Jack Hobbs vs Garry Sobers

[Johan]

@Johan agreed mate hobbs is best after bradman and sachin is a minow basher who is worst then kohli

I literally rated Sachin at #3


Idk why people start acting like this whenever I say anything not positive about Sachin, I critique everyone, even Sobers.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I literally rated Sachin at #3

View attachment 45188
Idk why people start acting like this whenever I say anything not positive about Sachin, I critique everyone, even Sobers.

Viv

 

[Johan]

Viv

You do that enough for me, I don't even need to do anything.

 

[govinda indian fan]

I literally rated Sachin at #3

View attachment 45188
Idk why people start acting like this whenever I say anything not positive about Sachin, I critique everyone, even Sobers.

Ok Cool

 

[peterhrt]

what are his great knocks on bad wickets?

In Tests Trumper's best was probably his 74 out of 122 all out at Melbourne in 1904. Next highest score was 18.

In England in 1902 his hundreds against MCC, Essex, Gloucestershire, Players, and The South were outstanding. On three of those occasions none of his teammates got out of the thirties.

The English method of batting on rain-damaged turf was to leave as much as possible and try and survive until conditions improved. Trumper's was different. As Noble explained, at the point when other batsmen were deciding where the ball was going to land, Trumper was already yards down the pitch meeting the ball on the half volley. Or had moved back outside off-stump to pull through the leg-side.

Fielding captains used to holding the initiative in these conditions were quickly forced onto the defensive to save runs. When they moved the field, Trumper simply found another gap. One of the reasons he opened was to blast the best bowlers out of the attack so their replacements could be milked. Such a high-risk strategy bred inconsistency of course, but it did win matches.

 

[govinda indian fan]

In Tests Trumper's best was probably his 74 out of 122 all out at Melbourne in 1904. Next highest score was 18.

In England in 1902 his hundreds against MCC, Essex, Gloucestershire, Players, and The South were outstanding. On three of those occasions none of his teammates got out of the thirties.

The English method of batting on rain-damaged turf was to leave as much as possible and try and survive until conditions improved. Trumper's was different. As Noble explained, at the point when other batsmen were deciding where the ball was going to land, Trumper was already yards down the pitch meeting the ball on the half volley. Or had moved back outside off-stump to pull through the leg-side.

Fielding captains used to holding the initiative in these conditions were quickly forced onto the defensive to save runs. When they moved the field, Trumper simply found another gap. One of the reasons he opened was to blast the best bowlers out of the attack so their replacements could be milked. Such a high-risk strategy bred inconsistency of course, but it did win matches.

Sir i asked you about how much did sir jack hobbs averaged during his peak 5 year time in another thread. If you dont mind can you please answer my question

 

[kyear2]

Ah yes, the famously easy pre war English and South African pitches

The pitches that this very week that you referenced were beginning to improve?

But yes the pitches before the war weren't great, but the ones after the first war were notoriously flat and the ones in the 50's were as challenging as any.

 

[peterhrt]

Ngl, feel like Hutton and Hobbs are probably the two GOAT bad wicket bats.

Writing in 1950, Pelham Warner said the best English batsmen from the 20th century on rain-damaged turf were Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond, Leyland, Compton, Hutton and Washbrook. From the turn of the century he picked out Johnny Tyldesley. He also said that such pitches became rarer after 1914.

The batsman who played most outstanding Test innings on rain-affected wickets was Arthur Shrewsbury. All against good Australian attacks. And the surfaces were more treacherous in his day.

82 and 47, Sydney 1882
43 and 25, Old Trafford 1884
164, Lord's 1886. Possibly the greatest-ever Test innings on a really bad wicket, which "threatened to become unplayable, the ball kicking and turning viciously, then got worse."
44, Sydney 1888
106, Lord's 1893

Grace stood above his rivals on 'fiery' wickets - fast pitches with uneven bounce.

Neil Harvey was another with several bad-wicket classics to his name:

151*, Durban 1950
69, Leeds 1956 "superb footwork and concentration"
73 and 53, Leeds 1961

His 64 out of 148 at Trent Bridge in 1956 also received praise, but contemporary reports described the pitch as "damp but not difficult".

Alec Bedser thought Harvey and Merchant were the most capable overseas batsmen on rain-damaged turf.

Headley's best was probably 44 (run out) from 102 against England on a genuine sticky at Bridgetown in 1935. England declared their first innings closed at 81 for 7 then chased 74 to win by four wickets. Hammond scored 43 and 29*, winning the match with a six.

