Sunil Gavaskar vs Wally Hammond

[HouHsiaoHsien]

May even take Ponting over him.

The ultimate insult

 

[Prince EWS]

Hammond being described as a culmination of Barry Richards and Viv Richards, @kyear2's dream and @Coronis's nightmare

Wow why does he hate Hammond so much?

 

[capt_Luffy]

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

https://stats.acscricket.com/Archive/Scorecards/13/13795.html

https://stats.acscricket.com/Archive/Scorecards/14/14332.html

but there were times where Larwood bitched him too

https://stats.acscricket.com/Archive/Scorecards/13/13269.html

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.

Imo Hutton was a good captain, but not a Great one. Similarly, Hammond wasn't a half bad captain itself. What I mean to say is, I don't think captaincy is a big buff for Hutton.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Hammond averaged 61, that’s over 10 points higher than Gavaskar. Hammond didn’t like express pace doesn’t mean he couldn’t play them. Kinda like Lara. Walter was said to be the finest player of slow bowling in the world, ahead of even Bradman. Walter tore Ted McDonald apart very early into his career. Miller said he couldn’t get a ball past Walter’s bat when he was already 43 years of age. His record against the quicks in general is more than good enough. Constantine did gave him troubles but Walter did play some brilliant innings in minefields against them.

England beat West Indies, England won by 4 wickets, 1st Test, at Kensington Oval, Bridgetown, Barbados

ENG 102 & 51/6d vs WI 81/7d & 75/6 - England won by 4 wickets in Bridgetown, England tour of West Indies 1935, January 08 - 10, 1935. Check out results, scorecard and detailed analysis of WI vs ENG 1st Test, 1935

www.espncricinfo.com

The batting average for the two as provided by @Coronis in. The first page shows no difference of pitches for the two

 

[capt_Luffy]

Hammond averaged 61, that’s over 10 points higher than Gavaskar. Hammond didn’t like express pace doesn’t mean he couldn’t play them. Kinda like Lara. Walter was said to be the finest player of slow bowling in the world, ahead of even Bradman. Walter tore Ted McDonald apart very early into his career. Miller said he couldn’t get a ball past Walter’s bat when he was already 43 years of age. His record against the quicks in general is more than good enough. Constantine did gave him troubles but Walter did play some brilliant innings in minefields against them.

England beat West Indies, England won by 4 wickets, 1st Test, at Kensington Oval, Bridgetown, Barbados

ENG 102 & 51/6d vs WI 81/7d & 75/6 - England won by 4 wickets in Bridgetown, England tour of West Indies 1935, January 08 - 10, 1935. Check out results, scorecard and detailed analysis of WI vs ENG 1st Test, 1935

www.espncricinfo.com

The batting average for the two as provided by @Coronis in. The first page shows no difference of pitches for the two

Yeah, but Hammond also had just a 10 year long Test career

 

[OverratedSanity]

Gassing up Amar Singh as one of the best pacers he faced. It's laughable I tell you. Any modern player has a record like this you'd be calling them frauds.

 

[Johan]

Imo Hutton was a good captain, but not a Great one. Similarly, Hammond wasn't a half bad captain itself. What I mean to say is, I don't think captaincy is a big buff for Hutton.

I rate Hutton as a very good captain, just a little...tough on his bowlers. I think Hammond's all round contributions are a little overrated and his batting a little underrated for albeit, quite a bit of minnow bashing, I rate Worrel's bowling significantly higher

 

[capt_Luffy]

I rate Hutton as a very good captain, just a little...tough on his bowlers. I think Hammond's all round contributions are a little overrated and his batting a little underrated for albeit, quite a bit of minnow bashing, I rate Worrel's bowling significantly higher

So do I as Worrell did had a higher bowling load. Hammond's fielding is another plus though.

 

[Johan]

Trying to calculate how many hundreds Hammond has over Larwood

 

[capt_Luffy]

Gassing up Amar Singh as one of the best pacers he faced. It's laughable I tell you. Any modern player has a record like this you'd be calling them frauds.

