Bradman or Hammond, Sachin or Jacques, Gavaskar vs Simpson

[kyear2]

Ok, the first one is a lot ridiculous, but it's the principal of a specialist vs a multifaceted all round cricketer. We use it when discussing bowlers all the time, "bat deep" being a common refrain on the forums.

 

[kyear2]

A few days ago in a different thread, Pews made the point that he would select Imran over Marshall or McGrath in his eleven, despite being the worst of the three. This is because Imran was his captain and also for his batting.

Now, the captaining bowling all rounder is a rare breed indeed, and without doubt would being value to a team, but how about the batting all rounder slip specialist.

Wally Hammond, Garry Sobers, Bobby Simpson, Greg Chappell, Jacques Kallis, Steve Smith (?)

I believe Sachin has a good an argument as any to be seen as the best after Bradman, probably the absolute best, but using Pew's argument shouldn't we instead look at a Hammond, Smith or even Kallis?

I believe all secondary skills are useful, but as some as discussed in the same thread, fifth bowlers would possibly provide diminished returns vs a comparable ATG XI, and similarly would lower order / bowling all rounder's batting. Slip fielding would have no such depreciation and with the bowling attacks in question would fill an equally important role to the other all rounders on the team.

But yes, welcome to possibly the shortest ever thread on CW.

 

[Ali TT]

An interesting topic but I was wondering for some time what Phil Jacques was doing in the list.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Lol you should have pitted Bradman vs Sobers.
Hammond is hardly an all-rounder.

 

[Ali TT]

Lol you should have pitted Bradman vs Sobers.
Hammond is hardly an all-rounder.

One of only 3 players in the 50,000/500 club

 

[Adorable Asshole]

One of only 3 players in the 50,000/500 club

We only talk about Tests here.

 

[Ali TT]

We only talk about Tests here.

Bully for yous.

However FC record or not, I'm not sure Hammond's bowling makes up for the 40 run difference in batting average. With Sachin and Kallis, there's not much in the batting anyway so the latter's bucket hands enough to tip the balance even before the bowling.

 

[The Sean]

Bradman's Test bowling average was better than Hammond's too.

 

[peterhrt]

A few days ago in a different thread, Pews made the point that he would select Imran over Marshall or McGrath in his eleven, despite being the worst of the three. This is because Imran was his captain and also for his batting.

Now, the captaining bowling all rounder is a rare breed indeed, and without doubt would being value to a team, but how about the batting all rounder slip specialist.

Wally Hammond, Garry Sobers, Bobby Simpson, Greg Chappell, Jacques Kallis, Steve Smith (?)

I believe Sachin has a good an argument as any to be seen as the best after Bradman, probably the absolute best, but using Pew's argument shouldn't we instead look at a Hammond, Smith or even Kallis?

I believe all secondary skills are useful, but as some as discussed in the same thread, fifth bowlers would possibly provide diminished returns vs a comparable ATG XI, and similarly would lower order / bowling all rounder's batting. Slip fielding would have no such depreciation and with the bowling attacks in question would fill an equally important role to the other all rounders on the team.

But yes, welcome to possibly the shortest ever thread on CW.

Agree that close catching in Test cricket is more important than late-order runs.

Hammond and Kallis were reluctant bowlers, even though Hammond opened the bowling in 13 of his 85 Tests and Kallis came on first change 54 times. Despite their excellent catching, I wouldn't choose either over Tendulkar.

Hobbs and Bradman were high-class cover fieldsmen so tick boxes there. Viv Richards was great anywhere and could stand next to Sobers in the slips. Gavaskar was decent at slip and claimed that taking 100 Test catches gave him more satisfaction than any of his batting feats. He was not quite in the Simpson or Greg Chappell class, but good enough to keep his place. Hutton was adequate, no more. Simpson may well have been the best. Benaud said he only ever dropped one catch in a Test match.

When Peter Pollock retired to the Press box he made an interesting observation about Simpson the batsman. Pollock reckoned that Simpson should have stayed in the middle order where he started his career because he was better against spin than high pace. Other Aussie openers Ponsford, Morris and Hayden were also considered by some to be at their best against spin.

 

[kyear2]

Agree that close catching in Test cricket is more important than late-order runs.

Hammond and Kallis were reluctant bowlers, even though Hammond opened the bowling in 13 of his 85 Tests and Kallis came on first change 54 times. Despite their excellent catching, I wouldn't choose either over Tendulkar.

Hobbs and Bradman were high-class cover fieldsmen so tick boxes there. Viv Richards was great anywhere and could stand next to Sobers in the slips. Gavaskar was decent at slip and claimed that taking 100 Test catches gave him more satisfaction than any of his batting feats. He was not quite in the Simpson or Greg Chappell class, but good enough to keep his place. Hutton was adequate, no more. Simpson may well have been the best. Benaud said he only ever dropped one catch in a Test match.

