• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Jack Hobbs vs Garry Sobers

Who is the better test batsman?


  • Total voters
    23

Coronis

International Coach
Some excerpts from fred’s great article on Sutcliffe.. (referring to the final test of the 1926 Ashes and the third test of the 28/29 Ashes)


That night it rained heavily in London, but the sun broke out in time for play to resume at 11am. There were real fears that the game would, to all intents and purposes, be lost by lunchtime. In the event England were 161-0. Hobbs went for exactly 100 soon after lunch but it was the last act of the final session before Sutcliffe went for 161, with England on 375-6.

Next day England’s tail added another 61 to leave Australia a distant target of 415. They got nowhere near it, capitulating for just 125. Larwood and Rhodes took seven wickets between them, including the first six to fall, to add to the five they took in the first innings. But it was not their bowling that was the key factor in England at last winning back the Ashes, nor Chapman’s captaincy. England won as a consequence of the way in which Sutcliffe and Hobbs batted on the third day.



England were 2-0 up and the fifth day of this timeless Test ended with Australia on 347-8 in their second innings, giving them a lead of 327. Overnight there was rain and the sides were left with, when play started late the next morning, a wicket that Bradman considered the worst sticky he had ever seen. Australia’s last two wickets added just four, so England’s target was 332. No one on the ground gave them a chance, but Hobbs and Sutcliffe opened up with 105 before Hobbs was out. Douglas Jardine stayed with Sutcliffe to the closure at 175-1, out of which Sutcliffe had 83. By the time he was dismissed next day England were just 14 runs short and went on to win by three wickets to retain the Ashes. Again Sutcliffe was praised by all and sundry, but his favourite comment might well have been that of Bradman, who in his 1950 autobiography, Farewell to Cricket, wrote Even now I think Sutcliffe’s exhibition that day was the nearest approach to mastery on a sticky wicket I saw throughout my career ….. his uncanny ability to let the ball go when it jumped or turned was simply amazing.
 

Johan

International Captain
You are switching points.
Yeah but this is like saying "I played Bumrah in 20 innings, but got dismissed by Siraj in 19 innings, so I deserve credit."

It is if the opposite never played against such bowlers.
being outperformed by Michael Atherton (against Donald) and Alec Stewart (against the Ws) is not a feat, like if Sachin and Lara averaged anywhere near their actual average against great bowlers bar Steyn and McG, that'd be a point.
 

Johan

International Captain
Some excerpts from fred’s great article on Sutcliffe.. (referring to the final test of the 1926 Ashes and the third test of the 28/29 Ashes)


That night it rained heavily in London, but the sun broke out in time for play to resume at 11am. There were real fears that the game would, to all intents and purposes, be lost by lunchtime. In the event England were 161-0. Hobbs went for exactly 100 soon after lunch but it was the last act of the final session before Sutcliffe went for 161, with England on 375-6.

Next day England’s tail added another 61 to leave Australia a distant target of 415. They got nowhere near it, capitulating for just 125. Larwood and Rhodes took seven wickets between them, including the first six to fall, to add to the five they took in the first innings. But it was not their bowling that was the key factor in England at last winning back the Ashes, nor Chapman’s captaincy. England won as a consequence of the way in which Sutcliffe and Hobbs batted on the third day.



England were 2-0 up and the fifth day of this timeless Test ended with Australia on 347-8 in their second innings, giving them a lead of 327. Overnight there was rain and the sides were left with, when play started late the next morning, a wicket that Bradman considered the worst sticky he had ever seen. Australia’s last two wickets added just four, so England’s target was 332. No one on the ground gave them a chance, but Hobbs and Sutcliffe opened up with 105 before Hobbs was out. Douglas Jardine stayed with Sutcliffe to the closure at 175-1, out of which Sutcliffe had 83. By the time he was dismissed next day England were just 14 runs short and went on to win by three wickets to retain the Ashes. Again Sutcliffe was praised by all and sundry, but his favourite comment might well have been that of Bradman, who in his 1950 autobiography, Farewell to Cricket, wrote Even now I think Sutcliffe’s exhibition that day was the nearest approach to mastery on a sticky wicket I saw throughout my career ….. his uncanny ability to let the ball go when it jumped or turned was simply amazing.
Sutcliffe is awesome.
 

