Debunking a myth – Len Hutton's batting style

[Johan]

Evening,

so a very big myth that's brought up in every Hutton comparison thread would be the idea that he was a boring, dour batsmen who lacked the ability to dominate the opposition and this has made a lot of people underestimate his ability, but well, Hutton wasn't just perhaps the greatest technician in history of the great game but he was also a brilliant strokemaker and easily able to dominate attacks when the need be.

most of the misconceptions stem from this quote from his contemporary and friend, and another great Batsmen, Denis Compton.

"His class was way, way above all but a tiny few in any era, but to me it was all the more puzzling that he remained suspicious and defensive and allowed all types of bowlers to dictate to him on good wickets, when he should have been the boss...As the years went by and I watched him plod against inferior attacks, I could not fathom why"

The quote seems strangely anti Hutton, and from this people have read and come to the conclusion that Hutton was not a great strokemaker and was very defensive and rigid in his batting style, but when read carefully, at not a single point does Compton claimed that Hutton could not attack or dominate, his claim is should, not could, thus nothing to do with ability on certain. Sure, in a vacuum one can argue that the implication he's making is that Hutton lacked the stroke play and ability to dominate in general even against poor attacks, but this is not true, as the very same person confirms to us, Compton himself.

Here's him explaining how Hutton, when need arises, played the most attractive and finest shots to attack.

“Len [produced] the finest and most attractive shots and showing the style of open cricket which perhaps we did not later see from him sufficiently often.”

one of his innings when he wasn't really in the condition to bat, he played some ludicrous shots, to the point that people on the ground started talking about Victor Trumper, one of the game's greatest strokemaker.

“veterans on the ground babbled about Victor Trumper”

Now, one can say, it was on an easy wicket or it was against a weak attack or whatever…but in the 1950 Ashes first test, on an insane sticky dog against perhaps the greatest bowling attack ever assembled in the form of the Invincibles, Hutton thrashed them on day 5.

“given yet another exhibition of his wonderful batsmanship on tricky turf … Hutton thrashed the fast bowlers majestically and played the turning or lifting ball with the ease of a master craftsman”

this isn't just me, back in 1930s, Herbert Sutcliffe noticed Hutton and mentored him in a sense and the thing he praised the most was his style, which obviously correlates to one again, his stroke play and not his conventional defense, once again saying Hutton was considered a brilliant stroke player and not just a pure technician.

“Hutton has not yet received his Yorkshire cap, and he is no more than 18 years old, but I am bold enough to say that he is a certainty for a place as England’s opening batsman. He is a marvel — the discovery of a generation. At the age of 14 he was a good enough batsman to play from most county sides, and season by season since then I have watched his progress steadily … This boy will be a power in the land before many moons, and I should not be surprised to find him attracting as much attention as any batsman, including the great Don [Bradman], for his style and his polished skill must triumph."

Later on, after the war, once again, Bill O Reilly explains how Hutton’s footwork and stroke play are some of his strengths, not just focusing on his defense but seeing his ability to play strokes as an equal of his general ability. Calling him a “finished player” as in a complete player, not something you call someone who lacks the ability to play open Cricket.

Talking about how he controls the game.

"His footwork is as light and sure and confident as Bradman's ever was. He is the finished player now ... one cannot fail to be impressed with the fluency and gracefulness of his strokemaking ... His control of the game is masterful."

and now, here is Richie Benaud basically calling out people who could be labeled with a good chunk of the forum, and basically telling everyone that Hutton was a capable stroke maker with perfect technique.

"People tend to label Len as a conservative batsman but he was an attractive stroke player and everything was done with the perfect technique."

Now, why did Denis Compton come to the conclusion that Hutton should've dominated more? Well, because they were different people.

Compton was the great entertainer, he understood that ultimately Cricketers are meant to stage and entertain the audience that comes to watch the games and thus he was the light that illuminated English Cricket after the disaster that was the second world war. But that also meant he played an aggressive brand of Cricket and he was successful doing it, but I don't really say anything controversial when I say he wasn't exactly in Hutton’s class as a Batsman.

Compton looked to dominate, to attack, he was the guy who'd make 100 runs in a single session, but he was also the guy whose average went from 60 to mid to late 40s aided by a knee injury when the pitches got spicy, and that was the true difference between Compton and Hutton, when Compton confessed he could never play the 365 inning without making mistakes.

“Len’s innings at The Oval convinced me that Herbert [Sutcliffe] had not exaggerated. I was struck by his marvellously relaxed stance and the amount of time he had to play the ball. Apart from his endurance, his concentration and dedication were fantastic, he was just never out of tempo. I have never seen anyone who looked less likely to get out. I soon realised that Len could play the type of innings that was foreign to my nature. I could not have batted that length of time without having a number of rushes of blood, but he just ground on, unwilling to break his concentration even for one ball.”

