• 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.

Debate thread for 2024 Ranking of batsmen poll

capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

International Captain
OverratedSanity said:
This has nothing to do with the point that he didn't face any good pace bowlers



So one good pacer in a long career, fair enough I guess lol. The rest of NZ's attack was an abomination. Just admit the quality of seam bowling he faced was extremely poor not just compared to the modern era but even compared to guys like Hutton. Hobbs didn't face notable pace bowlers but faced the most brutal batting conditions of any great batsman. Hammond had the easiest time of any ATG batsman. Top 10 is just a reputation pick not backed up by the facts at all.
Click to expand...
I never debated that really, I just pointed out he did faced great bowlers, as overall bowling strength of England was less than Australia. Honestly, there wasn't some huge gulf between quality of bowlers Lindwall faced with those Hammond did.

And I brought in Cowie because your point was he never played any decent quick AND that he piled on minnow NZ, who actually had arguably the best quick mid war.
Also, pretty sure you are counting India as minnows (which they were), but have you accounted for the fact that he played Amar Singh and Mohammad Nissar, unarguably India's two finest pacers pre Srinath, who actually have quite a good bowling record, and Hammer was the most successful against them, especially in the 1936 series.
 
Last edited:
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
OverratedSanity said:
This has nothing to do with the point that he didn't face any good pace bowlers



So one good pacer in a long career, fair enough I guess lol. The rest of NZ's attack was an abomination. Just admit the quality of seam bowling he faced was extremely poor not just compared to the modern era but even compared to guys like Hutton. Hobbs didn't face notable pace bowlers but faced the most brutal batting conditions of any great batsman. Hammond had the easiest time of any ATG batsman. Top 10 is just a reputation pick not backed up by the facts at all.
Click to expand...
Fully agreed, and the ironic bit is how some consistently rate him higher head to head vs the player who was possibly the greatest player of fast bowling.

I do rate him as an overall cricketer though, tremendous skill set.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

International Captain
kyear2 said:
Fully agreed, and the ironic bit is how some consistently rate him higher head to head vs the player who was possibly the greatest player of fast bowling.

I do rate him as an overall cricketer though, tremendous skill set.
Click to expand...
In the batsman's list, you voted him to be no 9.....
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
capt_Luffy said:
In the batsman's list, you voted him to be no 9.....
Click to expand...
After the top 8 everyone has holes, and I've mentioned Hammond's failings vs fast bowling before. But his pre war record was still very impressive.

But I was presented with a good argument and in retrospect I agree.
 
centurymaker

centurymaker

Cricketer Of The Year
Bolo. said:
Everyone has some series where they bruise weak opposition.

You are wrong about India in RSA. They have consistently sent a quick that has had better series in RSA than what most ATGs have managed. Both statistically and to the eye. Srinath, Shreesanth, and to a lesser extent, Zaheer.
Click to expand...
One bowler doesn't make an attack tbf. And I don't agree that those bowlers have bowled at ATG level in SA except the odd test.

And a fast bowler own their own can only bowl about 20 overs in a day. Even if at times 1 of them have stood up, the overall strength of Indian attacks hasn't been great over the course of his career. Mediocre usually. Only since 2017 have India been sending good overall attacks to SA.

Pakistan meanwhile have sent better attacks (better pacers) and it kinda reflects in his avg of 40 against them with just 1 hundred in 17 innings. Pakistan pacers were often quicker and more skillful imo.

Australian pacers even moreso. And he really struggled against them. Australians are most used to SA conditions and therefore facing them was something close to facing his own attack. Avg of 33 with only 2 hundreds in 26 innings.

Having said all that, he has succeeded against England at home! (despite his away struggles against them). And they have often had good attacks (tho not as quick).
 
Last edited:
H

howitzer

State Captain
capt_Luffy said:
I never debated that really, I just pointed out he did faced great bowlers, as overall bowling strength of England was less than Australia. Honestly, there wasn't some huge gulf between quality of bowlers Lindwall faced with those Hammond did.

And I brought in Cowie because your point was he never played any decent quick AND that he piled on minnow NZ, who actually had arguably the best quick mid war.
Also, pretty sure you are counting India as minnows (which they were), but have you accounted for the fact that he played Amar Singh and Mohammad Nissar, unarguably India's two finest pacers pre Srinath, who actually have quite a good bowling record, and Hammer was the most successful against them, especially in the 1936 series.
Click to expand...
Hammond does deserve credit for the Lord's century against Cowie and the post war 79 in Christchurch was a good effort for a player who was getting a bit long in the tooth. Most of his Kiwi bashing was against the extremely weak attacks pre Cowie though.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

International Captain
howitzer said:
Hammond does deserve credit for the Lord's century against Cowie and the post war 79 in Christchurch was a good effort for a player who was getting a bit long in the tooth. Most of his Kiwi bashing was against the extremely weak attacks pre Cowie though.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I know that, but he also had done against an Indian attack of Amar Singh and Mohammed Nissar also. So to sum it up, he faced Martindale and Constantine vs WI (mixed results), Amar Singh and Nissar vs India (great results), Jack Cowie vs NZ (mostly good results). Not accounting for his bravado against Australian spinners and his record in sticky dogs; only SA didn't had a single good bowler back then. So it's not really like he had no idea what quality pace was as being presented here....
 
CricAddict

CricAddict

Cricketer Of The Year
OverratedSanity said:
No disrespect but if we're really gassing up Amar Singh and Nissar as among the best pace bowlers Hammond faced then my point is just being made for me.
Click to expand...
You play what you get. If he played and failed against the best bowlers, I can understand. But why do you penalize someone for the opposition not having atg bowlers?
 
OverratedSanity

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
CricAddict said:
You play what you get. If he played and failed against the best bowlers, I can understand. But why do you penalize someone for the opposition not having atg bowlers?
Click to expand...
We're comparing him to other great players who did have to face better bowlers. Of course it has to be taken into account.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top