Hobbs or Hutton?

[Gob]

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

No ones arguing about the runs. The question is the attack he faced

 

[Starfighter]

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

The fact that some members of the Indian lineup weren't very good or didn't perform does not make Gavaskar better. The only other two quality batsmen in the Indian side were Vishwanath, who was young and could just have had a poor series, and Sardesai, who found conditions so congenial he scored nearly a third of his career runs in the series.

 

[the big bambino]

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

Lowest batting average. The most common figure for batting averages over periods is 32-33 (a good cricket figure). It is shared by 5 decades; 30s 60s 70s 80s and 2010s. The 90s was just under 32. So it seems a common figure over the decades. Mind you the 30s figure is heavily influenced by Bradman who impacted it by the total runs he scored and the fact he played proportionally more innings in that decade. For the same reason Hammond influences the decadal average more so than say SRT even though they averaged much the same. He played proportionally more innings than SRT.

The 40s and 2000s are higher at 35 and 34.

The 50s average was 28.60. Therefore (for a number of reasons) the hardest decade for batting since the 1920s.

 

[ankitj]

Hey look, numbers.



More numbers.



I did this shtick earlier too

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Lowest batting average. The most common figure for batting averages over periods is 32-33 (a good cricket figure). It is shared by 5 decades; 30s 60s 70s 80s and 2010s. The 90s was just under 32. So it seems a common figure over the decades. Mind you the 30s figure is heavily influenced by Bradman who impacted it by the total runs he scored and the fact he played proportionally more innings in that decade. For the same reason Hammond influences the decadal average more so than say SRT even though they averaged much the same. He played proportionally more innings than SRT.

The 40s and 2000s are higher at 35 and 34.

The 50s average was 28.60. Therefore (for a number of reasons) the hardest decade for batting since the 1920s.

Bradman had no impact it seems.
Australian team avg remained same 32-34 most of the decades with or without Bradman.

 

[ankitj]

Not just Gavaskar, even Vishwanath, Amarnath and Vengsarkar had solid numbers against the peak WI pace bowlers. Heck, India was quite simply the best batting unit against them

Overall vs. WI:


Overall vs. WI overseas:


burgey can suck it

 

[the big bambino]

Bradman had no impact it seems.
Australian team avg remained same 32-34 most of the decades with or without Bradman.

(Something weird is happening in cricinfo.) The team average for australia falls to 29.8 without him. In the 30s that is. Same effect in the 40s (though not really the 20s).

 

[Starfighter]

Hey look, numbers.

View attachment 32510

More numbers.

View attachment 32511

I did this shtick earlier too

Your schtick includes matches with glorious bowling attacks like this:



As well as Marshall's debut series in totally unfamiliar conditions - he didn't hit his stride until 1982.

Anyone can look up the attacks Gavaskar played and see the only time he played the full quartet was the two 1983 series. The rest of them there were at best two of the four you've filtered, and usually a couple of quite poor bowlers.

 

[Himannv]

Yeah, but Bradman is just the 8th best cricketer according to CW so his effect on teams is minimal.

 

[Gob]

Your schtick includes matches with glorious bowling attacks like this:

View attachment 32514

As well as Marshall's debut series in totally unfamiliar conditions - he didn't hit his stride until 1982.

Anyone can look up the attacks Gavaskar played and see the only time he played the full quartet was the two 1983 series. The rest of the them there were at best two of the four you've filtered, and usually a couple of quite poor bowlers.

brendon julian never looked west indian to me

 

[subshakerz]

Your schtick includes matches with glorious bowling attacks like this:

View attachment 32514

As well as Marshall's debut series in totally unfamiliar conditions - he didn't hit his stride until 1982.

Anyone can look up the attacks Gavaskar played and see the only time he played the full quartet was the two 1983 series. The rest of them there were at best two of the four you've filtered, and usually a couple of quite poor bowlers.

Gavaskar had a couple series with 1-2 quality WI pacers in which he did well, one series against the quartet away in which he didnt, and one at home against the quartet in which he did.

Still an overall good record.

 

[ankitj]

Gavaskar had a couple series with 1-2 quality WI pacers in which he did well, one series against the quartet away in which he didnt, and one at home against the quartet in which he did.

Still an overall good record.

Oh that's the series that matters!

 

[Coronis]

For Imran, Sunny > Sachin.

Couldn’t be because Imran’s entire career overlapped with Sunny’s and only faced Sachin when his bowling was awful.

 

[subshakerz]

Oh that's the series that matters!

Why doesnt the series at home matter?

 

[subshakerz]

If you compare Gavaskar's record against WI, in particular the quartet, with Greg Chappell, Border, Miandad and Martin Crowe, he seems to have done as well if not better than all of them. No batsman to my knowledge had a completely balanced record facing them.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

did this thread really start as "Hobbs or Hutton?"

Well ok

 

[Arachnodouche]

I see Gavaskar's technique and his overall record and figure he could've acquitted himself just as well as any other opener in history. Poor series here and there in my book can be chalked down to uncertainties of form and fate. Isn't that sub-50 avg in the 80s still the best among openers from the era with 50+ Tests?

I'd vote for Hobbs here simply because that figure of 197 centuries has always represented in my mind extreme commitment and love for the game.

 

[ankitj]

did this thread really start as "Hobbs or Hutton?"

Well ok

Other was always an option so it's well on track I think

 

[Coronis]

did this thread really start as "Hobbs or Hutton?"

Well ok

Have any recent vs threads stuck to the original topic? I’m just happy at least one of the cricketers in the title is still part of the discussion.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

If you compare Gavaskar's record against WI, in particular the quartet, with Greg Chappell, Border, Miandad and Martin Crowe, he seems to have done as well if not better than all of them. No batsman to my knowledge had a completely balanced record facing them.

And none of them were openers.