Sunil Gavaskar vs Herbert Sutcliffe

[Johan]

Sutcliffe vs the Bodyline duo

Larwood: 870 @ 51.17
Voce: 1400 @ 60.8
Constantine: 297 @ 42.4

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

In India he has a lot of critics. People who call him selfish and a slow batsman.

People call him selfish, yet all other selfless Indian players became burden for the team in their final years. While Gavaskar retired after winning man of the matches in last Test, 2nd last ODI and scoring 188 against Marshall and Hadlee in last FC.

 

[Johan]

People not liking Gavaskar isn't a bad thing, he's a racist loudmouthed insensitive piece of trash, never thought his batting was selfish though.

 

[capt_Luffy]

People not liking Gavaskar isn't a bad thing, he's a racist loudmouthed insensitive piece of trash, never thought his batting was selfish though.

Had issues for Dev (benched him once!) and Vengsarkar for egoistic reasons and never rated Doshi (might had been the best 80s spinner with the slightest of backings. Arguably was still) instead backing Shastri as a spinner (lol).

 

[Johan]

Had issues for Dev (benched him once!) and Vengsarkar for egoistic reasons and never rated Doshi (might had been the best 80s spinner with the slightest of backings. Arguably was still) instead backing Shastri as a spinner (lol).

Yeah personality and very much batting wise he's the Indian Boyc

 

[shortpitched713]

He makes a terrible impression to many Indian fans because in the greatest triumph of 83 World Cup, he failed and mostly was a passenger.

However, people don't separate that aspect of Limited Overa limitedness with his real value as a Test world beater. Because that format requires more than just instant gratification of a single tournament result, and to look at nuance of performance over time and against quality opposition to really understand matchwinning value.

 

[kyear2]

100 percent correct statement.I can’t think Sutcliffe being more than 2-3 runs behind Hutton’s average,if you put Sutcliffe in Hutton’s time.
Hutton is no.2 after Hobbs but Sutcliffe is almost Hutton’s equal at no.3 spot Imho.
And I don’t think Hutton is good enough to break Hobbs/Sutcliffe partnership in ATG team.

I don't get where some persons here believe that Sutcliffe is even in the same tier as Hutton.

This narrative doesn't exist outside of CW.

Hutton is a legitimate contender for best after Bradman, one of a handful of legit contenders for an all time world XI spot and the greatest batsman of one of, if not the toughest era to bat.

Sutcliffe played in the absolute flattest era in the history of the sport, with the old lbw law and still scored as a glacial pace, while still being overshadowed by an aging Hobbs.

I find that context is totally missed with looking at averages for batsmen. There's nothing similar about the the conditions that Sutcliffe and Hutton faced

It's like Sutcliffe doesn't tick most of the boxes we look at.

Peer rating / best of era - No.
Tough batting era - No.
Dominated attacks - No.

The ultimate contrast is between Sutcliffe and Richards. One is a Wisden top 5 player of the century, a lock for an all time XI by anyone who saw him play and a man who changed sessions, games and series while taking on ATG bowlers in difficult conditions and he forged a dynasty. But some (though thankfully a few) would just look at the average despite one not ever doing any of those things, and rate him higher.

Hutton was considerably better, the mitigating factors aren't close imo.

 

[Coronis]

I don't get where some persons here believe that Sutcliffe is even in the same tier as Hutton.

This narrative doesn't exist outside of CW.

Hutton is a legitimate contender for best after Bradman, one of a handful of legit contenders for an all time world XI spot and the greatest batsman of one of, if not the toughest era to bat.

Sutcliffe played in the absolute flattest era in the history of the sport, with the old lbw law and still scored as a glacial pace, while still being overshadowed by an aging Hobbs.

I find that context is totally missed with looking at averages for batsmen. There's nothing similar about the the conditions that Sutcliffe and Hutton faced

It's like Sutcliffe doesn't tick most of the boxes we look at.

Peer rating / best of era - No.
Tough batting era - No.
Dominated attacks - No.

The ultimate contrast is between Sutcliffe and Richards. One is a Wisden top 5 player of the century, a lock for an all time XI by anyone who saw him play and a man who changed sessions, games and series while taking on ATG bowlers in difficult conditions and he forged a dynasty. But some (though thankfully a few) would just look at the average despite one not ever doing any of those things, and rate him higher.

Hutton was considerably better, the mitigating factors aren't close imo.

I’ve changed my mind now. Sutcliffe and Hutton aren’t practically even, Sutcliffe is now easily ahead.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I’ve changed my mind now. Sutcliffe and Hutton aren’t practically even, Sutcliffe is now easily ahead.

Yk almost so was my first response.....

 

[Johan]

 

[kyear2]

Sutcliffe got considerably less hype than the other pre-war England immortals. Hammond, Hobbs, Barnes etc. Can extend that to Hutton and Compton also, both debuted before the War. Even Frank Woolley and Peter May seemed to get more glamour and adulation than Herbert.

When they are talking about the great pre war batsmen it's the three H's that's elevated to a higher sphere. There's a reason for that.

 

[peterhrt]

Sutcliffe got considerably less hype than the other pre-war England immortals. Hammond, Hobbs, Barnes etc. Can extend that to Hutton and Compton also, both debuted before the War. Even Frank Woolley and Peter May seemed to get more glamour and adulation than Herbert.

This is very true. A flavour from some prominent eye-witnesses:

Ian Peebles: There was none of the polished elegance of Hobbs about the batting of Sutcliffe. He was essentially a practical batsman...He made few classical strokes...Where he was unexcelled was in the courage, determination and concentration he brought to the job in hand.

EW Swanton (writing in 1962): Around the star of Hobbs revolved several radiant satellites. There was Woolley, that magnetic artist whose fine achievements as a bowler and holder of the record number of catches seem so secondary to those who were captivated by his batting, even thought they help to place him with Wilfred Rhodes as the greatest of all-rounders. There was Sutcliffe, of the incomparable temperament and the wonderful Test record; there was Hammond who as a natural athlete among cricketers stands almost by himself...In terms of talent, style and stamina there is no one in this century to stand with him. Within my watching scope Keith Miller perhaps comes nearest. (Swanton didn't actually like Hammond the person).

John Warr: Denis Compton, one of the greatest artists the game has known. A prince of players who must command a place in the XI of the greatest cricketers ever.

Sutcliffe was also the socially mobile type of professional that Lord's mistrusted, although he had the good sense to turn down the Yorkshire captaincy. The press pushed for him go to Australia in 1936-37, at the age of 42, but skipper Gubby Allen didn't want him. Allen later said that Paynter and 18 year-old Compton should have been picked, but didn't mention Sutcliffe.

 

[morgieb]

Actually going to go against the grain and go Sutcliffe. Gavaskar's Australian and West Indian record look way less impressive when you consider the attacks he faced when he actually scored bulk runs.

 

[kyear2]

Actually going to go against the grain and go Sutcliffe. Gavaskar's Australian and West Indian record look way less impressive when you consider the attacks he faced when he actually scored bulk runs.

And that's very fair.