Hutton was not like Compton, he wasn't an entertainer but a professional, his job was to win games and he did just that, he did not care for the theatrics and that is what Compton found not comprehensible without Hutton from what I understand. It's two very different people with two different mindsets, Hutton likely never understood how Compton could be satisfied with throwing his wicket away so many times, and Compton could never understand how Hutton was fine not attacking for so long.

Compton truly never intended to question Hutton’s ability to make strokes and attack however, as he himself validates my understanding of the whole situation and pins their professional differences down to being different people and calls Hutton one of the best strokemakers in the game.

"We were different characters but very good friends, and he was the greatest opening batsman I have ever seen. I say that because in our day we played on uncovered wickets. His powers of concentration were remarkable, but when he wanted to be he was one of the best strokemakers in the game."

Hutton likely simply based his game on the classical Yorkshire "never get out" mentality for openers as shown by his predecessor Herbert Sutcliffe and successor Geoffrey Boycott, as well as learning from Sutcliffe's attitude to cricket as there are stories of Hutton being chastised for making a hundred and then giving away his wicket, By Herbert Sutcliffe.

all in all, Hutton is probably the most absolutely flawless batsmen and he was indeed a brilliant strokemaker, a skill recognised by Sutcliffe to Compton (a brilliant strokemaker in his own right) to Tiger to Benaud. Therefore, the whole “Hutton couldn't attack” thing doesn't even exist and is the result of one misinterpreted passage from Denis Compton and people criticising him for negative Cricket and not enough theatrics (go cry me a river). When he wanted to, Hutton was one of the best strokemakers of the game and I'd trust one of the English captains of all time to have a better understanding of when the need is to defend and when the need is to attack, than any of us.

Thank You for Reading.

 

[kyear2]

Jesus, that's long.

 

[Johan]

Jesus, that's long.

heh, found the topic particularly interesting to research.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Hutton was one of the very best.

 

[Coronis]

Level of competition must’ve been so bad then if he could bat with half an arm.

 

[kyear2]

Hutton was one of the very best.

Don't think anyone has ever doubted that.

 

[kyear2]

Evening,

so a very big myth that's brought up in every Hutton comparison thread would be the idea that he was a boring, dour batsmen who lacked the ability to dominate the opposition and this has made a lot of people underestimate his ability, but well, Hutton wasn't just perhaps the greatest technician in history of the great game but he was also a brilliant strokemaker and easily able to dominate attacks when the need be.

most of the misconceptions stem from this quote from his contemporary and friend, and another great Batsmen, Denis Compton.



The quote seems strangely anti Hutton, and from this people have read and come to the conclusion that Hutton was not a great strokemaker and was very defensive and rigid in his batting style, but when read carefully, at not a single point does Compton claimed that Hutton could not attack or dominate, his claim is should, not could, thus nothing to do with ability on certain. Sure, in a vacuum one can argue that the implication he's making is that Hutton lacked the stroke play and ability to dominate in general even against poor attacks, but this is not true, as the very same person confirms to us, Compton himself.

Here's him explaining how Hutton, when need arises, played the most attractive and finest shots to attack.



one of his innings when he wasn't really in the condition to bat, he played some ludicrous shots, to the point that people on the ground started talking about Victor Trumper, one of the game's greatest strokemaker.



Now, one can say, it was on an easy wicket or it was against a weak attack or whatever…but in the 1950 Ashes first test, on an insane sticky dog against perhaps the greatest bowling attack ever assembled in the form of the Invincibles, Hutton thrashed them on day 5.



this isn't just me, back in 1930s, Herbert Sutcliffe noticed Hutton and mentored him in a sense and the thing he praised the most was his style, which obviously correlates to one again, his stroke play and not his conventional defense, once again saying Hutton was considered a brilliant stroke player and not just a pure technician.



Later on, after the war, once again, Bill O Reilly explains how Hutton’s footwork and stroke play are some of his strengths, not just focusing on his defense but seeing his ability to play strokes as an equal of his general ability. Calling him a “finished player” as in a complete player, not something you call someone who lacks the ability to play open Cricket.

Talking about how he controls the game.



and now, here is Richie Benaud basically calling out people who could be labeled with a good chunk of the forum, and basically telling everyone that Hutton was a capable stroke maker with perfect technique.



Now, why did Denis Compton come to the conclusion that Hutton should've dominated more? Well, because they were different people.

Compton was the great entertainer, he understood that ultimately Cricketers are meant to stage and entertain the audience that comes to watch the games and thus he was the light that illuminated English Cricket after the disaster that was the second world war. But that also meant he played an aggressive brand of Cricket and he was successful doing it, but I don't really say anything controversial when I say he wasn't exactly in Hutton’s class as a Batsman.

