Best Batsman Besides Bradman (inactive players only)

[shortpitched713]

Maybe but I would doubt anyone can say he was remotely as tested as Tendulkar.

You don't understand how this works. These kinds of conditions tests are always proposed by an older dude trying to prop up a player from an older time, and can not be used conversely to favor the more modern player.

Remember, the question is "Could Messi do it on a cold, wet Thursday evening in Stoke?", and it's just not on to ask "Could Matthews do it on a sweltering, hot, August afternoon in Seville?" To ask the latter is just sacrilegious, and just not cricket.

 

[_00_deathscar]

You don't understand how this works. These kinds of conditions tests are always proposed by an older dude trying to prop up a player from an older time, and can not be used conversely to favor the more modern player.

Remember, the question is "Could Messi do it on a cold, wet Thursday evening in Stoke?", and it's just not on to ask "Could Matthews do it on a sweltering, hot, August afternoon in Seville?" To ask the latter is just sacrilegious, and just not cricket.

Well of course not, it’s football.

 

[subshakerz]

Even given a certain modern era bias, why has Tendulkar come out far ahead of Lara? During the latter stages of career wasn't the concensus pretty even on them? Is it just due to nothing but longevity for Tendulkar? If so, I thought we didn't do that sort of think here at CW (ala Anderson).

Lara started with a slight edge, then Tendulkar built a lead by 2001, then Lara got ahead by the end of his career, but Tendulkar's second peak gave him the edge by the end.

 

[Godard]

Even given a certain modern era bias, why has Tendulkar come out far ahead of Lara? During the latter stages of career wasn't the concensus pretty even on them? Is it just due to nothing but longevity for Tendulkar? If so, I thought we didn't do that sort of think here at CW (ala Anderson).

Tendulkar has done well wherever he has played. Anderson is below par in Aus, NZ, SA, SL, merely ok in Ind. Tendulkar averaged 60 for 18 years, being ridiculously consistent(two peaks from 1993-2002, and 2007-2011). Anderson has only peaked from about 2013. For his first 91 tests, he averaged 30. Is exceptional form in the last 10 years has pulled this down.

 

[shortpitched713]

I'm more than happy to buck the consensus in that case, then. I don't think you can just ignore an extended slump from Tendulkar, as a player who is supposed to have this designation, even if he did recover from it. And yes it was a slump, even if the numbers don't look quite that bad, we have to remember it was in a flat pitch era.

 

[subshakerz]

He was. Faced far more varying pitches and conditions, not attacks tho.

Given the number of countries that Tendulkar toured and the grounds in each, I don't think so. And Tendulkar faced worldclass attacks of so many varieties.

 

[subshakerz]

I'm more than happy to buck the consensus in that case, then. I don't think you can just ignore an extended slump from Tendulkar, as a player who is supposed to have this designation, even if he did recover from it. And yes it was a slump, even if the numbers don't look quite that bad, we have to remember it was in a flat pitch era.

A slump from 2003 to 2006 in which he averaged 44 with the bat. Pretty good as far as slumps go, nothing like what Kohli has.

 

[Godard]

Given the number of countries that Tendulkar toured and the grounds in each, I don't think so. And Tendulkar faced worldclass attacks of so many varieties.

Attacks yes. Tendulkar faced swing and movement in Eng and NZ, Hobbs played in those conditions. Tendulkar played bouncy and fast wickets in Aus and SA, Hobbs played on very tough wickets like this in Aus. Hobbs never played in dust bowls, but he batted on uncovered sticky wickets which are far tougher. Hobbs didn’t play reverse swing, but Tendy didn’t bat on matted pitches.

 

[subshakerz]

You don't understand how this works. These kinds of conditions tests are always proposed by an older dude trying to prop up a player from an older time, and can not be used conversely to favor the more modern player.

Remember, the question is "Could Messi do it on a cold, wet Thursday evening in Stoke?", and it's just not on to ask "Could Matthews do it on a sweltering, hot, August afternoon in Seville?" To ask the latter is just sacrilegious, and just not cricket.

I just think that Tendulkar's success of longevity across conditions and attacks significantly outweighs Hobbs.

 

[Godard]

I think because of the extremities of the conditions Hobbs mastered, you have to say pitches and conditions wise he was atleast tested as much as Tendulkar if not more. Tendulkar ofcourse played better attacks, but Hobbs also batted in bowler dominated era.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

You don't understand how this works. These kinds of conditions tests are always proposed by an older dude trying to prop up a player from an older time, and can not be used conversely to favor the more modern player.

