Help me figure out who the No. 5 in my AT XI should be (Richards vs Others)

[Coronis]

Well for me at least with my team where it is.. the only players who I’d find it poor to replace them would be Hobbs, Bradman, Tendulkar, Sobers and Gilly. I could easily see any of Sutcliffe/Hutton/Gavaskar as 2nd opener or Hammond/Lara/Smith as the extra bat. I think with the pacers I’d also be happy with most combos of about 6 bowlers.. Ambrose is the only one I wouldn’t really think could fit in there logically. Warne and Murali interchangeable too.

 

[honestbharani]

ATG sides are simple to select for me.

Gavaskar
Hobbs
Bradman (c)
Lara
Sachin
Sobers
Gilchrist (wk)
Warne
Wasim
Ambrose
Steyn

 

[Prince EWS]

ATG sides are simple to select for me.

Gavaskar
Hobbs
Bradman (c)
Lara
Sachin
Sobers
Gilchrist (wk)
Warne
Wasim
Ambrose
Steyn

I am personally offended by the batting order of your tail.

 

[honestbharani]

I am personally offended by the batting order of your tail.

Works on so many levels too.

 

[Coronis]

I am personally offended by the batting order of your tail.

 

[kyear2]

Well for me at least with my team where it is.. the only players who I’d find it poor to replace them would be Hobbs, Bradman, Tendulkar, Sobers and Gilly. I could easily see any of Sutcliffe/Hutton/Gavaskar as 2nd opener or Hammond/Lara/Smith as the extra bat. I think with the pacers I’d also be happy with most combos of about 6 bowlers.. Ambrose is the only one I wouldn’t really think could fit in there logically. Warne and Murali interchangeable too.

My non-negotiables are very different and contentious.

Richards | Bradman | Sobers | Marshall

Those are the ones who can't be replaced, no one else can do what they do.

I'm pretty set on Tendulkar and Hutton, but could listen to the argument that Hammond was close and similar enough and brings more tools to the slot. Hutton was better than Gavaskar but if someone insisted on the latter as a compromise for one of my guys, I wouldn't fight to the death. But again, pretty set.

I'm more firm on

Richards | Warne | McGrath
Though if I wasn't, Lara and O'Reilly wouldn't be out of place for the first two.

Gilchrist is magnificent, but there's always the argument for the better specialist in Knott, who can also hold a bat.

And as I said, the only position that I'm genuinely not locked in about is Wasim or Imran. Though if Knott gets the nod, Imran definitely pushes ahead. But it's Wasim's old ball mastery and ability to move it both ways vs Imran's batting.

But yeah, the core of the team works so very well together, no need to to change up anything. Brilliant batsmen, equally so with the bowling, batting depth, best possible 5th bowler and superb cordon.

Would be fun to see who you guys would prefer a combination of

Gilchrist and Wasim

Or

Imran and Knott.

Let me know...

Ironically enough, each pairing's combined averages are identical.

 

[ataraxia]

My non-negotiables are very different and contentious.

Richards | Bradman | Sobers | Marshall

Those are the ones who can't be replaced, no one else can do what they do.

I'm pretty set on Tendulkar and Hutton, but could listen to the argument that Hammond was close and similar enough and brings more tools to the slot. Hutton was better than Gavaskar but if someone insisted on the latter as a compromise for one of my guys, I wouldn't fight to the death. But again, pretty set.

I'm more firm on

Richards | Warne | McGrath
Though if I wasn't, Lara and O'Reilly wouldn't be out of place for the first two.

Gilchrist is magnificent, but there's always the argument for the better specialist in Knott, who can also hold a bat.

And as I said, the only position that I'm genuinely not locked in about is Wasim or Imran. Though if Knott gets the nod, Imran definitely pushes ahead. But it's Wasim's old ball mastery and ability to move it both ways vs Imran's batting.

But yeah, the core of the team works so very well together, no need to to change up anything. Brilliant batsmen, equally so with the bowling, batting depth, best possible 5th bowler and superb cordon.

Would be fun to see who you guys would prefer a combination of

Gilchrist and Wasim

Or

Imran and Knott.

Let me know...

Ironically enough, each pairing's combined averages are identical.

Funny that, you said Hobbs was as good as Bradman the other day.

 

[kyear2]

Funny that, you said Hobbs was as good as Bradman the other day.

And fully believe he was as great as Bradman was. Probably the closest to him really.

 

[DrWolverine]

And fully believe he was as great as Bradman was. Probably the closest to him really.

Can you give me the stats of Hobbs & Sutcliffe when they played together?

Don Bradman was ahead of his peers from his first match to his last match.

Hobbs was ahead of his peers initially. But was it because he was Bradmanesque or because there were no other great batsmen at that time?

 

[Johan]

Can you give me the stats of Hobbs & Sutcliffe when they played together?

Don Bradman was ahead of his peers from his first match to his last match.

Hobbs was ahead of his peers initially. But was it because he was Bradmanesque or because there were no other great batsmen at that time?

Cricket in 20s was percieved as a far inferior game to Cricket in 1910s and 1900s because the balance between bat and ball was lost, and Hobbs was a far inferior Batsmen due to multiple health issues, the first world war and age, the fact he was on par with Hammond and Sutcliffe when he had become a far inferior Batsmen was just a plus for him.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Cricket in 20s was percieved as a far inferior game to Cricket in 1910s and 1900s because the balance between bat and ball was lost, and Hobbs was a far inferior Batsmen due to multiple health issues, the first world war and age, the fact he was on par with Hammond and Sutcliffe when he had become a far inferior Batsmen was just a plus for him.

