes to judging batsmen. Batsmen make hay on the weaknesses offered by opposing bowlers, conditions, just any weaknesses they have to pounce on, exploit, and make the most of. The fact that we hold this against them (often selectively, mind) just blows my mind.

Don’t forget to exclude the 1978/79 series against an attack minus the World Series players.

 

[Coronis]

Right, so he made hay against a relatively weaker WI attack in his debut series.

Even excluding that series he's averaging 53.37 against them. Still quite a feat, even given this is a statistic SELECTIVELY CHERRY PICKED AGAINST HIM.

View attachment 32503


There's a weird thing that happens here on cricket web when it comes to judging batsmen. Batsmen make hay on the weaknesses offered by opposing bowlers, conditions, just any weaknesses they have to pounce on, exploit, and make the most of. The fact that we hold this against them (often selectively, mind) just blows my mind.

Shockingly his 2 best series against a team both came when that team’s bowling was weakest during his career, makes sense. He still has one of the most impressive records against one of the most impressive bowling attacks in cricket’s history.

Personally I rank Gavaskar 4th, but I think you could have any of the top 4 openers in any order imo and it would be far from ridiculous, it all depends on your criteria. At this point, these 4 are so clearly ahead of their competition, it’s ridiculous

 

[Line and Length]

Looking selectively at aspects of a players' career is often a false argument. It is easy to understand how looking through rose coloured glasses can distort the overall performances of any ATG. Unless we look at the other side of the coin, we never get the complete picture, so both sides need to be considered, In the case of Gavaskar, there is no doubting he deserves to be regarded in the top echelon of all-time openers.
However, looking at performances over various aspects of a career can be misleading. True, Gavaskar averaged over 70 in 13 Tests played in the West Indies and 65.45 in 27 Tests against that opponent. But if we are going to look at specific countries, his record in England (41.14 in 16 Tests) and overall against that country (38.20 in 38 Tests) is far from ATG level.

Hutton's war-time accident has been mentioned here. While he successfully modified his style, he was placed under extreme pressure against The Invincibles when Bradman ordered his quicks (Lindwall, Miller and Davidson) to attack him with short pitched deliveries knowing Hutton's pre-war hook shot was no longer a weapon.
Given that Hutton's pre WWII Test batting average was 67.25 , I have often wondered (as with Bradman) what his career stats would have looked like without the lost war years.

Having seen Hutton, but not having had the pleasure of seeing Hobbs, I can't separate the two. Gavaskar has been thrown into the discussion, and deservedly so, but having watched him, I can't rank him above Hutton.

 

[shortpitched713]

Having seen Hutton, but not having had the pleasure of seeing Hobbs, I can't separate the two. Gavaskar has been thrown into the discussion, and deservedly so, but having watched him, I can't rank him above Hutton.

What time period did you get to see Hutton? Was this viewed exclusively on the TV screen, or did you get any opportunities to view live in person as well?

 

[shortpitched713]

True, Gavaskar averaged over 70 in 13 Tests played in the West Indies and 65.45 in 27 Tests against that opponent. But if we are going to look at specific countries, his record in England (41.14 in 16 Tests) and overall against that country (38.20 in 38 Tests) is far from ATG level.

However, England was not the dominant side of his time. That was the West Indies, so I don't know why we'd use England for any sort of benchmark.

Fact is, he averaged over 50 against the Windies, and also averaged over 50 away,



He played against the new ball and modern, professional quicks who had mastered new ball technique. These are simply different conditions and challenges than anything the greats before him came up against.

If anyone's considering Gavaskar's isn't the record of a potential GOAT opener candidate, let's consider, has there been any opener since, who it could be argued play in roughly comparable professional circumstances, whose matched his kind of output in the 30 odd years since he's retired? The answer there, tells you about the likelihood of all but the very top practitioners of old being able to do the same in his shoes.

 

[shortpitched713]

Don’t forget to exclude the 1978/79 series against an attack minus the World Series players.

At that point, the selectiveness and futility of the exercise becomes apparent.