Remember, the question is "Could Messi do it on a cold, wet Thursday evening in Stoke?", and it's just not on to ask "Could Matthews do it on a sweltering, hot, August afternoon in Seville?" To ask the latter is just sacrilegious, and just not cricket.

It’s not soccer.And aren’t the modern generation questioning the older generation about the conditions to favour the modern generation?

The simple thing is Hobbs faced every conditions Swinging,Bouncing,Covered,Matting,Gluepot and conquered it and solidified himself as The Greatest of all time.

 

[Godard]

I just think that Tendulkar's success of longevity across conditions and attacks outweighs Hobbs.

I think Tendulkar’s longevity outweighs Hobbs(and Sobers) longevity because of number of matches played. Pitches wise, Hobbs faced far more extreme pitches and mastered them. Tendulkar faced better bowlers, but both conditions and rules were far more suited to bowlers then. For me Tendulkar’s longevity and Hobbs mastery of sticky wickets and his dominance in the pre war is equal, as is Tendy’s perfect home away record and Hobbs mastery of extremely varying conditions.

 

[Godard]

I myself am not perfectly decided in who is better between Hobbs and Tendy. But to say Tendulkar is beyond comparison with Hobbs is absurd. Also, Subs, how do you rate Sobers with your modern has of post 70s players.

 

[subshakerz]

I think because of the extremities of the conditions Hobbs mastered, you have to say pitches and conditions wise he was atleast tested as much as Tendulkar if not more. Tendulkar ofcourse played better attacks, but Hobbs also batted in bowler dominated era.

Yeah but compare that to the challenge of playing test away and at home against nine countries, and ending up averaging 40 plus everywhere over two decades and 200 tests, including in a period when bowling standards were far higher than Hobb's.

 

[subshakerz]

I myself am not perfectly decided in who is better between Hobbs and Tendy. But to say Tendulkar is beyond comparison with Hobbs is absurd. Also, Subs, how do you rate Sobers with your modern has of post 70s players.

Yeah I think Sobers and Hobbs are in the mix with Sachin and Viv.

But because Sobers also had a lot of soft attacks and Hobbs didn't face many different attacks, their average advantage for me is not something I take at face value.

 

[Godard]

Yeah but compare that to the challenge of playing test away and at home against nine countries, and ending up averaging 40 plus everywhere over two decades and 200 tests, including in a period when bowling standards were far higher than Hobb's.

Yes but the rules were far more in the favours of the bowlers then, so that offsets the bowling standards. Plus Tendulkar definitely because of the countries he toured faced a wider variety of attacks, but pitches and conditions, Hobbs faced a lot of what Tendy faced(swing, seam, pace and bounce) except maybe dust bowls and reverse swing and a lot what Tendy didn’t(gluepot pitches, uncovered sticky wickets, matted pitches). Some countries have similar conditions: Aus and SA, Nz and Eng, ind and Sl(to some extent). Plus Hobbs never got to bat on wickets as batting conducive as Tendulkar did at home.

 

[Godard]

Yeah I think Sobers and Hobbs are in the mix with Sachin and Viv.

But because Sobers also had a lot of soft attacks and Hobbs didn't face many different attacks, their average advantage for me is not something I take at face value.

What is difference between Hobbs and Sobers is the former player in vastly more difficult and varied conditions than the former.

 

[Godard]

Yeah but compare that to the challenge of playing test away and at home against nine countries, and ending up averaging 40 plus everywhere over two decades and 200 tests, including in a period when bowling standards were far higher than Hobb's.

That’s why i mentioned a perfect home away record and longevity as Tendy’s strengths and compared them to Hobbs major strengths. Another of Hobbs strength was despite his Sobers like longevity, he did dominate various series(scored 500+ in 4 series), which Tendy never did.

 

[Godard]

Let’s agree to disagree here, I guess(like the Imran vs Kapil in ODIs thing), since we are reiterating the same points over and over again.

 

[shortpitched713]

You can't place Sobers in the same basket as Hobbs, or even a Hammond or Hutton when it comes to the standards of fast bowling attacks faced. Fast bowling has gradually developed over the years, until it peaked and has been the dominant factor in Test cricket bowling from sometime in the 70s to now. Sobers played from 54-74, so he's facing on a somewhat consistent basis some quality quick bowlers.

Suffice it to say, that if I could have a match in the quintessential "modern" conditions, with everything being suited to be comfortable and familiar to the most modern players, if i could take a time machine and transport the Sobers of that time to now I would have zero hesitation or doubt in taking him into even the greatest modern side, because he is just at that level of overall cricketer.

I cannot say the same for Hobbs, at all.