Wally Hammond vs Steve Smith

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Headley

Presumably you don't disqualify Warne from ATG status because Murali exists nor vice versa. Great players can be contemporaries without each diminishing the other.

Warne is a great because of how good he was in his career and all the wickets he took. Imagine if Murali was even more freakish and somehow had an average 3 points lower than he did, it wouldn't mean Warne wasn't one of the best spin bowlers in history. He'd still have the record of a ATG and be a consensus top 3 spinner ever despite being clearly 2nd best in his own generation.

Hammond was a contemporary of Bradman who was a once in a century talent. There were other great batsmen he overlapped with. Doesn't stop Hammond from being an ATG himself.

 

[Coronis]

Yeah, I'd probably go Hammond just, over Headley, for that sample size reason but it's really close. If Headley played a series or two more, I'd almost certainly reverse it.

Both are comfortably outclassed by Sutcliffe though, IMHO. Although he isn't as close of a contemporary with only half of career overlapping.

Regardless, my point stands, that this bloke who was outclassed throughout his career, by not just Bradman, but often another top bat as well, shouldn't be venerated nearly as much as he is.

I’m literally the biggest Sutcliffe stan on here and even I don’t think that.

 

[shortpitched713]

I’m literally the biggest Sutcliffe stan on here and even I don’t think that.

I'm pretty sure he's godly in those what percentage of runs scored thing you had shown us earlier.

Usually I don't rate older players (Hobbs, for instance), but in this case I really think it's hard to knock weight of runs for Sutcliffe in harder conditions, compared to Hammond.

 

[shortpitched713]

In addition to being to being a top 4 batsman in the world at the start of the war, he was one of the 3 Hs of English cricket.
He was also arguably the greatest slip fielder in the history of the game, and a more than useful fast bowler.

He was Sobers before Sobers... Almost the Kallis, to Bradman's Tendulkar.

First of all, no he wasn't nearly as good of a bowler as Sobers. But even assuming all that is true, we're talking about him as a batsman purely. People really want to find a back in time pace bowling all-rounder, so they venerate Hammond. But as a batsman alone, if you scrutinize the record, he is clearly not that impressive compared to say Sutcliffe, or Hutton after him.

Don't get me started with that H's ****. Same guys would have me believe that Brahms deserves to be mentioned alongside Bach and Beethoven, when he definitely doesn't.

 

[shortpitched713]

Presumably you don't disqualify Warne from ATG status because Murali exists nor vice versa. Great players can be contemporaries without each diminishing the other.

Warne is a great because of how good he was in his career and all the wickets he took. Imagine if Murali was even more freakish and somehow had an average 3 points lower than he did, it wouldn't mean Warne wasn't one of the best spin bowlers in history. He'd still have the record of a ATG and be a consensus top 3 spinner ever despite being clearly 2nd best in his own generation.

Hammond was a contemporary of Bradman who was a once in a century talent. There were other great batsmen he overlapped with. Doesn't stop Hammond from being an ATG himself.

I think this comparison is a bit apples to oranges.

There's no reason to think that spin bowling was any easier in a systemic sense in the time of Murali and Warne than in another time in history.

Whereas in my mind, there is a reason to believe that batting as a whole, against hamstrung and un-evolved bowling approaches was a lot easier at that time. Bradman was ahead of the curve, so it's hard to tell exactly how freaking good he would be in an actually competitive setting (doesn't make him any less great, by the way, I just think he always was staying one step ahead and improving himself throughout his career to a point that it was never really a fair competition between him and the ball). Hammond was a clueless buffoon in comparison, as unfair as it is to him. We can't say a guy like that who frequently saw Bradman play but failed to replicate the secret sauce to any meaningful extent, could be called a genius the way we consider ATGs from other eras.

 

[Coronis]

I think this comparison is a bit apples to oranges.

There's no reason to think that spin bowling was any easier in a systemic sense in the time of Murali and Warne than in another time in history.

Whereas in my mind, there is a reason to believe that batting as a whole, against hamstrung and un-evolved bowling approaches was a lot easier at that time. Bradman was ahead of the curve, so it's hard to tell exactly how freaking good he would be in an actually competitive setting (doesn't make him any less great, by the way, I just think he always was staying one step ahead and improving himself throughout his career to a point that it was never really a fair competition between him and the ball). Hammond was a clueless buffoon in comparison, as unfair as it is to him. We can't say a guy like that who frequently saw Bradman play but failed to replicate the secret sauce to any meaningful extent, could be called a genius the way we consider ATGs from other eras.

Wow. Just wow.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Wow. Just wow.

Literally "Why didn't Hammond just be as good as Bradman? Was he stupid?"

 

[Coronis]

Literally "Why didn't Hammond just be as good as Bradman? Was he stupid?"

I’ve read some awful posts here in my time, but that one’s up there.

 

[shortpitched713]

Literally "Why didn't Hammond just be as good as Bradman? Was he stupid?"

 

[Johan]

whose a worse minnow basher?

Hammond against New Zealand: 642 @ 331
Smith against West Indies (weaker one): 717 @ 239

 

[Johan]

Would had been closer as overall cricketers, though Smith would still be ahead.

one doesn't play ATG pacers and one doesn't dominate ATG pacers

 

[Narayana]

whose a worse minnow basher?

Hammond against New Zealand: 642 @ 331
Smith against West Indies (weaker one): 717 @ 239

Sachin Tendulkar 1750 runs at 96 against the lifeless bowlers of zim and bangladesh.

 

[Johan]

Sachin Tendulkar 1750 runs at 96 against the lifeless bowlers of zim and bangladesh.

I pointed out how Sachin and Viv output gap is minnow bashing ages ago

 

[BazBall21]

It's more interesting as cricketers. I think Smith is definitely the better batsman.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Smith has passed guys like Hammond, Hutton, and Gavaskar

 

[Fanboy375]

whose a worse minnow basher?

Hammond against New Zealand: 642 @ 331
Smith against West Indies (weaker one): 717 @ 239

NZ team was trash back then but WI during 2010s is awful too.80s NZ was better than current WI

 

[Johan]

Smith is not passing Hutton by making a hundred on a featherbed on day 1 in Sri Lanka after getting dropped

 

[Coronis]

NZ team was trash back then but WI during 2010s is awful too.80s NZ was better than current WI

 

[kyear2]

Smith is not passing Hutton by making a hundred on a featherbed on day 1 in Sri Lanka after getting dropped

Smith's ability to dominate attacks is why I have him above Lara and Hutton in their tier.

Smith
Lara
Hutton

 

[Johan]

Smith's ability to dominate attacks is why I have him above Lara and Hutton in their tier.

Smith
Lara
Hutton

don't really see it, he is much more of a grinder than he is a destroyer, his best serieses and Knocks have him playing slow and steady (other than maybe one series). Lara is the only person there I'd describe as "dominant" really.