J Hobbs Vs Imran

[smash84]

I sort of understand where you are coming from, in this argument.

"Sort of understand"....so you mean that you essentially don't understand?

 

[subshakerz]

And you can adjust all the era you want to be but if Hobbs is head and shoulders above his competition, what good does era adjustment really do?

My point is that this era is so radically different that you can't do era adjustment. Nor was Hobbs that far ahead like Bradman to make a case of transcending eras.

 

[smash84]

My point is that this era is so radically different that you can't do era adjustment. Nor was Hobbs that far ahead like Bradman to make a case of transcending eras.

Ok, how many of his contemporaries were nearly as good as him in batting? What were their averages? Their output? Give me something at least rather than just repeating things like certain posters and expecting people to accept that as Truth no matter how inconsistent the logic.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

"Sort of understand"....so you mean that you essentially don't understand?

I mean I understand his perspective of allotting a very high weightage to dominance in the primary skill. I do not necessarily agree with it

 

[smash84]

I mean I understand his perspective of allotting a very high weightage to dominance in the primary skill. I do not necessarily agree with it

Yes, he has a very peculiar way of assigning high weightage to primary skill. You probably wouldn't want to know. Although I suspect you already do.

 

[subshakerz]

Ok, how many of his contemporaries were nearly as good as him in batting? What were their averages? Their output? Give me something at least rather than just repeating things like certain posters and expecting people to accept that as Truth no matter how inconsistent the logic.

I don't doubt that Hobbs was statistically ahead and proven on different wickets. But not to a Bradman level. He had Sutcliffe who averaged more than him.

I think it's of far lesser consequence that Hobbs was ahead them than the fact that cricket wasn't really a professional sport in his time with standards that have some broad compatability to today.

The same reason we look with suspicion at 19th century bowlers averaging in the teens and other anomalies, we must reserve all judgment on Hobbs numbers.

If someone is well above others in club standard cricket, does that mean they are going to be so in international cricket? Of course there is no guarantee. And we don't know if cricket that Hobbs played was on that level.

 

[kyear2]

Yes, he has a very peculiar way of assigning high weightage to primary skill. You probably wouldn't want to know. Although I suspect you already do.

My God you're salty.

 

[smash84]

My God you're salty.

Not really, more like I can't stand your biasedness and agendas.

 

[smash84]

I don't doubt that Hobbs was statistically ahead and proven on different wickets. But not to a Bradman level. He had Sutcliffe who averaged more than him.

I think it's of far lesser consequence that Hobbs was ahead them than the fact that cricket wasn't really a professional sport in his time with standards that have some broad compatability to today.

The same reason we look with suspicion at 19th century bowlers averaging in the teens and other anomalies, we must reserve all judgment on Hobbs numbers.

If someone is well above others in club standard cricket, does that mean they are going to be so in international cricket? Of course there is no guarantee. And we don't know if cricket that Hobbs played was on that level.

That's the thing though. The 19th century bowlers had low averages but there were a bunch of them going around like that.

In Hobbs case, there were very few. Just as you would expect in most eras. Which is why 2000s was also an anomaly.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I don't doubt that Hobbs was statistically ahead and proven on different wickets. But not to a Bradman level. He had Sutcliffe who averaged more than him.

Look up the pre war period dummy, that's when run scoring was the lowest it's ever been and Hobbs was a long way ahead of the rest. Sutcliffe came later when pitches eased up.

 

[subshakerz]

Look up the pre war period dummy, that's when run scoring was the lowest it's ever been and Hobbs was a long way ahead of the rest. Sutcliffe came later when pitches eased up.

Again it doesn't change my point on compatability of eras.

 

[shortpitched713]

Ok, how many of his contemporaries were nearly as good as him in batting? What were their averages? Their output? Give me something at least rather than just repeating things like certain posters and expecting people to accept that as Truth no matter how inconsistent the logic.

This presupposes that I have to consider any of him, and/or his contemporaries.

Sidney Barnes' bowling numbers are also off the charts. But any number of modern bowlers are considered to naturally be better than him, as a matter of course.

I think we should do the same with Hobbs, and leave him as a historically significant part of a long gone, statistically irrelevant, and yet esoterically interesting era. Rather like Barnes and Grace.

 

[kyear2]

Not really, more like I can't stand your biasedness and agendas.

Strange, I can't stand your agendas and wilful blindness, so yeah, basically the same. Can't stand your biases and blatant agenda, can't even use plural.

Don't stalk you posts though.

The real funny thing is that we disagree on one cricketer. The rest of it is just you being petulant.

 

[kyear2]

This presupposes that I have to consider any of him, and/or his contemporaries.

Sidney Barnes' bowling numbers are also off the charts. But any number of modern bowlers are considered to naturally be better than him, as a matter of course.

I think we should do the same with Hobbs, and leave him as a historically significant part of a long gone, statistically irrelevant, and yet esoterically interesting era. Rather like Barnes and Grace.

Not true, he averaged 21 vs Australia and bullied a minnow.

The equivalent would be if Murali only played England and his minnow of choice.

 

[subshakerz]

Not true, he averaged 21 vs Australia and bullied a minnow.

The equivalent would be if Murali only played England and his minnow of choice.

Kyear, we agree that Bradman's numbers would have to be massively adjusted in modern era, but doesn't that logic get us to discount other pre-war stats?

 

[kyear2]

Kyear, we agree that Bradman's numbers would have to be massively adjusted in modern era, but doesn't that logic get us to discount other pre-war stats?

Never said massively. Hobbs deserve mention in the top tier of cricketers for what he accomplished in his career. Top 5 batsman, and top 10 cricketer.

That being said, he isn't in my AT team because there are doubts to how he would handle a modern attack compared to Hutton and Richards

I don't go nearly as far as you and some others though

 

[subshakerz]

Never said massively. Hobbs deserve mention in the top tier of cricketers for what he accomplished in his career. Top 5 batsman, and top 10 cricketer.

That being said, he isn't in my AT team because there are doubts to how he would handle a modern attack compared to Hutton and Richards

I don't go nearly as far as you and some others though

Actually I am not disagreeing with your stances here. I can't discard Hobbs but I can't fully embrace him either. I just now considering having Hobbs behind Smith too based on what has been mentioned.

Yours is a reasonable moderate position. Can't out Hobbs too high or not there either.

 

[kyear2]

Actually I am not disagreeing with your stances here. I can't discard Hobbs but I can't fully embrace him either. I just now considering having Hobbs behind Smith too based on what has been mentioned.

Think he deserves top 5, but everyone in my top 10 was Uber talented.

 

[subshakerz]

Think he deserves top 5, but everyone in my top 10 was Uber talented.

Yeah not putting Hobbs in the top 5 also seems too counter to cricket consensus for my liking.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah not putting Hobbs in the top 5 also seems too counter to cricket consensus for my liking.

Yeah