Hobbs or Hutton?

[Pap Finn Keighl]

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.

Number of batsmen Averaged 50 ( min 1000 runs )

1930s - 8/20
1940s - 9/11
1950s - 6/41
1970s - 8/55
1980s - 6/73

50 avg with minimum 15 tests
1930s - 8/33
1940s - 6/15
1950s - 5/85
1970s - 7/112
1980s - 5/136

Whichever way you check.. 80s was the toughest.
80s > 70s = 50s >> 30s >> 40s

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

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

Nah.
4 out of 9 debuted in 1948
6 out of 9 was still playing in 1955, other 3 were Bradman, Nourse and Hammond.

 

[Line and Length]

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?

Seeing Hutton was exclusively on b&w TV. The only time I saw Test cricketers live was when, as a lad in England, my aunt took me to see visiting teams playing Lancashire. My memories of that game are the batting of Frank Worrell and the bowling of Alf Valentine. If my memory serves me well, I think Lancashire's opener, Cyril Washbrook (more than useful Test opener) batted well.

 

[Line and Length]

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.

You are emphasising his claim to ATG (which I'm not denying) should be based on his performances against dominant sides. I'm not putting England forward as any sort of benchmark. I'm simply pointing out that his performances, in 38 Tests averaging 38.20, against a non-dominant side never sustained an indication of his ability. I was also illustrating the flaws of selective statistics.

 

[Line and Length]

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.

Did you think about the above before posting? Hobbs retired 2 years before India even played a Test match while Hutton was in the twilight of his career when India entered the Test arena. Looking at India's early Test history, (waiting 20 years before winning a Test) one can only imagine the carnage Hobbs and Hutton would have wreaked on the subcontinent.

 

[ankitj]

Some good arguments in favour of Gavaskar in last few pages. Before joining this forum I tilted Gavaskar >= Hutton, then this forum convinced me Hutton comfortably better than Gavaskar. In reality, it's very close. Richie Benaud's AT XI has been mentioned. Another place where I recall Gavaskar getting ranked ahead of Hutton was the ESPN Legends of Cricket exercise. So idea that Gavaskar > Hutton is nothing to scoff at and outside this forum, is a view held my many pundits and fans it seems.

 

[ataraxia]

It is important to remember that as the quality of cricket increases, the gap between greats and peers decreases. Which should be taken into account when rating greatness between eras, and (partly) explains discrepancies in the number of 50+-averaging batsmen. "Quality of cricket increasing between eras" on its own is ofc not any sort of argument when doing such an exercise.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Some good arguments in favour of Gavaskar in last few pages. Before joining this forum I tilted Gavaskar >= Hutton, then this forum convinced me Hutton comfortably better than Gavaskar. In reality, it's very close. Richie Benaud's AT XI has been mentioned. Another place where I recall Gavaskar getting ranked ahead of Hutton was the ESPN Legends of Cricket exercise. So there Gavaskar > Hutton is nothing to scoff at and outside this forum, is a view held my many pundits and fans it seems.

Hutton himself rated Gavaskar very close to Bradman. And Sobers the greatest cricketer of alltime rated Gavaskar as the Best batsman he has seen.
For Akram, Sunny was the toughest batsman.
For Crowe, Sunny > Viv.
For Imran, Sunny > Sachin.

 

[Line and Length]

Hutton himself rated Gavaskar very close to Bradman. And Sobers the greatest cricketer of alltime rated Gavaskar as the Best batsman he has seen.
For Akram, Sunny was the toughest batsman.
For Crowe, Sunny > Viv.
For Imran, Sunny > Sachin.

Yet Imran rates Viv Richards above Gavaskar (as do Trueman, Lillee, Hadlee, Botham, Marshall and Holding).

Lillee's appraisal of Gavaskar may well be based on their few encounters. Gavaskar played Lillee once in that famous 80-81 tour. Scores were 0, 10, 23, 6, 3, 70. Hardly impressive.
Lillee systematically dismantled Gavaskar's batting and claimed Gavaskar's wicket in 4 of the 6 innings.
Gavaskar also struggled against Willis, Hadlee and Garner. Regarding the latter, in the 1983 World Cup Final Gavaskar faced 12 balls for 2 runs, failing to get bat to ball on 8 deliveries as Garner repeatedly rapped him on his thigh and waist.

I acknowledge these are cherry picked samples of Gavaskar's career but I am simply trying to add some balance to the conversation.

 

[subshakerz]

Did you think about the above before posting? Hobbs retired 2 years before India even played a Test match while Hutton was in the twilight of his career when India entered the Test arena. Looking at India's early Test history, (waiting 20 years before winning a Test) one can only imagine the carnage Hobbs and Hutton would have wreaked on the subcontinent.

Fair enough. I am aware of the history.

My point is that Gavaskar generally speaking displayed success across a variety of conditions compared to Hobbs/Hutton, not that it is their fault. So all things equal, I prefer the better tested opener.

 

[subshakerz]

Yet Imran rates Viv Richards above Gavaskar (as do Trueman, Lillee, Hadlee, Botham, Marshall and Holding).

Lillee's appraisal of Gavaskar may well be based on their few encounters. Gavaskar played Lillee once in that famous 80-81 tour. Scores were 0, 10, 23, 6, 3, 70. Hardly impressive.
Lillee systematically dismantled Gavaskar's batting and claimed Gavaskar's wicket in 4 of the 6 innings.
Gavaskar also struggled against Willis, Hadlee and Garner. Regarding the latter, in the 1983 World Cup Final Gavaskar faced 12 balls for 2 runs, failing to get bat to ball on 8 deliveries as Garner repeatedly rapped him on his thigh and waist.