It also was considered inferior as many lives were lost and many more had injuries from the War.

 

[Coronis]

Can you give me the stats of Hobbs & Sutcliffe when they played together?

Don Bradman was ahead of his peers from his first match to his last match.

Hobbs was ahead of his peers initially. But was it because he was Bradmanesque or because there were no other great batsmen at that time?

Sutcliffe 26 matches 39 innings 2630 @ 77.35 10 tons 14 fifties
Hobbs 26 matches 39 innings 2213 @ 58.23 7 tons 10 fifties

Of course you have to remember Sutcliffe was 29-35 at this point and Hobbs was 41-47.

And lets see how they were in matches without each other in this period.

Sutcliffe 11 matches 18 innings 766 @ 45.05 3 tons 2 fifties
Hobbs 2 matches 4 innings 227 @ 56.75 1 ton 1 fifty

 

[kyear2]

Can you give me the stats of Hobbs & Sutcliffe when they played together?

Don Bradman was ahead of his peers from his first match to his last match.

Hobbs was ahead of his peers initially. But was it because he was Bradmanesque or because there were no other great batsmen at that time?

Hobbs was at his absolute best pre WWI and prior to his partnership with Sutcliffe.

I think in light of the conditions, it was Bradmanesque.

But yeah, one could argue the latter, but it was still ridiculous.

 

[kyear2]

Cricket in 20s was percieved as a far inferior game to Cricket in 1910s and 1900s because the balance between bat and ball was lost, and Hobbs was a far inferior Batsmen due to multiple health issues, the first world war and age, the fact he was on par with Hammond and Sutcliffe when he had become a far inferior Batsmen was just a plus for him.

It also was considered inferior as many lives were lost and many more had injuries from the War.

Both good answers.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Can you give me the stats of Hobbs & Sutcliffe when they played together?

Don Bradman was ahead of his peers from his first match to his last match.

Hobbs was ahead of his peers initially. But was it because he was Bradmanesque or because there were no other great batsmen at that time?

Not having a batsman of caliber of Hammond, Headley and Sutcliffe etc definitely made the difference. That’s basically 3 of the greatest in history definitely made the difference. Hobbs was way ahead of his peers but not Bradmanesque level. That’s why the no.2 spot after Bradman is open and Hobbs has a very strong case but nowhere close to being undisputed type.

Most runs

1910s Test match batting most runs career | ESPNcricinfo

Find 1910s Test match batting most runs career by calendar decade only on ESPNcricinfo. Check records and stats of Test match batting most runs career by calendar decade.

www.espncricinfo.com

 

[Coronis]

Not having a batsman of caliber of Hammond, Headley and Sutcliffe etc definitely made the difference. That’s basically 3 of the greatest in history definitely made the difference. Hobbs was way ahead of his peers but not Bradmanesque level. That’s why the no.2 spot after Bradman is open and Hobbs has a very strong case but nowhere close to being undisputed type.

Most runs

1910s Test match batting most runs career | ESPNcricinfo

Find 1910s Test match batting most runs career by calendar decade only on ESPNcricinfo. Check records and stats of Test match batting most runs career by calendar decade.

www.espncricinfo.com

Really circular logic here it feels like.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Really circular logic here it feels like.

There was no batsman in class of those guys. Pretty similar to Steyn dominating and you had Marshall, Hadlee, Imran in 80s. Hobbs and Steyn both are still top 5 in their discipline. Hobbs is 2nd best batsman of all time in my list but what I said is also right.

I genuinely don’t believe any batsman could have stood head and shoulders among guys as good as Hammond, Headley, Sutcliffe imho. Not even Hobbs or any batsman ever. Tbh Hammond may well have been the 2nd best batsman of all time if he had come in right time in eras after Bradman retirement.

 

[Coronis]

There was no batsman in class of those guys. Pretty similar to Steyn dominating and you had Marshall, Hadlee, Imran in 80s. Hobbs and Steyn both are still top 5 in their discipline. Hobbs is 2nd best batsman of all time in my list but what I said is also right.

I genuinely don’t believe any batsman could have stood head and shoulders among guys as good as Hammond, Headley, Sutcliffe imho. Not even Hobbs or any batsman ever. Tbh Hammond may well have been the 2nd best batsman of all time if he had come in right time in eras after Bradman retirement.

I mean you could easily argue two routes - he made other great batsmen look pedestrian because of how great and far ahead he was, or there were no great batsmen at the time. I don’t think you can conclusively prove either.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

I mean you could easily argue two routes - he made other great batsmen look pedestrian because of how great and far ahead he was, or there were no great batsmen at the time. I don’t think you can conclusively prove either.

Hobbs was great. The best ever. But you tell yourself were any of those batsman as good as Hammond, Sutcliffe or Headley? As far as I see there is no two routes there. Would you say the same while comparing Steyn to Marshall?

 

[Coronis]

Hobbs was great. The best ever. But you tell yourself were any of those batsman as good as Hammond, Sutcliffe or Headley? As far as I see there is no two routes there. Would you say the same while comparing Steyn to Marshall?

I think its a bit different with Steyn considering how modern he was and we were clearly able to all tell the difference with our own eyes. Its a little harder going back in the annals of time.