Wally Hammond vs Steve Smith

[sayon basak]

Who's better purely as a batsman?

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Walter was Great, one of the best ever but Smith is arguably the best batsman in history bar Bradman

 

[shortpitched713]

Wally Hammond was not a great batsman. Good probably, but no way can you be great if your batting output is less than 3/5 that of your leading direct contemporary.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Would had been closer as overall cricketers, though Smith would still be ahead.

 

[kyear2]

Wally Hammond was not a great batsman. Good probably, but no way can you be great if your batting output is less than 3/5 that of your leading direct contemporary.

Really?

 

[kyear2]

In any event Smith.

Disagree with @capt_Luffy though, if was overall, would be Hammond.

 

[capt_Luffy]

In any event Smith.

Disagree with @capt_Luffy though, if was overall, would be Hammond.

What happened to people not skipping tiers on secondary skills??

 

[shortpitched713]

Really?

 

[sayon basak]

Wally Hammond was not a great batsman. Good probably, but no way can you be great if your batting output is less than 3/5 that of your leading direct contemporary.

Maybe his direct contemporary was too good?

 

[shortpitched713]

Maybe his direct contemporary was too good?

How many pre war debuting cricketers do we celebrate to the extent of Hammond for being the 2nd or 3rd best batsman among their contemporaries?

 

[capt_Luffy]

How many pre war debuting cricketers do we celebrate to the extent of Hammond for being the 2nd or 3rd best batsman among their contemporaries?

Way less than we should honestly.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

How many pre war debuting cricketers do we celebrate to the extent of Hammond for being the 2nd or 3rd best batsman among their contemporaries?

It's because no other generation has had a Bradman. Bradman statistically trounces every other batsman ever. Hammond was still a major outlier compared to his generation, just like other ATG batsmen are. It's just in his case there was an even greater outlier.

 

[shortpitched713]

It's because no other generation has had a Bradman. Bradman statistically trounces every other batsman ever. Hammond was still a major outlier compared to his generation, just like other ATG batsmen are. It's just in his case there was an even greater outlier.

Headley

 

[capt_Luffy]

Headley

Was great, but played too few games.

 

[Coronis]

A better example would be Sutcliffe, considering he played the majority of his games with Hammond, and played in almost half of Hammond’s games (only beaten by Ames and Leyland)

 

[shortpitched713]

Was great, but played too few games.

A better example would be Sutcliffe, considering he played the majority of his games with Hammond, and played in almost half of Hammond’s games (only beaten by Ames and Leyland)

Yeah, I'd probably go Hammond just, over Headley, for that sample size reason but it's really close. If Headley played a series or two more, I'd almost certainly reverse it.

Both are comfortably outclassed by Sutcliffe though, IMHO. Although he isn't as close of a contemporary with only half of career overlapping.

Regardless, my point stands, that this bloke who was outclassed throughout his career, by not just Bradman, but often another top bat as well, shouldn't be venerated nearly as much as he is.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah, I'd probably go Hammond just, over Headley, for that sample size reason but it's really close. If Headley played a series or two more, I'd almost certainly reverse it.

Both are comfortably outclassed by Sutcliffe though, IMHO. Although he isn't as close of a contemporary with only half of career overlapping.

Regardless, my point stands, that this bloke who was outclassed throughout his career, by not just Bradman, but often another top bat as well, shouldn't be venerated nearly as much as he is.

In addition to being to being a top 4 batsman in the world at the start of the war, he was one of the 3 Hs of English cricket.
He was also arguably the greatest slip fielder in the history of the game, and a more than useful fast bowler.

He was Sobers before Sobers... Almost the Kallis, to Bradman's Tendulkar.

 

[capt_Luffy]

In addition to being to being a top 4 batsman in the world at the start of the war, he was one of the 3 Hs of English cricket.
He was also arguably the greatest slip fielder in the history of the game, and a more than useful fast bowler.

He was Sobers before Sobers... Almost the Kallis, to Bradman's Tendulkar.

That's a huge almost though..... Kallis was definitely a somewhat comparable batsman to Tendulkar by output; Hammond's output just wasn't no way near him.

 

[kyear2]

That's a huge almost though..... Kallis was definitely a somewhat comparable batsman to Tendulkar by output; Hammond's output just wasn't no way near him.

Literally said almost.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Literally said almost.

And I also "literally" called that almost to be a very big one.