I acknowledge these are cherry picked samples of Gavaskar's career but I am simply trying to add some balance to the conversation.

Gavaskar had a great series in 79 against Willis, Hendrick and peak Botham in England.

Overall, his record against ATG pacers is mixed though. But to me, as an opener, that is pretty much the best possible that can be done. The idea that any opener of any era would succeed against all those bowlers to me is highly unlikely.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Whichever way you check.. 80s was the toughest.
80s > 70s = 50s >> 30s >> 40s

Yes, not many players averaged 50+ in the 80s
Not even gavaskar himself. 70s decade bowling quality is routinely overstated.

 

[ankitj]

Yet Imran rates Viv Richards above Gavaskar (as do Trueman, Lillee, Hadlee, Botham, Marshall and Holding).

Lillee's appraisal of Gavaskar may well be based on their few encounters. Gavaskar played Lillee once in that famous 80-81 tour. Scores were 0, 10, 23, 6, 3, 70. Hardly impressive.
Lillee systematically dismantled Gavaskar's batting and claimed Gavaskar's wicket in 4 of the 6 innings.
Gavaskar also struggled against Willis, Hadlee and Garner. Regarding the latter, in the 1983 World Cup Final Gavaskar faced 12 balls for 2 runs, failing to get bat to ball on 8 deliveries as Garner repeatedly rapped him on his thigh and waist.

I acknowledge these are cherry picked samples of Gavaskar's career but I am simply trying to add some balance to the conversation.

Who did better against same set of bowlers? Genuinely curious (and enjoying reading these factoids)

Edit: May be Mohinder Amarnath did

 

[Starfighter]

Not even gavaskar himself.

Colour me surprised, but you're right:

 

[the big bambino]

Number of batsmen Averaged 50 ( min 1000 runs )

1930s - 8/20
1940s - 9/11
1950s - 6/41
1970s - 8/55
1980s - 6/73

50 avg with minimum 15 tests
1930s - 8/33
1940s - 6/15
1950s - 5/85
1970s - 7/112
1980s - 5/136

Whichever way you check.. 80s was the toughest.
80s > 70s = 50s >> 30s >> 40s

Big difference from the 17 or so you were trying to use earlier isn't it? I'm not sure why you've included the number of batsman as a denominator to those who averaged 50+. Look at the 40s figure. 9/11 seems you are suggesting 81% of batsmen would've averaged 50+ if only they scored 1000 runs which I think you'd agree would be laughable.

The earlier eras played fewer games. As they played more they would've dropped their averages. Both those who averaged 50 and those that didn't. Whereas the later eras had batsmen who played 2, 3 or 4 times more games which is a better reflection of quality than say someone who played 20 tests. What you are seeing in your table is a natural progression of batsmen failing to obtain or maintain the standard as more games are played and more men playing.

So your measure is irrelevant as to the difficulty of the eras. A better measure is the decade averages and the 50s was the hardest era.

 

[the big bambino]

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.

Except for a good chunk of the times he played them when they weren't.

 

[Gob]

Did Gavaskar face that much of the best of WI? His real big series was the debut one right when he made like million runs but WI basically had spinners at that point. There is that 230 odd in Madras was it but over all I have heard people bringing this up that his record against WI is tad overplayed compared to say Gooch or Border

Just asking obviously because I don’t know

 

[Starfighter]

Did Gavaskar face that much of the best of WI? His real big series was the debut one right when he made like million runs but WI basically had spinners at that point. There is that 230 odd in Madras was it but over all I have heard people bringing this up that his record against WI is tad overplayed compared to say Gooch or Border

Just asking obviously because I don’t know

His 236* was scored at four so technically doesn't factor into opening, but he did come in at 2/0. The point about his record being a bit overblown is a reaction to people taking his average against WI and proclaiming as if he faced the peak quartet that whole time, when his two best series were against a mediocre to poor attack in 70/71 and one with two theoretically good but very inexperienced bowlers in 78/79. He didn't face the best attack in 1976 either, it was the outcome of that series that inspired Loyd to ditch spin bowlers. He faced them at their best only in the two series in 1983. The seventies decks were also pretty flat.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Big difference from the 17 or so you were trying to use earlier isn't it? I'm not sure why you've included the number of batsman as a denominator to those who averaged 50+. Look at the 40s figure. 9/11 seems you are suggesting 81% of batsmen would've averaged 50+ if only they scored 1000 runs which I think you'd agree would be laughable.

The earlier eras played fewer games. As they played more they would've dropped their averages. Both those who averaged 50 and those that didn't. Whereas the later eras had batsmen who played 2, 3 or 4 times more games which is a better reflection of quality than say someone who played 20 tests. What you are seeing in your table is a natural progression of batsmen failing to obtain or maintain the standard as more games are played and more men playing.

So your measure is irrelevant as to the difficulty of the eras. A better measure is the decade averages and the 50s was the hardest era.

So, how do you know 50s was the hardest?

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

His 236* was scored at four so technically doesn't factor into opening, but he did come in at 2/0. The point about his record being a bit overblown is a reaction to people taking his average against WI and proclaiming as if he faced the peak quartet that whole time, when his two best series were against a mediocre to poor attack in 70/71 and one with two theoretically good but very inexperienced bowlers in 78/79. He didn't face the best attack in 1976 either, it was the outcome of that series that inspired Loyd to ditch spin bowlers. He faced them at their best only in the two series in 1983. The seventies decks were also pretty flat.

In that 1971 series only 2 indian batsmen managed 40+ avgs. ( Gavaskar scored 30% of team runs in the 4 tests he played, iirc.)