Compton looked to dominate, to attack, he was the guy who'd make 100 runs in a single session, but he was also the guy whose average went from 60 to mid to late 40s aided by a knee injury when the pitches got spicy, and that was the true difference between Compton and Hutton, when Compton confessed he could never play the 365 inning without making mistakes.



Hutton was not like Compton, he wasn't an entertainer but a professional, his job was to win games and he did just that, he did not care for the theatrics and that is what Compton found not comprehensible without Hutton from what I understand. It's two very different people with two different mindsets, Hutton likely never understood how Compton could be satisfied with throwing his wicket away so many times, and Compton could never understand how Hutton was fine not attacking for so long.

Compton truly never intended to question Hutton’s ability to make strokes and attack however, as he himself validates my understanding of the whole situation and pins their professional differences down to being different people and calls Hutton one of the best strokemakers in the game.



Hutton likely simply based his game on the classical Yorkshire "never get out" mentality for openers as shown by his predecessor Herbert Sutcliffe and successor Geoffrey Boycott, as well as learning from Sutcliffe's attitude to cricket as there are stories of Hutton being chastised for making a hundred and then giving away his wicket, By Herbert Sutcliffe.

all in all, Hutton is probably the most absolutely flawless batsmen and he was indeed a brilliant strokemaker, a skill recognised by Sutcliffe to Compton (a brilliant strokemaker in his own right) to Tiger to Benaud. Therefore, the whole “Hutton couldn't attack” thing doesn't even exist and is the result of one misinterpreted passage from Denis Compton and people criticising him for negative Cricket and not enough theatrics (go cry me a river). When he wanted to, Hutton was one of the best strokemakers of the game and I'd trust one of the English captains of all time to have a better understanding of when the need is to defend and when the need is to attack, than any of us.

Thank You for Reading.

Well deserved and laid out.

From what I've read, when he was younger he was more aggressive and was basically advised to slow it down if you want to make it.

But no one has ever questioned Hutton's greatness and none of that explains a stroke rate of 35.

And indeed Hutton wasn't the only one to question him on his rate of scoring.

Again, ATG elite batsman, but the original small issue still remains.

 

[kyear2]

Level of competition must’ve been so bad then if he could bat with half an arm.

One of the first aspects that drew me to him was how could he maintain that standard after such a horrific injury.

As great as he was, he probably could have been so much better. Easy one half of my ATW XI

 

[subshakerz]

Evening,

so a very big myth that's brought up in every Hutton comparison thread would be the idea that he was a boring, dour batsmen who lacked the ability to dominate the opposition and this has made a lot of people underestimate his ability, but well, Hutton wasn't just perhaps the greatest technician in history of the great game but he was also a brilliant strokemaker and easily able to dominate attacks when the need be.

most of the misconceptions stem from this quote from his contemporary and friend, and another great Batsmen, Denis Compton.



The quote seems strangely anti Hutton, and from this people have read and come to the conclusion that Hutton was not a great strokemaker and was very defensive and rigid in his batting style, but when read carefully, at not a single point does Compton claimed that Hutton could not attack or dominate, his claim is should, not could, thus nothing to do with ability on certain. Sure, in a vacuum one can argue that the implication he's making is that Hutton lacked the stroke play and ability to dominate in general even against poor attacks, but this is not true, as the very same person confirms to us, Compton himself.

Here's him explaining how Hutton, when need arises, played the most attractive and finest shots to attack.



one of his innings when he wasn't really in the condition to bat, he played some ludicrous shots, to the point that people on the ground started talking about Victor Trumper, one of the game's greatest strokemaker.



Now, one can say, it was on an easy wicket or it was against a weak attack or whatever…but in the 1950 Ashes first test, on an insane sticky dog against perhaps the greatest bowling attack ever assembled in the form of the Invincibles, Hutton thrashed them on day 5.



this isn't just me, back in 1930s, Herbert Sutcliffe noticed Hutton and mentored him in a sense and the thing he praised the most was his style, which obviously correlates to one again, his stroke play and not his conventional defense, once again saying Hutton was considered a brilliant stroke player and not just a pure technician.



Later on, after the war, once again, Bill O Reilly explains how Hutton’s footwork and stroke play are some of his strengths, not just focusing on his defense but seeing his ability to play strokes as an equal of his general ability. Calling him a “finished player” as in a complete player, not something you call someone who lacks the ability to play open Cricket.

Talking about how he controls the game.



and now, here is Richie Benaud basically calling out people who could be labeled with a good chunk of the forum, and basically telling everyone that Hutton was a capable stroke maker with perfect technique.



