Coronis
Hall of Fame Member
Ah yes I do love this line of reasoning. I remember it being used against Kallis too. Even though it wasn’t really true. Would hardly surprise me if it was the same here.
-
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.
Debunking a myth – Len Hutton's batting style
- Thread starter Johan
- Start date
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
I gave you examples in Kallis case but I am more familiar with him than Hutton.
Coronis
Hall of Fame Member
Yes examples that I showed were incorrect.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
To be clear I am not definitive about it because it may just be a slow era. But was responding to the idea that it doesn't matter how slow you bat.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
They werent. You honestly were just giving justifications whereas Kallis was slammed
across the board at the time for not accelerating. And of course the data that article showed where it demonstrates his lack of acceleration once settled compared to other mid 2000s bats.
Coronis
Hall of Fame Member
Meh. Not going to bother rehashing this here.
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I am going to dip in here even though the argument between two usual suspects gives me pause.
Firstly, being able to play brilliant looking shots, having light footwork etc. is not mutually exclusive with being a slow, cautious scorer, as one's technical while the other's mental, how a player approaches the game. Hutton of course preferred reward over risk. But that doesn't mean, either, that he was as capable of playing a really attacking innings in 1952 as in 1937. The OP omits any parts of descriptions mentioned on, say, Wikipedia, that indeed do say he was less capable of attacking after the War, no doubt due to his injury and advancing age (being 30 when tests resumed). Both physical limitations and a more mature outlook with them in mind could be a factor. Players can slow down.
Descriptions also hide the fact that scoring rates in Hutton's era were very slow by modern standards. That 1950 innings the OP references had a strike rate of 61 with seven fours. This was very high for the time, especially given the difficult circumstances. Of course there's no equivalent of those conditions today (though I believe most of his innings was when they had eased somewhat from the previous day), but with the way batsmanship has evolved recently I don't why a modern version wouldn't be significantly faster. But innings that would be painfully slow by modern standards passed unremarked then, because the over rate is a lot lower now. Ironically for this discussion, Hutton helped start that trend when deliberately pursuing a slow over rate to get the best out of Tyson and Statham in 1954/55.
While Charles Davis' data is not complete, it's the only data we've got and covers a reasonable proportion of the following players' careers. The strike rates below are instructive when compared to the players' reputation from people watching them:
Harvey: 50
Hammond: 45
Compton: 41
Graveney: 41
Barrington: 41
May: 40
Hutton: 38
Boycott: 35
From a statistical point of view, the bigger myth is of Compton the dasher. Most of his major test innings were scored at strike rates of under 50, usually comfortably under. No doubt a preference for riskier strokes and probably performances in County Cricket contributed to his reputation. Another factor might be that maybe didn't play the exceptionally slow, grinding innings that some of the other players on that list played on occasion. Back then, of course, these statistics weren't available, but I fall very much on the side of peer rating being much more misleading.
Firstly, being able to play brilliant looking shots, having light footwork etc. is not mutually exclusive with being a slow, cautious scorer, as one's technical while the other's mental, how a player approaches the game. Hutton of course preferred reward over risk. But that doesn't mean, either, that he was as capable of playing a really attacking innings in 1952 as in 1937. The OP omits any parts of descriptions mentioned on, say, Wikipedia, that indeed do say he was less capable of attacking after the War, no doubt due to his injury and advancing age (being 30 when tests resumed). Both physical limitations and a more mature outlook with them in mind could be a factor. Players can slow down.
Descriptions also hide the fact that scoring rates in Hutton's era were very slow by modern standards. That 1950 innings the OP references had a strike rate of 61 with seven fours. This was very high for the time, especially given the difficult circumstances. Of course there's no equivalent of those conditions today (though I believe most of his innings was when they had eased somewhat from the previous day), but with the way batsmanship has evolved recently I don't why a modern version wouldn't be significantly faster. But innings that would be painfully slow by modern standards passed unremarked then, because the over rate is a lot lower now. Ironically for this discussion, Hutton helped start that trend when deliberately pursuing a slow over rate to get the best out of Tyson and Statham in 1954/55.
