Jack Hobbs vs Sachin Tendulkar

[L Trumper]

That's a errr... pretty bold opinion I guess. Is Hobbs the only one worthy of that #2 spot then for you

If it only for tests then yes Bradman and Hobbs are pretty much set at 1 and 2. Both of them have outputs roughly 50 - 60 % better than their great contemporaries, Bradman maintained that throughout his career, for Hobbs it was during the 6 year Pre-War period.

But that's not the right way to rate players though, we should look at cricket during the times they're playing. For the first 2/3rds of Tendulkar's career ODI cricket is considered equal to test cricket and throughout Hobbs' career, not much distinction made between majority of the first class games and test matches. In totality I'd rate them much closer and probable equals.

 

[Coronis]

If it only for tests then yes Bradman and Hobbs are pretty much set at 1 and 2. Both of them have outputs roughly 50 - 60 % better than their great contemporaries, Bradman maintained that throughout his career, for Hobbs it was during the 6 year Pre-War period.

But that's not the right way to rate players though, we should look at cricket during the times they're playing. For the first 2/3rds of Tendulkar's career ODI cricket is considered equal to test cricket and throughout Hobbs' career, not much distinction made between majority of the first class games and test matches. In totality I'd rate them much closer and probable equals.

I love Hobbs myself and have him number 2. But this is just incorrect. People often look at the overall stats of other players during the pre war period, rather than from Hobbs’ debut, which gives a false indication, as pitches were continually improving.

From Hobbs’ debut til the war… top 5 runscorers in tests.

Hobbs 28 matches 49 innings 2465 @ 57.32 5 tons 16 fifties
Rhodes 29 matches 50 innings 1578 @ 35.06 2 tons 10 fifties
Bardsley 20 matches 33 innings 1490 @ 44.15 5 tons 7 fifties
Faulkner 16 matches 31 innings 1471 @ 50.72 4 tons 8 innings
Trumper 19 matches 36 innings 1433 @ 44.78 4 tons 5 fifties

Yes obviously he was still clearly the best bat of his time. But his dominance is often overstated here.

 

[Daemon]

There were also fewer teams back then so a smaller pool from which to be an outlier of.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

29-30 in Sachin’s favour atm that’s how you would expect a battle for the 2nd best batsman ever to be. I have Hobbs 2nd and Sachin 3rd. They slightly separate themself from the pack and I would say both of them are almost the exact very same guy in 2 different era.

 

[L Trumper]

I love Hobbs myself and have him number 2. But this is just incorrect. People often look at the overall stats of other players during the pre war period, rather than from Hobbs’ debut, which gives a false indication, as pitches were continually improving.

From Hobbs’ debut til the war… top 5 runscorers in tests.

Hobbs 28 matches 49 innings 2465 @ 57.32 5 tons 16 fifties
Rhodes 29 matches 50 innings 1578 @ 35.06 2 tons 10 fifties
Bardsley 20 matches 33 innings 1490 @ 44.15 5 tons 7 fifties
Faulkner 16 matches 31 innings 1471 @ 50.72 4 tons 8 innings
Trumper 19 matches 36 innings 1433 @ 44.78 4 tons 5 fifties

Yes obviously he was still clearly the best bat of his time. But his dominance is often overstated here.

Nah! SA tests are not considered equal to Ashes tests at that time. You cannot use current parameters to judge him.

His dominance in ashes tests is pretty clear from 1908 - 1914, only bettered by Bradman since then.

 

[Johan]

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

stats.espncricinfo.com

well that's just mildly terrifying.

 

[L Trumper]

There were also fewer teams back then so a smaller pool from which to be an outlier of.

This line of argument always support modern players over older ones. Then we might as well not compare them.

Besides England has as many if not more cricketers playing in Hobbs' era than now.

 

[peterhrt]

Nah! SA tests are not considered equal to Ashes tests at that time. You cannot use current parameters to judge him.

His dominance in ashes tests is pretty clear from 1908 - 1914, only bettered by Bradman since then.

Test averages of batsmen who appeared both before and after WW1. Only includes runs against English and Australian bowling. Qualification 1000 runs.

