Jack Hobbs vs Viv Richards

[Coronis]

Jeez how much of a Viv fan one must be to vote him over Hobbs? it's Hobbs and it's not even close, and I admit that as someone who has Viv as high as he reasonably can be.

Me too!

 

[subshakerz]

probably around 65+ average in Sachin's era and 60+ in Viv's

Your basis for saying this with any confidence isnt solid at all.

The outliers if the past tell me more how the standards of the era allowed for them to exist. Otherwise why aren't we seeing them the past 70 years?

 

[capt_Luffy]

probably around 65+ average in Sachin's era and 60+ in Viv's

65+ in both probably. 80s without WI didn't had any really Great bowling attacks.

 

[subshakerz]

Somehow superhuman cricketers only existed before World War 2.

 

[Coronis]

Somehow superhuman cricketers only existed before World War 2.

I’d call Sobers pretty superhuman too.

 

[Johan]

Your basis for saying this with any confidence isnt solid at all.

The outliers if the past tell me more how the standards of the era allowed for them to exist. Otherwise why aren't we seeing them the past 70 years?

we did though, Steyn was ridiculously far ahead of his opponents between 2007-2014, Smith was averaging 25 points more than Root between 2014-2019.

 

[Johan]

Somehow superhuman cricketers only existed before World War 2.

I had no idea that Cricket evolved so much during the second world war, Adolf Hitler and Winston Churchill to be creditted for the advancement of Cricket?

 

[Johan]

Your basis for saying this with any confidence isnt solid at all.

also, dunno why Hobbs won't average that high tbh, the spinners and medium pacers of the era on flatter pitches won't be a threat at all and he already handled high pace near 50, Idk whose supposed to preassure him except maybe the WI fearsome four at full power.

 

[sayon basak]

Huh?

Viv would be a T20 merchant for all we know.

 

[subshakerz]

we did though, Steyn was ridiculously far ahead of his opponents between 2007-2014, Smith was averaging 25 points more than Root between 2014-2019.

They were still not statistical outliers in overall career respective to other ATGs since the 50s.

also, dunno why Hobbs won't average that high tbh, the spinners and medium pacers of the era on flatter pitches won't be a threat at all and he already handled high pace near 50, Idk whose supposed to preassure him except maybe the WI fearsome four at full power.

Dude you are willing to jump to that superhuman conclusion and honestly don't consider the possibility that maybe the stats and historians maybe be missing facts of how he actually played or was tested.

 

[subshakerz]

I’d call Sobers pretty superhuman too.

Still within the realm of mortals.

 

[Johan]

They were still not statistical outliers in overall career respective to other ATGs.

Yeah, because they're worse than Hobbs

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah, because they're worse than Hobbs

Not addressing the point. Why no outliers post WW2 in terms of bats and bowlers like Barnes, Hobbs and Bradman?

 

[Johan]

Not addressing the point. Why no outliers post WW2 in terms of bats and bowlers like Barnes, Hobbs and Bradman?

Bradman and Hobbs are #1 and #2 in batting, and Hobbs's decline was far more graceful than someone like Smith. though with Hobbs and Smith the situations are reversed as during Hobbs's decline pitches got flatter and during Smith's they became minefields. imagine Smith averaged 58 from 2019 forward and he'd be as ahead of Root as Hobbs was of Trumper or Faulkner.

Bradman is the Greatest cricketer of all time with no one even being good enough to polish his shoes so he's false equivalency.

Barnes was THE BEST of his era but wasn't as ahead of others as Bradman or even Prime Hobbs.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

 

[subshakerz]

Bradman and Hobbs are #1 and #2 in batting, and Hobbs's decline was far more graceful than someone like Smith. though with Hobbs and Smith the situations are reversed as during Hobbs's decline pitches got flatter and during Smith's they became minefields. imagine Smith averaged 58 from 2019 forward and he'd be as ahead of Root as Hobbs was of Trumper or Faulkner.

Bradman is the Greatest cricketer of all time with no one even being good enough to polish his shoes so he's false equivalency.

Barnes was THE BEST of his era but wasn't as ahead of others as Bradman or even Prime Hobbs.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Do you feel Hobbs overall should be bunched with Barnes and Bradman?

 

[Johan]

Do you feel Hobbs overall should be bunched with Barnes and Bradman?

Uh No.

Bradman >>> Hobbs >> Barnes, Barnes was really no more of a standout than Steyn (realistically a bit more), Hobbs would be like Smith or Viv if they didn't completely fall off at the end, Bradman is from another planet, no other explanation.

 

[subshakerz]

Uh No.

Bradman >>> Hobbs >> Barnes, Barnes was really no more of a standout than Steyn (realistically a bit more), Hobbs would be like Smith or Viv if they didn't completely fall off at the end, Bradman is from another planet, no other explanation.

So you just said Hobbs would average 65 plus in the 80s and 90s. That does make him a clear outlier compared to bats that came later.

 

[Johan]

So you just said Hobbs would average 65 plus in the 80s and 90s. That does make him a clear outlier compared to bats that came later.

65+ may be an exaggeration, 60+ in Sachin's era I definitely believe.

 

[sayon basak]

So you just said Hobbs would average 65 plus in the 80s and 90s. That does make him a clear outlier compared to bats that came later.

Tbf Border and Miandad averaged 55 in the 80's, and Tendulkar averaged 58 in the 90's. Don't think a difference of 7 points is enough to call someone an outlier, considering the fact that you don't call Smith an outlier.

 

[subshakerz]

Tbf Border and Miandad averaged 55 in the 80's, and Tendulkar averaged 58 in the 90's. Don't think a difference of 7 points is enough to call someone an outlier, considering the fact that you don't call Smith an outlier.

Smith averages 56.

Averaging over 60 for a long career in the modern age has proven to be a bit of a barrier. Someone doing north of 65 in this era would be an outlier, a minor one compared to Bradman but still would be like a bowler taking 400 wickets averaging 18.