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Yeah but this is like saying "I played Bumrah in 20 innings, but got dismissed by Siraj in 19 innings, so I deserve credit."
The point is the question is how did someone do against a particular bowler. So you may argue output is low but it's not due to that bowler specifically. In fact we don't know how many runs Sachin scored against those pacers versus the times they got him out.

being outperformed by Michael Atherton (against Donald) and Alec Stewart (against the Ws) is not a feat, like if Sachin and Lara averaged anywhere near their actual average against great bowlers bar Steyn and McG, that'd be a point.
First off, I don't agree with you lumping Lara and Tendulkar together as they had separate issues.

Sachin had mixed returns versus Donald and 2Ws, some great knocks but overall medium output but not really getting out to them in his prime a lot or franky being particularly troubled by their bowking.

Would mixed returns against these pacers combined with better returns against McG and Steyn be better than a bat of a past era who had complete success but only against bowlers a tier or two below? IMO yes.

However this doesn't apply to Hutton who did face great bowlers.
 
Last edited:

Johan

International Captain
The point is the question is how did someone do against a particular bowler. So you may argue output is low but it's not due to that bowler specifically. In fact we don't know how many runs Sachin scored against those pacers versus the times they got him out.
That doesn't really matter, head to heads don't matter in Cricket, this isn't boxing, if someone is playing current Bumrah and they block out Bumrah and make hundreds off the rest of the attack, that's all that matters as they beat Bumrah because they took games away from him, no bat today or in history directly dominates ATG pacers head to head bar Viv or Sobers, that's why attack quality is what matters, Sachin and Lara didn't do well against ATG attacks and made most of their runs against mid attacks, their is a reason their average falls a mile when introduced with good attacks.

First off, I don't agree with you lumping Lara and Tendulkar together as they had separate issues.

Sachin had mixed returns versus Donald and 2Ws, some great knocks but overall medium output but not really getting out to them in his prime a lot or franky being particularly troubled by their bowking.
Yeah, but Atherton averages 45 against the very same attack, Stewart 52 against the Ws (seprately), It is ridiculous to suggest averaging Ben Stokes numbers against most of the greats you face is a plus in an ATG discussion, plus Donald did get Sachin 5 of 20 times and Lara 6 of 20 times.

but again, if you don't score a bunch against these ATG bowlers, you're just average against them.

Would mixed returns against these pacers combined with better returns against McG and Steyn be better than a bat of a past era who had complete success but only against bowlers a tier or two below? IMO yes.

However this doesn't apply to Hutton who did face great bowlers.
much tougher pitches cancel out the bowler advantage imo, if someone like Sachin was averaging 50 against multiple ATGs especially supported by good bowlers, then sure he'd have an argument, but I can't think of anyone who does that except Sobers and Viv.
 

akilana

International 12th Man
20 innings against Donald, 658 runs @ 32, 5 dismissals to Cronje and 5 to Donald.

against Pakistan, he got dismissed constantly by Saqlain.

Neither Sachin nor Lara dismantled great attacks, simply put, just coexisting with great pacers isn't something to be creditted for.
These lines arguments made against other great players but somehow Sachin can't be questioned.
 

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
That doesn't really matter, head to heads don't matter in Cricket, this isn't boxing, if someone is playing current Bumrah and they block out Bumrah and make hundreds off the rest of the attack, that's all that matters as they beat Bumrah because they took games away from him, no bat today or in history directly dominates ATG pacers head to head bar Viv or Sobers, that's why attack quality is what matters, Sachin and Lara didn't do well against ATG attacks and made most of their runs against mid attacks, their is a reason their average falls a mile when introduced with good attacks.
I like how you randomly switch from attacks to head to head. Stay on one point.

I don't consider someone blocking out Bumrah and scoring against the others to have 'dominated' Bumrah.

I care particularly how a batsmen handled a particular great bowler, not as much as he performed against the team which is an entirely different argument.


but again, if you don't score a bunch against these ATG bowlers, you're just average against them.
Yeah we are different. I kind of care how they actually played against these bowlers in real life. You seem to care more about how Tendulkar played against Cronje than he did Donald to determine how he did against Donald.

much tougher pitches cancel out the bowler advantage imo, if someone like Sachin was averaging 50 against multiple ATGs especially supported by good bowlers, then sure he'd have an argument, but I can't think of anyone who does that except Sobers and Viv.
Tough pitches doesn't cancel out being tested overall against better bowling sorry. Especially since Hobbs never faced quality approaching Sachin.