You can't criticize him for Martindale and Constantine without giving him credit for Nissar and Amar Singh. It's equivalent to saying "Sobers averages 45 away without India and Pakistan".

 

[Johan]

So do I as Worrell did had a higher bowling load. Hammond's fielding is another plus though.

Not rating a player over the other for fielding as long as the other isn't a literal liability on field

 

[Prince EWS]

Third is a bit high, but taking that as it is.

The 3rd best bat ever, the greatest slip ever and an underrated and more than useful 5th bowling option.

I assume he's a top 3 cricketer of all time for you, possibly even higher?

My top three is Bradman, Imran, Sobers.

The next little lot I could rank in different orders in any given day really, but he's in it along with Hadlee, Kallis, Marshall and Miller.

I account for slip fielding more than the forum as a whole by a fair way but still a little less than you, and I also rate Hammond's bowling less than you do. But I rate him higher with the bat and also like allrounders more than you do.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Yeah, but Hammond also had just a 10 year long Test career

12 Years (1927-1939) with a War interrupting his career at 36 Years of age.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Not rating a player over the other for fielding as long as the other isn't a literal liability on field

Hammond is arguably the GoAT fielder. You can't tell me with a straight face you don't think of his fielding while rating Jonty Rhodes.

 

[OverratedSanity]

You can't criticize him for Martindale and Constantine without giving him credit for Nissar and Amar Singh. It's equivalent to saying "Sobers averages 45 away without India and Pakistan".

I can if I don't rate amar singh and nisaar

 

[Johan]

Hammond is arguably the GoAT fielder. You can't tell me with a straight face you don't think of his fielding while rating Jonty Rhodes.

I do, But I won't take Jonty Rhodes over someone whom I consider decently better in batting as an overall cricketer

 

[capt_Luffy]

12 Years (1927-1939) with a War interrupting his career at 36 Years of age.

12 is still way too on the lower side for a batsman, since you just decided to ignore him post War.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I can if I don't rate amar singh and nisaar

Then you shan't rate Martindale and Constantine and Cowie as well.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

12 is still way too on the lower side for a batsman, since you just decided to ignore him post War.

12 Years averaging 61+ with his career being interrupted at 36 Years of age. Basically, Steve Smith if COVID had stopped cricket for 7 Years.

 

[Prince EWS]

Well let's see.

He made Cricinfo's 2nd XI, Martin Crowe called him the best post war opener, and he makes his second XI as well, Mark Nicholas also has him as his opener in his all time XI, the roar did an XI to face the Wisden's XI and he was the opener for that, David Gower rates him top 15 all time as a cricketer, Lillee has him as an equal to Viv Richards and Garry Sobers as the best batsmen he's bowled to, Pollock also has him rated equally as a bat to Garry Sobers, Bradman called him the best opening batsman he ever saw, he saw Gavaskar and Hutton.

All this before I have mentioned that between 1970 and '76 he was the best batsman in the world, in '78 when WSC needed an opener he was the one chosen, in a contemporary world XI in '75, Barry was the first name on the team sheet, do you know who else was opening in 1975?

You might say he didn't have a full test career, you might even admit that you don't know anything about him. But it can't be denied that he was an ATG, and one of the best and greatest openers of all time.

Triple hundreds in a day (vs Lillee, McKenzie and Lock no less), 8 hundreds before lunch, was one of only 3 batsmen who performed well during WSC, double hundreds vs Snow, Procter and Lillee.

He was the only opener post WWI who combined an excellent technique and the ability to handle the moving ball, with the ability to score quickly. He had the ability to destroy any attack and one of the top 5 truly elite batsmen of the past 50 years.

I like most of your post, but no it totally could be denied he was an ATG.

If Mark Waugh was banned from Test cricket after seven Tests then most people would definitely call him at ATG and most people would be sure of his stature, and they'd say things like, "Oh everyone who played against him knows he would have averaged 50+ in Tests" - but sometimes looking amazing, having an awesome start to a Test career and dominating domestic attacks doesn't actually translate afterall.