• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Jack Hobbs vs Sachin Tendulkar

Jack Hobbs vs Sachin Tendulkar

  • Total voters
    54
S

Silver Line

U19 Debutant
Yeh ill put Hammond better than Inzi and Hussey, but not root. But my point isnt comparison, im saying he belongs in ATG batsmen list but not BSB lists
 
ataraxia

ataraxia

International Coach
Silver Line said:
I would like to clear some misconceptions regarding Walter Hammond.

hammond was a great batsman but he is not as great as his stats suggest. They are inflated from tonking a very weak Saffers side.

hammond in his prime years (1927-1939) averaged 51 against AUS+WI (the two actual capable cricketing sides at that time)
Hammond a great batsman, should be in the tier of Inzamam, Dravid etc and not subjected to BSB conversations.
Click to expand...
He's probably overrated but calling him comparable to Hussey is inflammatory and devalues your point. Because it is plain wrong.
 
a massive zebra

a massive zebra

International Captain
Silver Line said:
pretty sure you read this before, but here you go again, hammond is at best comparable to Inzi, root, hussey etc. the overrating of past batsmen 😪 and underrating of modern counterparts.




not sure why you think hammond bashing weak ass SA, Ind, NZ in the 1930s should be considered in his stats ffs lol

your example of series win whatever, bruh even West Indies of today beat England in England not even a year ago and havent done anything remarkable since. Those teams in the 1930s were like Ireland tier or even worse. Hammond aint close.
Click to expand...
What a complete load of cobblers.

South Africa in the 1930s were a perfectly respectable side with world class batsmen like Bruce Marshall, Dudley Nourse and Eric Rowan, one of the best wicketkeeper batsmen of the time in Jock Cameron, and some solid bowlers such as Cyril Vincent, Sandy Bell and the wonderfully named Xenophon Balaskas. They were not just decent on paper: South Africa beat England in two consecutive series in this decade, including a 5 Test series in England in 1935. To compare them with Ireland tier or worse is ignorant, ill informed and just plain wrong.

India, while admittedly weak overall with very little depth, had a couple of world class opening bowlers. Mohammad Nissar was one of the fastest and most destructive opening bowlers of his generation. Amar Singh was one of the most highly rated seam bowlers of the 1930s. in 1940, Len Hutton said that "There is no better bowler in the world today than Amar Singh." The presence of these bowlers alone places India's attack well ahead of the current Ireland tier.

From 1937, New Zealand had Jack Cowie who was probably their best pace bowler prior to Hadlee. Prior to 1937 your comments about New Zealand are probably fair, but Hammond played just 5 of his 85 Tests against a pre Cowie New Zealand.

Even if your comments about these countries were correct (which they definitely are not!), Walter Hammond's record against Australia is actually good: 2,852 runs @ 52 with 9 centuries.

A shockingly bad and ignorant post.
 
Last edited:
S

Silver Line

U19 Debutant
a massive zebra said:
What a complete load of cobblers.

South Africa in the 1930s were a perfectly respectable side with world class batsmen like Bruce Marshall, Dudley Nourse and Eric Rowan, one of the best wicketkeeper batsmen of the time in Jock Cameron, and some solid bowlers such as Cyril Vincent, Sandy Bell and the wonderfully named Xenophon Balaskas. They were not just decent on paper: South Africa beat England in two consecutive series in this decade, including a 5 Test series in England in 1935. To compare them with Ireland tier or worse is ignorant, ill informed and just plain wrong.

India, while admittedly weak overall with very little depth, had a couple of world class opening bowlers. Mohammad Nissar was one of the fastest and most destructive opening bowlers of his generation. Amar Singh was one of the most highly rated seam bowlers of the 1930s. in 1940, Len Hutton said that "There is no better bowler in the world today than Amar Singh." The presence of these bowlers alone places India's attack well ahead of the current Ireland tier.