While Charles Davis' data is not complete, it's the only data we've got and covers a reasonable proportion of the following players' careers. The strike rates below are instructive when compared to the players' reputation from people watching them:
Harvey: 50
Hammond: 45
Compton: 41
Graveney: 41
Barrington: 41
May: 40
Hutton: 38
Boycott: 35
From a statistical point of view, the bigger myth is of Compton the dasher. Most of his major test innings were scored at strike rates of under 50, usually comfortably under. No doubt a preference for riskier strokes and probably performances in County Cricket contributed to his reputation. Another factor might be that maybe didn't play the exceptionally slow, grinding innings that some of the other players on that list played on occasion. Back then, of course, these statistics weren't available, but I fall very much on the side of peer rating being much more misleading.
Johan
Cricketer Of The Year
I've actually read quite a bit on Hutton's injury that occured during the second world war, seemingly due to his one arm losing flexibility and being smaller by a margin, a high angled hook shot against fast bowlers was not really a possibility anymore and he was forced to either play a risky guiding stroke or duck against a really quick shortpitched delivery, and ducking was what Hutton chose to do most of the time because as we both agreed, he preferred results over risks, there's also seemingly an issue of playing offbreaks as he played from the crease rather than jumping out but from what I've read, he worked on that issue and overcame it .I'd agree his ability to attack the short ball probably decreased but I don't think his strokeplay on other ends was much different from the war, some seem to believe he was even more sound after the war.
Now this is interesting, I remember @Coronis once stating that Compton had a decent arsenal of fast scoring hundreds on the international stage and I'm inclined to believe that, I reckon that is where Compton gets his reputation from for being a dasher though I don't think he was any more aggressive than Hutton on average and definitely less capable on a bad wicket, it's just that if he does have quick hundreds as I've read he did, then it's very likely his deviations from the norm are more remembered than the norm itself.
Coronis
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah I was actually looking for that post earlier but couldn’t find it. Probably means that other times he did struggle a lot.
iirc Compton’s particular criticism of Hutton was more that he wasn’t as aggressive against weaker attacks. So perhaps this was what Compton was up to instead.
Also wow was just reading an article on Hutton (came upon it whilst searching for the particulars of Compton’s criticism) and came across an amusing spelling error.
Although discussions about the greatest batters of all time can sometimes be passionate and partisan, the same names generally appear: Donald Bradman, Garry Sobers, Viv Richards, Jack Hobbs, Walter Hammond, W. G. Grace, Sachin Tendulkar … There are many others who could be added, including current players such as Viral Kohli, Steve Smith or Joe Root.
Some other excerpts I enjoyed
Another Pudsey resident, the England opener Herbert Sutcliffe, took a keen interest in him. In turn Hutton was a huge admirer or Sutcliffe, and according to the journalist Jim Kilburn (with whom Hutton became very close in later years) he modelled himself socially on Sutcliffe.
Compton said: “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.” Perhaps there is a vague hint of implied criticism in there; the pair had a troubled relationship, which might be reflected in Hutton’s own comments in the interview: “On the way from The Oval at the end of the game, I stopped at traffic lights. A woman in an adjoining car pulled down her window and said: ‘Well done, Len, but why ever didn’t you score one more-one for every day of the year?’ As I said to Denis later: ‘Denis, tell me, can you ever satisfy a woman?'”
and yes that was Viral Kohli mentioned in a 2025 as a potential mention regarding greatest batsmen… does make me question the rest of the article tbh
Johan
Cricketer Of The Year
Viral Kohli can't be dragged down on the basis of the limitations of Virat Kohli, also, kinda funny he left out Williamson.
Cricket Bliss
U19 Debutant
Is the Orthodox batting technique of those days different from the modern ones? I have seen Hutton teaching students how to play defense and the technique looks contrast from what is it today. Hutton’s defense many times is a long front foot stride with pad lingering behind and not the bat closer to the pad one.. has the technique changed?
Moreover WG is pioneered to have developed the orthodox batting technique.
But this image shows there is significant gap between his bat and pad… so what was the technique of those days and who developed the modern technique?
Moreover WG is pioneered to have developed the orthodox batting technique.
But this image shows there is significant gap between his bat and pad… so what was the technique of those days and who developed the modern technique?