J Hobbs Vs Imran

[HouHsiaoHsien]

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.

Sutcliffe played post WW1. Pre that, Hobbs had near unprecedented dominance(apart from Bradman and Grace) over his peers. He was averaging 60 when averaging 36 was considered good.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

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.

Cmon bro. Hobbs behind Smith? I understand if you put Tendulkar or Viv or Sobers ahead.

 

[subshakerz]

Cmon bro. Hobbs behind Smith? I understand if you put Tendulkar or Viv or Sobers ahead.

Not yet. Hobbs is still ahead. Was considering it but Kyear makes a good point, it defies too much cricket consensus to do so.

 

[smash84]

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.

So you're essentially saying that we shouldn't be comparing across eras?

 

[shortpitched713]

So you're essentially saying that we shouldn't be comparing across eras?

Probably nothing from before the wars, yes.

XIs with Barnes or Hobbs (especially something like Hobbs/Sutcliffe for both opener roles) are a bit whack, for mine.

 

[subshakerz]

Probably nothing from before the wars, yes.

XIs with Barnes or Hobbs (especially something like Hobbs/Sutcliffe for both opener roles) are a bit whack, for mine.

Yeah.

 

[smash84]

Probably nothing from before the wars, yes.

XIs with Barnes or Hobbs (especially something like Hobbs/Sutcliffe for both opener roles) are a bit whack, for mine.

Well, if you want to be consistent then stop comparing eras. Either you compare relative to the peers and then compare across eras, or you don't. Be consistent.

 

[shortpitched713]

Generally I don't. But I just felt like in this thread to throw out the counterargument to the "Hobbs is the best opener ever so called consensus".

 

[shortpitched713]

Also, in the clip we saw with him and Sutcliffe, Hobbs plays with hard hands and lead feet.

 

[subshakerz]

Well, if you want to be consistent then stop comparing eras. Either you compare relative to the peers and then compare across eras, or you don't. Be consistent.

There was a point mid-20th century at which cricket became professional enough that era comparing can be defended IMO. But early 1900s no.

 

[smash84]

Also, in the clip we saw with him and Sutcliffe, Hobbs plays with hard hands and lead feet.

Sure, but that still got him a great output for the era he played in. He wasn't supposed to prepare for a rampaging Thomson.

 

[smash84]

There was a point mid-20th century at which cricket became professional enough that era comparing can be defended IMO. But early 1900s no.

No, cricket really only became professional after WSC. Before that pretty much all cricketers held a "day" job.

Heck, Pakistan's best pacer, pre Imran, Fazal Mahmood himself was a government servant.

 

[Coronis]

Yeah there’s a magical crossover point.

 

[Coronis]

No, cricket really only became professional after WSC. Before that pretty much all cricketers held a "day" job.

Heck, Pakistan's best pacer, pre Imran, Fazal Mahmood himself was a government servant.

ironic, huh

 

[smash84]

ironic, huh

Indeed.

 

[subshakerz]

No, cricket really only became professional after WSC. Before that pretty much all cricketers held a "day" job.

Heck, Pakistan's best pacer, pre Imran, Fazal Mahmood himself was a government servant.

Actually, I agree with that partially.

In terms of the sport and the way it's generally played in term, sometime around mid century is when it basically became standardized.

But in terms of it being a competitive professional sport, I would say that happened with mid-70s Chappell and WSC.

However, as a basic game, you can still compare pre and post WSC players, I have always said I give somewhat of an advantage to WSC onwards players, Sobers and Bradman aside. But early 1900s seems too different a game to be reconciled in terms of accepting their records.

 

[smash84]

Actually, I agree with that partially.

In terms of the sport and the way it's generally played in term, sometime around mid century is when it basically became standardized.

But in terms of it being a competitive professional sport, I would say that happened with mid-70s Chappell and WSC.

However, as a basic game, you can still compare pre and post WSC players, I have always said I give somewhat of an advantage to WSC onwards players, Sobers and Bradman aside. But early 1900s seems too different a game to be reconciled in terms of accepting their records.

That is your problem then. You're drawing arbitrary lines of when cricket becomes of a sufficiently "good standard".

Without a good argument as to why we should exclude Hobbs, we shouldn't.

And taking this reasoning to its extreme, since general fitness standards have been increasing for the last 50 years, Jimmy Anderson > all the fast bowlers of the 70s and 80s.

 

[subshakerz]

That is your problem then. You're drawing arbitrary lines of when cricket becomes of a sufficiently "good standard".

It's not arbitrary lines. Pretending it's just one continuum and we should just treat all records at face value is a bigger problem.

Without a good argument as to why we should exclude Hobbs, we shouldn't.

I don't say exclude. I say don't rate as high.

And taking this reasoning to its extreme, since general fitness standards have been increasing for the last 50 years, Jimmy Anderson > all the fast bowlers of the 70s and 80s.

Fitter? Sure. Better? No evidence of that.

 

[smash84]

It's not arbitrary lines. Pretending it's just one continuum and we should just treat all records at face value is a bigger problem.



Fitter? Sure. Better? No evidence of that.

It is arbitrary.

Same argument can be used for Hobbs, modern batsmen are fitter, sure. Better? No evidence of that.

 

[peterhrt]

No, cricket really only became professional after WSC. Before that pretty much all cricketers held a "day" job.

Professional cricket goes back more than 300 years.

WG Grace was technically an amateur but earned more than £1 million from the game in today's money, at a time when there was no sponsorship. For a single tour to Australia in 1873-74, before the days of Test cricket, he was paid the equivalent of over £100,000.

Grace's "day job" as a doctor was non-existent during the summer, which he spent almost entirely on the cricket field.