Len Hutton vs Steve Smith

[Coronis]

It entirely depends on the individual. But yeah batting in 20s is generally easier.

Edit : Also why is Younis Khan's age on wiki different than his age on cricinfo?

Damn I wish I had the right meme template but basically *Pakistan* (notorious for incorrect birth dates amongst cricketers)

 

[Coronis]

Found it.

 

[BazBall21]

He faced mystery spin, extreme pace, had the war and injury to contend with. Compared to the era before his, he did face a wide variety of conditions and attacks.

That's part of why he is ahead of Sutcliffe. Vastly more proven in terms of range of challenges. The war+injury was the adversity reference. Great story.

 

[Line and Length]

According to someone in a recent thread it is much easier to bat after the age of 33 than throughout your 20’s.

Hutton wasn't too bad in his 20's.
364 shortly after after he turned 22.

 

[kyear2]

Hutton wasn't too bad in his 20's.
364 shortly after after he turned 22.

Against O'Reilly no less, and with Bradman watching on.

 

[BazBall21]

Have given it to Hutton because when you're in doubt between the active and retired player, benefit of the doubt goes to the retired. Smith can definitely finish above.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Have given it to Hutton because when you're in doubt between the active and retired player, benefit of the doubt goes to the retired. Smith can definitely finish above.

Who'd you rate higher between Hobbs and Hutton?

 

[BazBall21]

Who'd you rate higher between Hobbs and Hutton?

Hobbs maybe the greater cricketer because of everything he did in first-class cricket. He is a near-unparalled titan in that respect. In tests, it's much of a muchness really. Hutton over Hammond on batting.

 

[kyear2]

Hobbs maybe the greater cricketer because of everything he did in first-class cricket. He is a near-unparalled titan in that respect. In tests, it's much of a muchness really. Hutton over Hammond on batting.

Yeah, agree with this. In terms of greatness, Hobbs is probably behind only Bradman and Sobers, but in terms of who was the better, I have to go Hutton over Hobbs. Much better and more varied attacks faced in much more varied locations.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

I think both Hobbs and Hutton are amongst the top 5/6 in the discussion of best after Bradman. But for me Hobbs is the primary candidate for the best after Bradman debate. Didn’t play ATG attacks or tour many countries, but apart from Bradman, no one has been as ahead of their generation as Hobbs was in the pre war era(averaging 60, when it was very good to average 35). Also one can note his dominance on sticky pitches, the fact he transcended eras, and maintained an average of close to 58 for 20 odd years. Lastly he didn’t tour a lot of counties, but perhaps excelled in the greatest extremities of conditions, sticky pitches in England, pace and bounce in Aus(and infamous Gluepot wicket), and matted pitches in SA(was one of the first to figure out the SA googly bowlers).

 

[kyear2]

I think both Hobbs and Hutton are amongst the top 5/6 in the discussion of best after Bradman. But for me Hobbs is the primary candidate for the best after Bradman debate. Didn’t play ATG attacks or tour many countries, but apart from Bradman, no one has been as ahead of their generation as Hobbs was in the pre war era(averaging 60, when it was very good to average 35). Also one can note his dominance on sticky pitches, the fact he transcended eras, and maintained an average of close to 58 for 20 odd years. Lastly he didn’t tour a lot of counties, but perhaps excelled in the greatest extremities of conditions, sticky pitches in England, pace and bounce in Aus(and infamous Gluepot wicket), and matted pitches in SA(was one of the first to figure out the SA googly bowlers).

Hobbs definitely, Hutton I have a bit lower, but still top 10.

Bradman

Tendulkar
Sobers
Hobbs

Richards
Smith
Lara

Hutton
Gavaskar
Ponting
Hammond
Waugh / Border

Not set in stone

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

I have:

Bradman
Hobbs
Tendulkar
Richards
Sobers
Hutton
Smith/Lara

 

[capt_Luffy]

I think both Hobbs and Hutton are amongst the top 5/6 in the discussion of best after Bradman. But for me Hobbs is the primary candidate for the best after Bradman debate. Didn’t play ATG attacks or tour many countries, but apart from Bradman, no one has been as ahead of their generation as Hobbs was in the pre war era(averaging 60, when it was very good to average 35). Also one can note his dominance on sticky pitches, the fact he transcended eras, and maintained an average of close to 58 for 20 odd years. Lastly he didn’t tour a lot of counties, but perhaps excelled in the greatest extremities of conditions, sticky pitches in England, pace and bounce in Aus(and infamous Gluepot wicket), and matted pitches in SA(was one of the first to figure out the SA googly bowlers).

Kinda agree on the Hobbs analogy there. He performed with great consistency in his late 40s; that's wild!!
I would have:
Bradman



Tendulkar
Hobbs
Sobers

Lara
Gavaskar
Richards
Hutton
Smith
Hammond
Headley
Sutcliffe

 

[kyear2]

Kinda agree on the Hobbs analogy there. He performed with great consistency in his late 40s; that's wild!!
I would have:
Bradman



Tendulkar
Hobbs
Sobers

Lara
Gavaskar
Richards
Hutton
Smith
Hammond
Headley
Sutcliffe

6th, wow. That's lofty territory...

 

[capt_Luffy]

6th, wow. That's lofty territory...

I think it's fair..... I basically rate Gavaskar, Richards, Hutton and Smith the same.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Changing my vote to Smith. 10k runs at an average of 56 is very impressive.

Hutton is great too though. Very sad that England can’t produce players of his quality in the modern era.

 

[Johan]

ugh and here goes the xenophobe with his random obsession, anyway.

still Hutton, would probably always be Hutton, simply no better opener in the game bar Jack.

 

[Johan]

Hutton from 1947-1954 averaged 50 every year. Big chunk of that wasn't in a batting era. He was prolific everywhere against everyone. Averaged 68 against an ATG bowling side in that period. Lowest average in a series during that time was 38.

Have always felt he has one of the most bullet-proof resumes which is something bowlers tend to come out on top in. Longevity. Home+away record. Opener tax. Big hundreds. Overcame adversity. Minefield classics and performed against an ATG attack etc. Very high success rate/consistency. Probably a case for him to be England's greatest ever cricketer imo.

Still think Smith has a very good case here though. He's mostly had better home pitches but has probably faced a wider range of challenges. That's effectively the only caveat in Hutton's career. He did close to all he could do.

Probably one of those where you have to wait until the active player finishes to be sure either way.

Good post, I'd say Hutton's record is as flawless as Marshall.

 

[capt_Luffy]

still Hutton, would probably always be Hutton, simply no better opener in the game bar Jack.

Agreed. Hutton>Viv

 

[Johan]

Agreed. Hutton>Viv

skillfully perhaps but I rate Viv's one sided brutalisation of ATG pacers very highly, I don't know what to say, I'm just a sucker for things like that.

also, switch.