Bradman & Zaheer Khan vs Hobbs & Marshall

[Thala_0710]

Pick one combo for test cricket.

 

[kyear2]

In the 60's the general consensus still was that Bradman and Hobbs were more or less equals.

As people who've watched both dwindle away, we look just at the stats apparently.

 

[ataraxia]

I presume Khan, but my first instinct was that this is referring to Zaheer Abbas.

 

[Johan]

In the 60's the general consensus still was that Bradman and Hobbs were more or less equals.

As people who've watched both dwindle away, we look just at the stats apparently.

they were only seen as equals from a skill perspective as Hobbs was seen as superior on tough wickets, they were never equal from a run output perspective.

 

[Thala_0710]

I presume Khan, but my first instinct was that this is referring to Zaheer Abbas.

It's Zaheer Khan

 

[Thala_0710]

they were only seen as equals from a skill perspective as Hobbs was seen as superior on tough wickets, they were never equal from a run output perspective.

Surely that isn't enough to bridge the gap between Zak and Marshall though.

 

[shortpitched713]

If you look at footage of Hobbs he looks terrible, much worse than Sutcliffe, and definitely much worse than Bradman.

But though we trust our eyes for instance to tell us that lobbing spinners like Grimmett wouldn't translate throughout the years, we can't trust our eyes to malign the hard hands and lead feet of Hobbs. Very interesting way to prop up the old gentlemen batsmen, it seems.

Hobbs was good enough to get the job done well, for a very long time. But I would argue most of that time was just cack standard of cricket. If he could really hold a candle to Bradman, we would A) See something of a robustness of technique and B) Have that translated to an out of the world Test average . Neither of which happened. So it's just old time obsessed English propaganda writers who are thinking there can be any comparison with Bradman. There can't be.

Bradman is the only one from pre WWII you really need to concern yourself with as being an ATG, in a proper sense of the word. In a super primordial sense, maybe Grace as an FC all-rounder in the Sobers mold, but probably not him either.

I know some of us feel smart because we can read books and articles about many of these old time guys. But that doesn't make an incorrect opinion true. Their cricketing ability can't put them in a class as true ATGs in a meaningful sense of the word. They'd all get washed.

 

[Coronis]

Gap between Bradman and Hobbs > Gap between Marshall and Zaheer

ezpz

 

[Johan]

If you look at footage of Hobbs he looks terrible, much worse than Sutcliffe, and definitely much worse than Bradman.

But though we trust our eyes for instance to tell us that lobbing spinners like Grimmett wouldn't translate throughout the years, we can't trust our eyes to malign the hard hands and lead feet of Hobbs. Very interesting way to prop up the old gentlemen batsmen, it seems.

Hobbs was good enough to get the job done well, for a very long time. But I would argue most of that time was just cack standard of cricket. If he could really hold a candle to Bradman, we would A) See something of a robustness of technique and B) Have that translated to an out of the world Test average . Neither of which happened. So it's just old time obsessed English propaganda writers who are thinking there can be any comparison with Bradman. There can't be.

Bradman is the only one from pre WWII you really need to concern yourself with as being an ATG, in a proper sense of the word. In a super primordial sense, maybe Grace as an FC all-rounder in the Sobers mold, but probably not him either.

I know some of us feel smart because we can read books and articles about many of these old time guys. But that doesn't make an incorrect opinion true. Their cricketing ability can't put them in a class as true ATGs in a meaningful sense of the word. They'd all get washed.

Great Post, you convinced me to change my vote to Hobbs and Marshall, also convinced me that Hobbs is the greatest Batsmen in history by far after Bradman.

 

[ataraxia]

If you look at footage of Hobbs he looks terrible, much worse than Sutcliffe, and definitely much worse than Bradman.

But though we trust our eyes for instance to tell us that lobbing spinners like Grimmett wouldn't translate throughout the years, we can't trust our eyes to malign the hard hands and lead feet of Hobbs. Very interesting way to prop up the old gentlemen batsmen, it seems.

Hobbs was good enough to get the job done well, for a very long time. But I would argue most of that time was just cack standard of cricket. If he could really hold a candle to Bradman, we would A) See something of a robustness of technique and B) Have that translated to an out of the world Test average . Neither of which happened. So it's just old time obsessed English propaganda writers who are thinking there can be any comparison with Bradman. There can't be.