Sachin did well against Steyn and the ATG Aus attack, along with Ambrose Walsh in one series. To me that combined with several high quality knocks against Donald and 2Ws, that is more than enough to cancel out pitch performers.
 

govinda indian fan

International 12th Man
We're discussing pacers, Sachin averages 36 in games with McGrath
One thing if you remove those two matches where he was injured in 04 bgt sachin averages 39 also take into consideration that in 99 series sachin got wrong decisions which were absolute howlers vs mcgarth so much that he was given mos by ca out of gulity of robbing him. If not for howlers srt would have averaged 45 vs mcgarth
 

Johan

International Captain
I like how you randomly switch from attacks to head to head. Stay on one point.

I don't consider someone blocking out Bumrah and scoring against the others to have 'dominated' Bumrah.

I care particularly how a batsmen handled a particular great bowler, not as much as he performed against the team which is an entirely different argument.
again, all we know from Sachin or Lara is that they scored **** against the lineups led by an ATG bowler, there is no ball by ball tracking but that tells us that it's not like they achieved something impressive against ATG bowlers.

again, I'm not going to give you credit for getting dismissed by Donald in 25% of your innings, averaging sub 35 against him (games wise) just because 5 of the dismissals were from Hansie Cronje.

Yeah we are different. I kind of care how they actually played against these bowlers in real life. You seem to care more about how Tendulkar played against Cronje than he did Donald to determine how he did against Donald.
Donald and Cronje dismissed them an equal amount of times, but again, the original point was Sachin made 95% of his runs against non elite Attacks and his performance when faced with ATG pacers is not something that moves me.

I wonder how your logic works though, because earlier you claimed Tendulkar did well against McGrath, but we don't have ball to ball, so if lack of ball to ball discredits Sachin's failure against Donald led south Africa, why does him scoring runs against a McGrath led Australia get validated? couldn't he have scored all his runs against Waugh, like he got out to Cronje?

Tough pitches doesn't cancel out being tested overall against better bowling sorry. Especially since Hobbs never faced quality approaching Sachin.
Disagree, on a tough enough pitch any Tom, Dick and Harry starts averaging sub 25, it's probably harder to score against Kuldeep and Axar on an Indian fast turner than against Warne on a Pakistani road.

Sachin did well against Steyn and the ATG Aus attack, along with Ambrose Walsh in one series. To me that combined with several high quality knocks against Donald and 2Ws, that is more than enough to cancel out pitch performers.
this is silly, go by overall numbers rather than cutting down to when he did well in 2001-2 and moderately well in 99-00, He did ATG work against one ATG pacer, that's it.
 

Johan

International Captain
One thing if you remove those two matches where he was injured in 04 bgt sachin averages 39 also take into consideration that in 99 series sachin got wrong decisions which were absolute howlers vs mcgarth so much that he was given mos by ca out of gulity of robbing him. If not for howlers srt would have averaged 45 vs mcgarth
would've, could've, should've, I don't buy this, the most I'll give you is it's likely SRT would've done well against McGrath if he played more, I'm not giving him points over Hutton for just playing against McGrath though
 

govinda indian fan

International 12th Man
Yeah but this is like saying "I played Bumrah in 20 innings, but got dismissed by Siraj in 19 innings, so I deserve credit."


being outperformed by Michael Atherton (against Donald) and Alec Stewart (against the Ws) is not a feat, like if Sachin and Lara averaged anywhere near their actual average against great bowlers bar Steyn and McG, that'd be a point.
He had problem vs cronje not donald the fact that he didn't want to be captain and was forced to be one 2000 home loss vs sa which effected his record vs donald. When you guys discount lara performance vs Donald due to off Field issues which is justified then same must be for sachin particularly in 2000
 

Johan

International Captain
He had problem vs cronje not donald the fact that he didn't want to be captain and was forced to be one 2000 home loss vs sa which effected his record vs donald. When you guys discount lara performance vs Donald due to off Field issues which is justified then same must be for sachin particularly in 2000
Subs doesn't agree with that, and right in his prime in 96-97 he still averaged only 34 against South Africa, once again, Kind of agitated of being asked to give Sachin points for just facing Donald.
 