 

[peterhrt]

Sir i asked you about how much did sir jack hobbs averaged during his peak 5 year time in another thread. If you dont mind can you please answer my question

Average-wise Hobbs' best five-year Test streak was between 1924 and 1928-29. 2077 runs @ 67.00 with 8 hundreds.

Hobbs himself reckoned he was a better player before the war, reaching his peak in 1914 at the age of 31. Between 1909 and 1913-14, his Test record was 2163 runs @ 60.08 with 5 hundreds. He said the bowling was generally more challenging before 1914 than during the 1920s, with the pitches less in favour of batsmen.

 

[shortpitched713]

Sutcliffe and Hammond were also well noted for their mastery of wet wickets.

I'm sure everyone that we have no or limited footage of, played on minefields with perfect technique.

In reality, you look at actual black and white footage of great batsmen facing the one express bowler of the times in Hall, and they look about as comfortable and technically prepared as I might be wrestling a jaguar. I get they didn't have helmets, but neither did guys about a decade after either, and they looked vastly better at dealing with that stuff.

 

[Johan]

In reality, you look at actual black and white footage of great batsmen facing the one express bowler of the times in Hall, and they look about as comfortable and technically prepared as I might be wrestling a jaguar. I get they didn't have helmets, but neither did guys about a decade after either, and they looked vastly better at dealing with that stuff.

Bodyline? there is a reason that is outlawed. Plus, Sutcliffe is the least of the English big 4 (in my opinion at the very least) and he scored tons of runs against Larwood in first class and the footage of him is as classy as any opener I've seen.

if you're talking about Hall, he averages 30+ against England and Australia, nobody even cares about him, even at his peak Cowdrey easily handled him.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

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.



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.

Agreed. If you’ve done well against India, but struggle against Bumrah head to head, then you’ve clearly struggled against Bumrah specifically.

 

[Johan]

your job is to score runs, not runs against Bumrah.

Bumrah's job is to take your wicket, if he can't break your defense, he already failed.

 

[shortpitched713]

Bodyline? there is a reason that is outlawed. Plus, Sutcliffe is the least of the English big 4 (in my opinion at the very least) and he scored tons of runs against Larwood in first class and the footage of him is as classy as any opener I've seen.

if you're talking about Hall, he averages 30+ against England and Australia, nobody even cares about him, even at his peak Cowdrey easily handled him.

I dunno about specific examples man. All I know is that everyone looked pretty horribly hapless against really quick bowling until a few years after Lille, Thompson, and the WI quartet got established (even then the best batsmen were the ones who could really cope with any consistency). I know, eye test and all, but that's just what I see from the techniques in the footage and I have to call that spade a spade. I won't worship something just because it's in black and white.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

I think it’s pretty obvious that the average speeds that batsmen faced were lower in the 50s and 60s than like post 1980. A lot more spin and medium pace back then.

 

[Johan]

I dunno about specific examples man. All I know is that everyone looked pretty horribly hapless against really quick bowling until a few years after Lille, Thompson, and the WI quartet got established (even then the best batsmen were the ones who could really cope with any consistency). I know, eye test and all, but that's just what I see from the techniques in the footage and I have to call that spade a spade. I won't worship something just because it's in black and white.

TBF Thompson in mid 70s and Lillee before trading speed for movement were significantly faster than their late 70s variants so it makes sense they'd become easier to cope.

 

[Johan]

I think it’s pretty obvious that the average speeds that batsmen faced were lower in the 50s and 60s than like post 1980. A lot more spin and medium pace back then.

depends from country to country

 

[centurymaker]

your job is to score runs, not runs against Bumrah.

Bumrah's job is to take your wicket, if he can't break your defense, he already failed.

or you stay off strike more.

 

[Coronis]

lol.

The pitches that this very week that you referenced were beginning to improve?

But yes the pitches before the war weren't great, but the ones after the first war were notoriously flat and the ones in the 50's were as challenging as any.

Beginning to improve yes… still were awful for batting by post war standards.

Average in England pre-war from Hobbs’ debut - 20.94
Average in England in the 1950’s - 25.45

 

[subshakerz]

your job is to score runs, not runs against Bumrah.

Bumrah's job is to take your wicket, if he can't break your defense, he already failed.

Ok but can you say you dominate Bumrah if all you do is block him and are incapable of scoring runs against him?