Bradman is the only one from pre WWII you really need to concern yourself with as being an ATG, in a proper sense of the word. In a super primordial sense, maybe Grace as an FC all-rounder in the Sobers mold, but probably not him either.

I know some of us feel smart because we can read books and articles about many of these old time guys. But that doesn't make an incorrect opinion true. Their cricketing ability can't put them in a class as true ATGs in a meaningful sense of the word. They'd all get washed.

Hobbs was indeed ancient.

In the sense that I imagine the videos of him batting came post-war, when he was 40 going on 50. Yet at this advanced age, he was still the best or second best batsman on the planet.

 

[Johan]

In the sense that I imagine the videos of him batting came post-war, when he was 40 going on 50. Yet at this advanced age, he was still the best or second best batsman on the planet.

had tons of health issues too, had a surgery and had to take years off due to health concerns, and still came back and was an equal of Hammond and Sutcliffe, two top 15 batsmen.

 

[shortpitched713]

Yeah Hobbs longevity definitely separates him from Shaqib al Hasan. Might even put him past Tamim Iqbal and Mushfiqur Rahim. Not as sure on that though.

 

[Johan]

Yeah Hobbs longevity definitely separates him from Shaqib al Hasan. Might even put him past Tamim Iqbal and Mushfiqur Rahim. Not as sure on that though.

No need to go to the great Bangaldeshi players, Hobbs does beat the living **** out of hacks like Steve Smith, Sachin Tendulkar and Brian Lara though.

 

[ataraxia]

Yeah Hobbs longevity definitely separates him from Shaqib al Hasan. Might even put him past Tamim Iqbal and Mushfiqur Rahim. Not as sure on that though.

Obviously based on pure skill Ponting > Hobbs or whatever. But considering that question is the most boring thing there is in this forum, which is saying something given the existence of the Statham v Sehwag thread. Bradman would average less than 99 in any era since his time, but that doesn't mean he's rated worse. We compare players to their contemporaries, not to a later standard of cricket that in their time is completely hypothetical.

 

[kyear2]

they were only seen as equals from a skill perspective as Hobbs was seen as superior on tough wickets, they were never equal from a run output perspective.

The over all level of difficulty was significantly higher, hence puts the difference in run output into context.

 

[Johan]

The over all level of difficulty was significantly higher, hence puts the difference in run output into context.

Bradman outperforms Hobbs on tougher wickets too, it's the concept of Bradman falling on Hobbs's level that made some rate Hobbs as more consistent accross conditions.

 

[subshakerz]

In the 60's the general consensus still was that Bradman and Hobbs were more or less equals.

As people who've watched both dwindle away, we look just at the stats apparently.

Yeah imagine being swayed by a 99.94 average.

 

[subshakerz]

If you look at footage of Hobbs he looks terrible, much worse than Sutcliffe, and definitely much worse than Bradman.

But though we trust our eyes for instance to tell us that lobbing spinners like Grimmett wouldn't translate throughout the years, we can't trust our eyes to malign the hard hands and lead feet of Hobbs. Very interesting way to prop up the old gentlemen batsmen, it seems.

Hobbs was good enough to get the job done well, for a very long time. But I would argue most of that time was just cack standard of cricket. If he could really hold a candle to Bradman, we would A) See something of a robustness of technique and B) Have that translated to an out of the world Test average . Neither of which happened. So it's just old time obsessed English propaganda writers who are thinking there can be any comparison with Bradman. There can't be.

Bradman is the only one from pre WWII you really need to concern yourself with as being an ATG, in a proper sense of the word. In a super primordial sense, maybe Grace as an FC all-rounder in the Sobers mold, but probably not him either.

I know some of us feel smart because we can read books and articles about many of these old time guys. But that doesn't make an incorrect opinion true. Their cricketing ability can't put them in a class as true ATGs in a meaningful sense of the word. They'd all get washed.

I share many of the same concerns but I think Hobbs adaptability on bad wickets was so exceptional to dispel major doubts about him transferring into a different era. I thank Johan for that takeaway.

I can't put Hobbs number two of all time due to lack of video evidence but he is definitely top tier.

 

[subshakerz]

You are going to win more games with Hobbs and Marshall and draw more games with Bradman and Zaheer.

 

[sayon basak]

Yeah Hobbs longevity definitely separates him from Shaqib al Hasan. Might even put him past Tamim Iqbal and Mushfiqur Rahim. Not as sure on that though.

Man you made my day.