We could exclude every match in which Bradman didn't face all time great pace bowling, and then he'd average only 56.57. But the exercise is a bit silly.

 

[shortpitched713]

Don’t forget to exclude the 1978/79 series against an attack minus the World Series players.

The WI attack in this series also included a debuting Malcolm Marshall, as well as Sylvester Clarke so not sure why we'd exclude it.

 

[the big bambino]

Right, so he made hay against a relatively weaker WI attack in his debut series.

Even excluding that series he's averaging 53.37 against them. Still quite a feat, even given this is a statistic SELECTIVELY CHERRY PICKED AGAINST HIM.

View attachment 32503


There's a weird thing that happens here on cricket web when it comes to judging batsmen. Batsmen make hay on the weaknesses offered by opposing bowlers, conditions, just any weaknesses they have to pounce on, exploit, and make the most of. The fact that we hold this against them (often selectively, mind) just blows my mind.

I prefer Hutton. But it's close so I'd listen to the contrary in favour of Gavaskar. Could cause a re think. You highlighted his record v WI to the exclusion of all else for a reason and that was to imply his record against the likes of Roberts, Holding ... Marshall and Walsh gives him the comparative edge. Well he did face those bowlers. But there is alot of Inshan, Dowe, maybe Norbert Phillip and probably a bit of some guy called Shillingford or Holford too. You have to admit that and so changed your argument. It's now ok to score runs against lesser opponents, after all they are the strongest available. But even that isn't true as he played 6 games against a side without Packer players.

However I agree it shouldn't detract from his record. Rather than me "hold it against him" I'm just cautioning against mythologising his record v WI so that people don't solely rely on it when making comparisons. His overall record v allcomers is the better argument. After all if we highlighting individual's records against the WI then Hutton averaged almost 80 against them. So even your selective stat favours Hutton.

 

[shortpitched713]

After all if we highlighting individual's records against the WI then Hutton averaged almost 80 against them. So even your selective stat favours Hutton.

The difference here being that WI was not the overwhelmingly dominant side in the world, during the time of Hutton, as they were at the time of Gavaskar.

 

[subshakerz]

Looking selectively at aspects of a players' career is often a false argument. It is easy to understand how looking through rose coloured glasses can distort the overall performances of any ATG. Unless we look at the other side of the coin, we never get the complete picture, so both sides need to be considered, In the case of Gavaskar, there is no doubting he deserves to be regarded in the top echelon of all-time openers.
However, looking at performances over various aspects of a career can be misleading. True, Gavaskar averaged over 70 in 13 Tests played in the West Indies and 65.45 in 27 Tests against that opponent. But if we are going to look at specific countries, his record in England (41.14 in 16 Tests) and overall against that country (38.20 in 38 Tests) is far from ATG level.

Hutton's war-time accident has been mentioned here. While he successfully modified his style, he was placed under extreme pressure against The Invincibles when Bradman ordered his quicks (Lindwall, Miller and Davidson) to attack him with short pitched deliveries knowing Hutton's pre-war hook shot was no longer a weapon.
Given that Hutton's pre WWII Test batting average was 67.25 , I have often wondered (as with Bradman) what his career stats would have looked like without the lost war years.

Having seen Hutton, but not having had the pleasure of seeing Hobbs, I can't separate the two. Gavaskar has been thrown into the discussion, and deservedly so, but having watched him, I can't rank him above Hutton.

Averaging over 40 in a country is still a pass for an ATG. By ATG standards, his record has far less holes than others and he was far more tested as an opener than either Hobbs or Hutton who never even played in the subcontinent.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Shockingly it is harder to maintain a higher average over a longer period of time and a larger number of tests.

All 53 played for longer period and played more tests? I dont think so.

 

[Jfry]

All 53 played for longer period and played more tests? I dont think so.

Well given you included 6 years of war in the 1st period, kinda yeah

 

[subshakerz]

Gavaskar faced a lot of great pacers, some whom he struggled against like Lillee, some who he did well like Imran, and some with a more mixed record like the WI pacers. But to come out with an average over 50 as an opener in that era overall is the sign of true class and to me he is a lock for an ATG XI opening place.