When Peter Pollock retired to the Press box he made an interesting observation about Simpson the batsman. Pollock reckoned that Simpson should have stayed in the middle order where he started his career because he was better against spin than high pace. Other Aussie openers Ponsford, Morris and Hayden were also considered by some to be at their best against spin.

Think I agree with everything you've said here.

I wouldn't choose them over Sachin either, believe in these teams, really should go with the very best specialist possible, unless the difference is absolutely minimal.

Good to know about Gavaskar, I've been looking through some of his catches and done were quite impressive. Plus first slip is the most protected in the cordon and I will have Garry at second and Viv at 3rd.

Thanks for the breakdown of Simpson, you really possess a wealth of knowledge.

 

[kyear2]

Lol you should have pitted Bradman vs Sobers.
Hammond is hardly an all-rounder.

In reference to a place on an ATG team, Sobers already easily makes it in

 

[centurymaker]

More hypotheticals about long retired players. None of this exists except in our head

 

[kyear2]

More hypotheticals about long retired players. None of this exists except in our head

Well I don't have a test team and am forced to watch Ashes and big 3 series in general for entertainment, so....
Nothing wrong with that

 

[the big bambino]

I believe Sachin has a good an argument as any to be seen as the best after Bradman, probably the absolute best, but …

It’s the difference in averages that get ya.

 

[kyear2]

It’s the difference in averages that get ya.

Meant the absolutely best after Bradman, if that's what you are referring to.

 

[ataraxia]

We only talk about Tests here.

Huh, what relationship could FC cricket possibly have to tests...

 

[The Sean]

Agree that close catching in Test cricket is more important than late-order runs.

Hammond and Kallis were reluctant bowlers, even though Hammond opened the bowling in 13 of his 85 Tests and Kallis came on first change 54 times. Despite their excellent catching, I wouldn't choose either over Tendulkar.

Hobbs and Bradman were high-class cover fieldsmen so tick boxes there. Viv Richards was great anywhere and could stand next to Sobers in the slips. Gavaskar was decent at slip and claimed that taking 100 Test catches gave him more satisfaction than any of his batting feats. He was not quite in the Simpson or Greg Chappell class, but good enough to keep his place. Hutton was adequate, no more. Simpson may well have been the best. Benaud said he only ever dropped one catch in a Test match.

When Peter Pollock retired to the Press box he made an interesting observation about Simpson the batsman. Pollock reckoned that Simpson should have stayed in the middle order where he started his career because he was better against spin than high pace. Other Aussie openers Ponsford, Morris and Hayden were also considered by some to be at their best against spin.

I'm not sure there has ever been a poster I have so habitually "liked" as you, and I love what you've noted in your final sentence there because I've mentioned before in my own posts how relatively common it seems to be that so many of Australia's very greatest opening batsmen have been considered to be at their best against spin rather than pace.

Pollock's view on Simpson is interesting on two levels - firstly that, statistically, Simpson was far more productive and prolific when he moved to opening than he had been in the middle order, but secondly that it Pollock's view tallies with that of Tom Graveney who when ranking post-war openers actually placed Simpson behind Lawry noting among other things that he thought Simpson was suspect against real pace.

Ponsford is an interesting one. It has become commonly held that he struggled against pace, but there are alternative accounts that his struggles were more against Larwood specifically rather than fast bowling generally. Bradman is one of those who spoke in his defence, writing in Farewell To Cricket that he considered the perceived pace weakness to be nonsense and referencing the pasting he gave Gubby Allen at Lord's in 1930.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

I have Hammond no.6 in my batting list alone higher than Sachin, Kallis and other mentioned other than of course The Don himself.
Though I would have him in my 2nd Xi in my ATG Xi as my 1st team is stacked (Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman*, Smith, Richards, Sobers).

 

[a massive zebra]

When Peter Pollock retired to the Press box he made an interesting observation about Simpson the batsman. Pollock reckoned that Simpson should have stayed in the middle order where he started his career because he was better against spin than high pace.

Interestingly the stats suggest the exact opposite, and very decisively too.

Simpson as opener: 3,664 runs @ 55.52 with 8 centuries
Simpson as non opener: 1,205 runs @ 31.71 with 2 centuries

Simpson's average as opener is comfortably the best of any Australian opener with over 2,000 runs.

 

[peterhrt]

Interestingly the stats suggest the exact opposite, and very decisively too.

Simpson as opener: 3,664 runs @ 55.52 with 8 centuries
Simpson as non opener: 1,205 runs @ 31.71 with 2 centuries

Simpson's average as opener is comfortably the best of any Australian opener with over 2,000 runs.

Simpson's middle-order stats are partly affected by coming out of retirement in his forties during the Packer period, when he batted exclusively down the order.

He was fine against India but struggled against the West Indian fast bowlers, averaging 22 in five Tests with problems picking up the short ball. That wasn't surprising given that he had been out of the game for nine years. After the series in the Caribbean Simpson promptly retired again.