• 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.

Sunil Gavaskar vs Wally Hammond

Who was the greater test batsman?

  • Sunil Gavaskar

    Votes: 17 47.2%

  • Wally Hammond

    Votes: 19 52.8%
  • Total voters
    36
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
subshakerz said:
The WSC performances are quite a feather. However Gavaskar is more accomplished in the SC and against spin.
Click to expand...
They were pretty great performances, but yeah not particularly close for me overall. Lack of SC record, farzi away record and a 12 year long career..... No thank you. May even take Ponting over him.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
I have always felt there were decent amount of "showmanship" in WSC games, probably a bit too much. Like, the aim of that tournament was nowhere for a team to win or lose, but just to make sure the entertainment is absolute; even more so than IPL given the teams were owned by a single person.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
capt_Luffy said:
I have always felt there were decent amount of "showmanship" in WSC games, probably a bit too much. Like, the aim of that tournament was nowhere for a team to win or lose, but just to make sure the entertainment is absolute; even more so than IPL given the teams were owned by a single person.
Click to expand...
All said and done I trust Chappell over Gavaskar against pace which was the big challenge of the time. But Chappell has career issues.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
subshakerz said:
All said and done I trust Chappell over Gavaskar against pace which was the big challenge of the time. But Chappell has career issues.
Click to expand...
I particularly don't, all said and done, but that's probably fair. Definitely not to spin and most definitely not on slower tracks. As I said, not particularly close to me. Chappell has no case over Gavaskar afaic.
 
Johan

Johan

International Regular
capt_Luffy said:
I particularly don't, all said and done, but that's probably fair. Definitely not to spin and most definitely not on slower tracks. As I said, not particularly close to me. Chappell has no case over Gavaskar afaic.
Click to expand...
Chappel was a superior coach
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
Johan said:
I wonder whose a worse person between the two?
Click to expand...
Chappell. And it's not close. Gavaskar actually have a few good philanthropic works as well as he helped some during riots. Him being a dick is for nothing but his massive ego and a mouth he doesn't know how to shut, but isn't necessarily a bad person. Have never heard anything good about Chappell ever.
 
OverratedSanity

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Johan said:
Damn, what sides of Hammond's record do you consider minnow?
Click to expand...
He scored 52% of his runs against NZ, Sa and India who were all teams with atrocious bowling attacks. The only seamers of any repute he faced in his entire career were Cowie (4 matches) and Martindale/Constantine against whom he had a very middling record. Australia's pace bowling stocks during that era were very poor. Virtually all the other decent to great pacers of his time (Larwood, Tate, Voce, Bowes, Farnes) were English and he didn't have to face them. Hammond has one thing is his favour and that's the great record against Oreilly and Grimmett, but against pace it's another story.

Detached from that era of having actually watched his batting, it's impossible for me to say his record is anywhere near as impressive as many modern great batsmen who faced far tougher challenges on average. Even the other great batsmen of his own era like Hutton proved themselves against far superior pacers (especially post WW2) . If any modern ATG had a record as inflated as this, he wouldn't be rated anywhere near as highly as Hammond is. And then, posters actually sit on here and analyze Gavaskar's record with a fine toothed comb to the extent of stadium-wise averages to prove he did do well vs ATG pacers only on slower surfaces as though that's some crippling flaw. It's a complete joke. Hammond's record can't touch Gavaskar's.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
OverratedSanity said:
He scored 52% of his runs against NZ, Sa and India who were all teams with atrocious bowling attacks. The only seamers of any repute he faced in his entire career were Cowie (4 matches) and Martindale/Constantine against whom he had a very middling record. Australia's pace bowling stocks during that era were very poor. Virtually all the other decent to great pacers of his time (Larwood, Tate, Voce, Bowes, Farnes) were English and he didn't have to face them. Hammond has one thing is his favour and that's the great record against Oreilly and Grimmett, but against pace it's another story.

Detached from that era of having actually watched his batting, it's impossible for me to say his record is anywhere near as impressive as many modern great batsmen who faced far tougher challenges on average. Even the other great batsmen of his own era like Hutton proved themselves against far superior pacers (especially post WW2) . If any modern ATG had a record as inflated as this, he wouldn't be rated anywhere near as highly as Hammond is. And then, posters actually sit on here and analyze Gavaskar's record with a fine toothed comb to the extent of stadium-wise averages to prove he did do well vs ATG pacers only on slower surfaces as though that's some crippling flaw. It's a complete joke. Hammond's record can't touch Gavaskar's.
Click to expand...
I am sorry, but India's bowling attack wasn't atrocious in any shape...... Amar Singh and Mohammad Nissar were arguably as good as Martindale and Constantine.
 
Johan

Johan

International Regular
OverratedSanity said:
He scored 52% of his runs against NZ, Sa and India who were all teams with atrocious bowling attacks. The only seamers of any repute he faced in his entire career were Cowie (4 matches) and Martindale/Constantine against whom he had a very middling record. Australia's pace bowling stocks during that era were very poor. Virtually all the other decent to great pacers of his time (Larwood, Tate, Voce, Bowes, Farnes) were English and he didn't have to face them. Hammond has one thing is his favour and that's the great record against Oreilly and Grimmett, but against pace it's another story.

Detached from that era of having actually watched his batting, it's impossible for me to say his record is anywhere near as impressive as many modern great batsmen who faced far tougher challenges on average. Even the other great batsmen of his own era like Hutton proved themselves against far superior pacers (especially post WW2) . If any modern ATG had a record as inflated as this, he wouldn't be rated anywhere near as highly as Hammond is. And then, posters actually sit on here and analyze Gavaskar's record with a fine toothed comb to the extent of stadium-wise averages to prove he did do well vs ATG pacers only on slower surfaces as though that's some crippling flaw. It's a complete joke. Hammond's record can't touch Gavaskar's.
Click to expand...
I'd say India was probably not a minnow attack really, they had remarkable bowlers like Amar Singh and Mahomed Nissar, and South Africa while definitely didn't have remarkable bowlers, their output honestly is not that awful, 36 avg is definitely on the higher side of things but not really that bad. I'd say Hammond definitely had an issue with express pace though. I agree that Constantine more or less bitched Hammond though, Hammond's best work against pace seems to be two hundreds against Larwood and Voce



but there were times where Larwood bitched him too


Definitely agree that Hutton is a greater player than Hammond, Hammond's bowling makes it very close but Hutton's captaincy pulls it back to him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top