Now, why did Denis Compton come to the conclusion that Hutton should've dominated more? Well, because they were different people.

Compton was the great entertainer, he understood that ultimately Cricketers are meant to stage and entertain the audience that comes to watch the games and thus he was the light that illuminated English Cricket after the disaster that was the second world war. But that also meant he played an aggressive brand of Cricket and he was successful doing it, but I don't really say anything controversial when I say he wasn't exactly in Hutton’s class as a Batsman.

Compton looked to dominate, to attack, he was the guy who'd make 100 runs in a single session, but he was also the guy whose average went from 60 to mid to late 40s aided by a knee injury when the pitches got spicy, and that was the true difference between Compton and Hutton, when Compton confessed he could never play the 365 inning without making mistakes.



Hutton was not like Compton, he wasn't an entertainer but a professional, his job was to win games and he did just that, he did not care for the theatrics and that is what Compton found not comprehensible without Hutton from what I understand. It's two very different people with two different mindsets, Hutton likely never understood how Compton could be satisfied with throwing his wicket away so many times, and Compton could never understand how Hutton was fine not attacking for so long.

Compton truly never intended to question Hutton’s ability to make strokes and attack however, as he himself validates my understanding of the whole situation and pins their professional differences down to being different people and calls Hutton one of the best strokemakers in the game.



Hutton likely simply based his game on the classical Yorkshire "never get out" mentality for openers as shown by his predecessor Herbert Sutcliffe and successor Geoffrey Boycott, as well as learning from Sutcliffe's attitude to cricket as there are stories of Hutton being chastised for making a hundred and then giving away his wicket, By Herbert Sutcliffe.

all in all, Hutton is probably the most absolutely flawless batsmen and he was indeed a brilliant strokemaker, a skill recognised by Sutcliffe to Compton (a brilliant strokemaker in his own right) to Tiger to Benaud. Therefore, the whole “Hutton couldn't attack” thing doesn't even exist and is the result of one misinterpreted passage from Denis Compton and people criticising him for negative Cricket and not enough theatrics (go cry me a river). When he wanted to, Hutton was one of the best strokemakers of the game and I'd trust one of the English captains of all time to have a better understanding of when the need is to defend and when the need is to attack, than any of us.

Thank You for Reading.

Didn't he have an SR in the 30s,? Best defense was being an opener in a low scoring era.

 

[subshakerz]

Jesus, that's long.

Lol said without irony.

 

[Johan]

Didn't he have an SR in the 30s,? Best defense was being an opener in a low scoring era.

It's universally agreed it was out of choice, from this era of the game, it didn't have to do with his technique or his strokeplay, and that was the point with Hutton that Compton never got. When Hutton wanted to, he was one of the most brilliant and skilful strokemakers in the game and as I always said, being aggressive or taking control of the game was a thing of nature for a Viv, for a Hutton it was a whim.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Didn't he have an SR in the 30s,? Best defense was being an opener in a low scoring era.

I mean, I would want my opener in a tough English pitch to play as many deliveries possible, arguably even at the cost of a few runs.

 

[subshakerz]

I mean, I would want my opener in a tough English pitch to play as many deliveries possible, arguably even at the cost of a few runs.

Sure but mid 30s is snail pace. At that point you are cost wins and making them into draws.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Sure but mid 30s is snail pace. At that point you are cost wins and making them into draws.

Not really. Infact, it's the better pace for a English 50s opener. You reach 50s, and a good chance that the MO is getting vulnerable too soon.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Also, if Hutton ever felt his batting can cost a win, he'd simply accelerate, something he is more than capable of doing.

 

[subshakerz]

Not really. Infact, it's the better pace for a English 50s opener. You reach 50s, and a good chance that the MO is getting vulnerable too soon.

At least in the 40s bro.

 

[Johan]

Also, if Hutton ever felt his batting can cost a win, he'd simply accelerate, something he is more than capable of doing.

This. Hutton's scoring rate was entirely a choice, and I reckon one of the Greatest English captains have a better know how of when to play slowly and when to attack, than any of us

 

[Johan]

for the record, I don't think any of the ATGs other than Viv, put in Hutton's shoes, would be able to make runs at any faster rate than him without a substantial dip in output, the obvious exception is the Don.

 

[Coronis]

I certainly think for openers a lower strike rate is more advantageous, especially on a bowling friendly service.

For example, lets say you have Sutcliffe and Hutton opening together. The middle order won’t have to face the ball on average until the 40-50 over mark. Thats a huge advantage for them. Whereas say if you had Smith and Hayden (didn’t include Sehwag because of the outlier that he is) they’ll be exposed in 20-30 overs, with less runs on the board.

 

[sayon basak]

At least in the 40s bro.

Why don't you just list the number of matches he cost?