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
again, all we know from Sachin or Lara is that they scored **** against the lineups led by an ATG bowler.
Dude I watched Tendulkar in those games. I don't need tracking.

again, I'm not going to give you credit for getting dismissed by Donald in 25% of your innings, averaging sub 35 against him (games wise) just because 5 of the dismissals were from Hansie Cronje.
Once again, using performances against Cronje to judge how he did against Donald. Doesn't make any sense.

I wonder how your logic works though, because earlier you claimed Tendulkar did well against McGrath, but we don't have ball to ball, so if lack of ball to ball discredits Sachin's failure against Donald led south Africa, why does him scoring runs against a McGrath led Australia get validated? couldn't he have scored all his runs against Waugh, like he got out to Cronje?
I watched all those series. I saw him performing against McGrath and Donald. Frankly to me he seemed more comfy against Donald than McGrath despite being more consistent against McGrath in series.

But my point wasn't lack of ball to ball against Donald, it is that in actual gameplay he didn't struggle against him, and his dismissals are spread out, Donald never got on top of him head to head.

Disagree, on a tough enough pitch any Tom, Dick and Harry starts averaging sub 25, it's probably harder to score against Kuldeep and Axar on an Indian fast turner than against Warne on a Pakistani road.
Once again, we lack any video evidence to see how difficult the pitches actually were to compare. It's just conjecture.

this is silly, go by overall numbers rather than cutting down to when he did well in 2001-2 and moderately well in 99-00, He did ATG work against one ATG pacer, that's it.
He doesn't need to be ATG against all ATG pacers to overtake someone who never faced such pacers. Even mixed results are fine.
 

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Kind of agitated of being asked to give Sachin points for just facing Donald.
You don't need to give any points, but don't be so black and white to pretend he failed head to head either.

I also rate those with higher scoring series returns better on this scale.
 

govinda indian fan

International 12th Man
Subs doesn't agree with that, and right in his prime in 96-97 he still averaged only 34 against South Africa, once again, Kind of agitated of being asked to give Sachin points for just facing Donald.
He averaged 40 in return series in south africa but failed badly in home vs them. Thats why it 34 and also he was reluctant captain both the times he was forced to be captain by bcci which affected his performance on Field. Just like you are ready to give lara grace marks for his off Field issues you must give same leverage to sachin for forced captaincy
 

Johan

International Captain
Dude I watched Tendulkar in those games. I don't need tracking.
I've as well, and I don't think other than that one ton in 96-97 he ever looked too comfortable against South African pacers in general, they seemed to have found a decent way around him via bowling a little out his offstump and cutting it in.

Once again, using performances against Cronje to judge how he did against Donald. Doesn't make any sense.
5 dismissals against Donald so No, he didn't perform too well against Donald either.

I watched all those series. I saw him performing against McGrath and Donald. Frankly to me he seemed more comfy against Donald than McGrath despite being more consistent against McGrath in series.

But my point wasn't lack of ball to ball against Donald, it is that in actual gameplay he didn't struggle against him, and his dismissals are spread out, Donald never got on top of him head to head.
Again

I just don't think Head to Head matters, even if someone smacks Pat Cummins for 6 sixes, and then gets out the next over to Nathan Lyon, he doesn't get any credit anymore because he couldn't make anything of his ability against Cummins and made 36 runs, average output.

Once again, we lack any video evidence to see how difficult the pitches actually were to compare. It's just conjecture.
we know what the pitches were, Wet Pitches in England and Matted ones in South Africa, we know how they work and frankly have seen them in work in 1950s, in England (wet) and Pakistan (matted), and the pitches were terrible statistically to the point that teams regularly got packed up under 200.

He doesn't need to be ATG against all ATG pacers to overtake someone who never faced such pacers. Even mixed results are fine.
Frankly his output is average against most ATG pacers, like, legitmately sub Stewart level against a bunch, I'm not giving him credit for being somewhat decent, I'll give him credit for averaging 50+ against Steyn, same way I give Hobbs credit for taming wet and matted wickets, that's it.
 

Johan

International Captain
You don't need to give any points, but don't be so black and white to pretend he failed head to head either.

I also rate those with higher scoring series returns better on this scale.
ok, so no extra points for Sachin for better bowlers other than Steyn
 

Top