From 1937, New Zealand had Jack Cowie who was probably their best pace bowler prior to Hadlee. Prior to 1937 your comments about New Zealand are probably fair, but Hammond played just 5 of his 85 Tests against a pre Cowie New Zealand.

Even if your comments about these countries were correct (which they definitely are not!), Walter Hammond's record against Australia is actually good: 2,852 runs @ 52 with 9 centuries.

A shockingly bad and ignorant post.
Click to expand...
This response reeks of an old man who refuses to take the brown tinted nostalgia glasses off.

south africa’s bat lineup in 1930 was fairly respectable, but the bowlers? Those bowlers were all a bunch of 32+ averaging ones, i cannot believe your attempt to paint even a 37 averaging bowler, Xenophon with such limelight.

i can assure you barely no one knows who these bowlers are in the first place, and thats not something for you to pride on and tell everyone their history is weak. These old names did nothing. bowlers like Ratnayake, Mahwire etc have done better in tests. Is this the calibre youre so persistent on judging Hammond?

india’s amar singh has a 31 average with nissar at 29, how are they any different from the bowlers of india in the mid 2000s, whom indians themselves were frustrated with? India barely was an established country then, which youre so adamant on adding to hammond’s stats. What is this load of nostalgia rubbish you wrote ‘the most destructive pair’.

FFS hammond played 1 match against Cowie. Rest of his games were against absolute nothing attacks. New Zealand was barely an established cricketing side who had only played something like 10 international games before cowie. This is statpad galore for Hammond and those other batters around this time.

your praise for Hammond’s record vs australia but dismissal of talking about Hammond’s horrific record vs West Indies shows all the bias youve successfully structured around your opinion with the need of false glorification of the past in comparison to the modern game.
 
Last edited:
H

HouHsiaoHsien

International Debutant
I agree with people who went either way, and only disagree with those who think there is significant difference between both. For me, they are the prime candidates for best after Bradman, slightly above Richards and Sobers(and Hutton and Smith). Both are more consistent than Richards(better longevity as well), and a more rounded record(in Hobbs case, his mastery in Aus, Eng and on matted surfaces in SA and being one of the the first to master googly spinners) than Sobers(who has a brilliant record, but a serious weakness in NZ, never proved himself in Pak and not that great in Aus(although the knock against Lillee spectacular)).
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
Coronis said:
Yes I think after more reflection I have Sobers now behind these two.
Click to expand...
Personally I have Sachin 2nd, Sobers 3rd and Hobbs 4th, then Richards.

Sachin's consistency was insane, but the lack of superman series... Sobers was brilliant but crippled by his own captaincy, Richards I honestly consider moving ahead of Hobbs.

Reason being that I basically have all of them equal and rate them by the bowlers faced. IVA faced much better bowlers than Hobbs did, and in a much more competitive era.

All 4 contenders for best after Bradman for me and just ahead of Smith, Lara and Hutton (in the order), who I can also make an argument deserves to be in that category.
 
H

HouHsiaoHsien

International Debutant
subshakerz said:
Tendulkar obviously ahead of Hobbs. Modern era and longevity.
Click to expand...
For me, I go back and forth between the above merits of Tendulkar and Hobbs pre eminence over his peers in the pre war era(best of anyone not Bradman) and his performances over some of the widest extremes of conditions(sticky wickets, pace and bounce, the insane gluepot wicket, the matted pitches of SA). Also Hobbs has longevity as well, but in terms of years not matches like Tendulkar, and also has some 500+ series(not the most important criteria tho).
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
HouHsiaoHsien said:
For me, I go back and forth between the above merits of Tendulkar and Hobbs pre eminence over his peers in the pre war era(best of anyone not Bradman) and his performances over some of the widest extremes of conditions(sticky wickets, pace and bounce, the insane gluepot wicket, the matted pitches of SA). Also Hobbs has longevity as well, but in terms of years not matches like Tendulkar, and also has some 500+ series(not the most important criteria tho).
Click to expand...
I am openly biased against early era cricketers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top