Herbert Sutcliffe vs Jack Hobbs

[DrWolverine]

Hobbs : 61 Tests. 102 innings. 5410 runs. Avg of 56.95. 15 centuries. 28 fifties. 6 ducks.

Sutcliffe : 54 Tests. 84 innings. 4555 runs. Avg of 59.93. 16 centuries. 23 fifties. 22 ducks.

Hobbs
vs Aus : Avg of 54(41 Tests)
vs SA : Avg of 60(18 Tests)
vs WI : Avg of 104(2 Tests)

Sutcliffe
vs Aus : Avg of 66(27 Tests)
vs NZ : Avg of 83(4 Tests)
vs Ind : Avg of 11(1 Test)
vs WI :Avg of 41(5 Tests)
vs SA : Avg of 55(17 Tests)

Hobbs
in Aus : Avg of 57(24 Tests)
in Eng : Avg of 52(27 Tests)
in SA : Avg of 65(10 Tests)

Sutcliffe
in Aus : Avg of 63(14 Tests)
in Eng : Avg of 64(33 Tests)
in NZ : Avg of 12(2 Tests)
in SA : Avg of 46(5 Tests)

 

[DrWolverine]

Any particular reason why Hobbs is rated higher than Sutcliffe despite the latter having an overall better record?

Is Herbert Sutcliffe the most underrated batsman? Maybe the legendary but underrated Ken Barrington can compete with him. He has one of the best records out there but for some reason his name barely comes up when there is a talk about all time great batsmen.

 

[Coronis]

Any particular reason why Hobbs is rated higher than Sutcliffe despite the latter having an overall better record?

Is Herbert Sutcliffe the most underrated batsman? Maybe the legendary but underrated Ken Barrington can compete with him. He has one of the best records out there but for some reason his name barely comes up when there is a talk about all time great batsmen.

Well obviously, he has the longevity. When they were in direct competition, their stats were quite similar (slight edge to Sutcliffe) while Hobbs was 12 years older (Sutcliffe debuted at 29, Hobbs was 41 at that point). And the era he played in was generally high scoring.

He was an exponent of pad play, and some people assume he wouldn’t be able to adapt (fun fact: he had a practically identical average in the season it debuted and more runs)

He was one of the best batsmen on a sticky wicket and yeah I think he’s underrated a bit. There’s not that much to choose between him, Hutton and Gavaskar for me, but Hobbs is clearly ahead.

 

[Johan]

1. Hobbs
2. Hutton
3. Sutcliffe
4. Gavaskar for me

I've been thinking of 1 and 2 recently though, now why is Hobbs above Sutcliffe? Well, Hobbs had a career twice as long for one and was averaging 61 around 20 years into his career, plus generally people view 1910s and 1900s as a tougher time for batting than 1920s where Sutcliffe peaked

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

No comparison at all. Even Sutcliffe would say,
Hobbs easily.

 

[capt_Luffy]

1900s and 1910s were a totally different beast than the 20s and 30s. Sutcliffe is comparable with Gavaskar and Hutton, Hobbs is clear of that group.

 

[Coronis]

1900s and 1910s were a totally different beast than the 20s and 30s. Sutcliffe is comparable with Gavaskar and Hutton, Hobbs is clear of that group.

Couldn’t agree more. Hobbs was practically equal with Sutcliffe throughout the 20’s despite being his elder by 12 years and he has that pre-war dominance to go with it.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Any particular reason why Hobbs is rated higher than Sutcliffe despite the latter having an overall better record?

Hobbs in the pre war period was putting up big numbers in some of the lowest scoring tests ever.

The overall batting average in the tests Hobbs played before the war was 25.6.

Aggregate/overall records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Hobbs averaged 57 in those games which is incredible in context.

 

[Coronis]

Hobbs in the pre war period was putting up big numbers in some of the lowest scoring tests ever.

The overall batting average in the tests Hobbs played before the war was 25.6.

Aggregate/overall records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Hobbs averaged 57 in those games which is incredible in context.

Conversely, in the games he played after the war, the average was 36.9, and he maintained a similar average, proving that as he said, he was a far better batsman pre-war, despite similar numbers and greater volume.

Its insane to think what his record might’ve been if the war didn’t occur.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Conversely, in the games he played after the war, the average was 36.9, and he maintained a similar average, proving that as he said, he was a far better batsman pre-war, despite similar numbers and greater volume.

Its insane to think what his record might’ve been if the war didn’t occur.

I mean after War he played majority of his matches in his 40s...... The only thing it really proves are the claims claiming he was better post 40 than pre wrong.

 

[Coronis]

I mean after War he played majority of his matches in his 40s...... The only thing it really proves are the claims claiming he was better post 40 than pre wrong.

That’s literally what I said?

 

[capt_Luffy]

That’s literally what I said?

And I agreed??? Adding a comment on the ignorant claims of him peaking post 40 for volume (which, come to think, aren't actually that ignorant. He wasn't better, but 100 centuries after turning 40.....)

 

[Johan]

**** that Austrian guy for getting shot

 

[capt_Luffy]

**** that Austrian guy for getting shot

Was a pure skill if you ask me. Princep was even standing at a wrong point, his driver literally drove him to there by taking a wrong turn.

 

[shortpitched713]

Sutcliffe is better. Just look at the footage.

 

[Prince EWS]

Sutcliffe is better. Just look at the footage.

Vusi Sibanda is better than Ali Cook as well. Not to mention Sehwag. Look at the footage.

 

[ankitj]

Vusi Sibanda is better than Ali Cook as well. Not to mention Sehwag. Look at the footage.

Don't even bring up Steve Smith.

 

[Howe_zat]

Hobbs in the pre war period was putting up big numbers in some of the lowest scoring tests ever.

The overall batting average in the tests Hobbs played before the war was 25.6.

Aggregate/overall records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Hobbs averaged 57 in those games which is incredible in context.

At the point where Hobbs became the leading run scorer in Test cricket (after hitting a ton at the MCG in 1924) he averaged 58, which is about 20 more than anyone who was close in terms of runs.

 

[Coronis]

At the point where Hobbs became the leading run scorer in Test cricket (after hitting a ton at the MCG in 1924) he averaged 58, which is about 20 more than anyone who was close in terms of runs.

View attachment 42500

Be interesting to see a comparison of leading runscorers average when they took the record vs the players they took the record from.

 

[Howe_zat]

At the point where Hobbs became the leading run scorer in Test cricket (after hitting a ton at the MCG in 1924) he averaged 58, which is about 20 more than anyone who was close in terms of runs.

The Wisden from this match doesn't mention this record, it actually gives him a different one - 'his seventh test match 100, beating McLaren's record'.

Which is an interesting reminder that they were using completely different stats at the time. By our records this was Hobbs' 9th ton, beating Trumper's 8, but some of those were scored against SA which the Wisden writer at the time didn't consider to be Tests. Cricinfo also credits Archie MacLaren with only five Test hundreds, so where the extra one came from I don't know.