Hobbs 54, Macartney 43, Faulkner 40, Herbie Taylor 40, Armstrong 35, Woolley 33, Bardsley 33, Rhodes 31, Dave Nourse 29

 

[Johan]

I think South Africa had a googly brigade which would obviously be a problem in English wet pitches and South African matted pitches but would be toothless on hard, rough Australian wickets, so I don't know if I'd rate runs against South Africa in Australia.

 

[govinda indian fan]

Test averages of batsmen who appeared both before and after WW1. Only includes runs against English and Australian bowling. Qualification 1000 runs.

Hobbs 54, Macartney 43, Faulkner 40, Herbie Taylor 40, Armstrong 35, Woolley 33, Bardsley 33, Rhodes 31, Nourse 29

Sir what was hobbs average during his peak years. Only test matches no fc cricket

 

[Johan]

Sir what was hobbs average during his peak years. Only test matches no fc cricket

Hobbs from 1910 to early 1929 made 4,613 @ 64 with only 5 red inks. He had breaks though, world war, then a life threatening surgery, then illnesses and so forth

 

[peterhrt]

I think South Africa had a googly brigade which would obviously be a problem in English wet pitches and South African matted pitches but would be toothless on hard, rough Australian wickets, so I don't know if I'd rate runs against South Africa in Australia.

Yes, the 1910-11 Australia v South Africa series is difficult to assess. Vogler had drink problems and was virtually finished. Faulkner spent hours batting in the nets adjusting to the harder pitches, but neglected his bowling. Schwarz, who only bowled googlies, was the only one to live up to his reputation.

Australia also fielded three left-handed batsmen, and Trumper was so quick on his feet that the South African spinners were unable to settle.

 

[Johan]

Yes, the 1910-11 Australia v South Africa series is difficult to assess. Vogler had drink problems and was virtually finished. Faulkner spent hours batting in the nets adjusting to the harder pitches, but neglected his bowling. Schwarz, who only bowled googlies, was the only one to live up to his reputation.

Australia also fielded three left-handed batsmen, and Trumper was so quick on his feet that the South African spinners were unable to settle.

Yeah don't really rate runs that series.

 

[sayon basak]

Test averages of batsmen who appeared both before and after WW1. Only includes runs against English and Australian bowling. Qualification 1000 runs.

Hobbs 54, Macartney 43, Faulkner 40, Herbie Taylor 40, Armstrong 35, Woolley 33, Bardsley 33, Rhodes 31, Dave Nourse 29

Could you provide the stats of Headley, Bradman, Trumper, Hobbs, Grace, Hill etc. on damaged/wet pitches?

 

[Coronis]

Could you provide the stats of Headley, Bradman, Trumper, Hobbs, Grace etc. on damaged/wet pitches?

Jeez. That’s a big ask. Meant to go through every match they played and find out when it rained and which innings was affected and when the pitch had become ok for batting and factor in rest days?

 

[sayon basak]

Jeez. That’s a big ask. Meant to go through every match they played and find out when it rained and which innings was affected and when the pitch had become ok for batting and factor in rest days?

I found the stats of Bradman, so I thought stats of other batters would be available to him as well.

Don Bradman:-
On normal wickets:-
65 innings; 6712 runs @119.90; 29 100's, 12 50's & 3 0's

On sticky wickets:-
15 innings; 284 runs @20.29; 0 100's, 1 50's & 4 0's

I just know that Headley scored 7 50+ scored in 13/14 innings.

 

[centurymaker]

So 20% of his career was on sticky wickets and he averaged 20.

Then 10% of his career was bodyline and he averaged 50 odd.

So people who are voting the hypothetical batsman in the other threads have enough reason to do so.

 

[sayon basak]

So 20% of his career was on sticky wickets and he averaged 20.

Then 10% of his career was bodyline and he averaged 50 odd.

So people who are voting the hypothetical batsman in the other threads have enough reason to do so.

The hypothetical player wouldn't play any match on sticky wickets tho, which is a massive advantage to him. And don't know what the hypothetical player would average to bouncers.

It'd be helpful if someone provided the stats of modern batters vs bouncers.

 

[centurymaker]

IIRC it wasn't the whole series with bodyline tactics, just some/most of the tests.

 

[Daemon]

This line of argument always support modern players over older ones. Then we might as well not compare them.

Haha what sort of logic is this?

“This argument supports the other side therefore we should not consider it at all”