Herbert Sutcliffe vs Jack Hobbs

[ankitj]

Stanley Jackson averaged 48 which is 10 short of Hobbs. But he played only 20 tests and scored under 1500 runs.

 

[ataraxia]

Stanley Jackson averaged 48 which is 10 short of Hobbs. But he played only 20 tests and scored under 1500 runs.

Yeah – Ranji also averaged 45 in 15 tests from 1896 to 1902, with a much better FC record than Jackson. But Hobbs really stood out from the pack when he arrived a bit later.

 

[Coronis]

@shortpitched713 please tell me that’s a joke vote. As the forum’s resident Sutcliffe fan I can’t get behind that line of thinking.

 

[peterhrt]

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.

It was in a report of the first Test at Sydney (December 1924) where Wisden reported that Hobbs had scored his seventh Test hundred and beaten MacLaren's record. He got another one at Melbourne and a further one at Adelaide which Wisden described as his ninth. As you say, the two centuries against South Africa had not been taken into account. Some statisticians only counted England v Australia matches as Tests then. Wisden refused to consider 19th century E v SA matches as Tests until after WW2.

Even given that only England v Australia matches were being counted, it was Trumper's record that Hobbs beat at Sydney, not MacLaren's. Trumper had six hundreds, MacLaren and Jackson five.

 

[sayon basak]

@shortpitched713 please tell me that’s a joke vote. As the forum’s resident Sutcliffe fan I can’t get behind that line of thinking.

Well, no.

Interesting, but I think Jadeja's batting is just short of a Shakib al Hasan's, who I would posit to be Hobbs modern batting equivalent.

Tendulkar takes it either way.

 

[Johan]

@shortpitched713 please tell me that’s a joke vote. As the forum’s resident Sutcliffe fan I can’t get behind that line of thinking.

He apparently rates Sutcliffe higher via the footage

 

[capt_Luffy]

He apparently rates Sutcliffe higher via the footage

I mean, he does rate Hayden higher than Tendulkar......

 

[Johan]

I mean, he does rate Hayden higher than Tendulkar......

wow, and Sehwag must be better than Lara

 

[capt_Luffy]

wow, and Sehwag must be better than Lara

I reserve judgement on the currently active Smith and Root.


For me it's


Lara
Gavaskar
Sanga
Viv


in that order

Then an equal grouping of Miandad, Tendulkar, Hayden, Kallis just below above top 4.

 

[shortpitched713]

@shortpitched713 please tell me that’s a joke vote. As the forum’s resident Sutcliffe fan I can’t get behind that line of thinking.

Truth is I don't know anything about Hobbs, in an "experiential" sense. Which is a part of what guides me in cricket, not just stats. But I do have this one place in the same match where I have video and my eyes showing Hobbs is clearly looking inferior to Sutcliffe.

And that visual helps solidify in my mind that Hobbs' era must have been kind of trash quality, sorry not sorry. I honestly believe that the period from early 20th century to 1970ish saw radical changes and improvements in the level of quality of play (with a more rapid level of change somewhat skewed more towards the earlier part of the period in question). Unfortunately Hobbs is on the fag end of that, and I have a high degree of skepticism of quality of opposition and hence level of accomplishment signified by those gaudy numbers. I apply the same principal for Barnes, Grace, and any of the other high performing players from before that era too.

In contrast, with Sutcliffe I simply have access to more that I can see, which validates his qualities, as well as shortcomings. For example, in a comparison between him and Hutton, it's a joke as Hutton comes out miles ahead for what he faced and the batting skill he demonstrated, regardless of their comparison in overall average. It's part of a spectrum of growth of the quality of the game over time, and for me these opinions are a natural consequence of that.

 

[Johan]

Truth is I don't know anything about Hobbs, in an "experiential" sense. Which is a part of what guides me in cricket, not just stats. But I do have this one place in the same match where I have video and my eyes showing Hobbs is clearly looking inferior to Sutcliffe.

And that visual helps solidify in my mind that Hobbs' era must have been kind of trash quality, sorry not sorry. I honestly believe that the period from early 20th century to 1970ish saw radical changes and improvements in the level of quality of play (with a more rapid level of change somewhat skewed more towards the earlier part of the period in question). Unfortunately Hobbs is on the fag end of that, and I have a high degree of skepticism of quality of opposition and hence level of accomplishment signified by those gaudy numbers. I apply the same principal for Barnes, Grace, and any of the other high performing players from before that era too.

This only works if you believe Fab 4 > Waugh and Lara for "developments", otherwise you're just being subjective, though if you made a point about express pace it'd be fair.

 

[shortpitched713]

This only works if you believe Fab 4 > Waugh and Lara for "developments"

I mean 2 things, in a technical sense, yes I do believe that qualities of the fab 4 will represent improvements on what came before them. But that's not really the point, because the changes in the game itself were more gradual during this time period.

The game in the early 20th century is simply a different thing, and emphasizes vastly different and foreign qualities than the game today or 1970, or even 1946.

 

[Johan]

I mean 2 things, in a technical sense, yes I do believe that qualities of the fab 4 will represent improvements on what came before them. But that's not really the point, because the changes in the game itself were more gradual during this time period.

The game in the early 20th century is simply a different thing, and emphasizes vastly different and foreign qualities than the game today or 1970, or even 1946.

That's a confusing stance to have, we've plenty players from 60s and 50s finding success in the 70s and even 80s, they didn't just randomly become obsolete, and Yes different qualities were valued in the pre war era as ability to bat on uncovered pitches, sticky dogs and so forth was valued greatly and there weren't express pacers yet, but regardless I'd argue the game was different rather than Inferior. If we put Hobbs in 2024, would he struggle? Yes, ofcourse he'd struggle, anyone would struggle when having to get used to helmets, faster pacers, bigger bats and so forth. but I'd argue he'd find the current swing/seam oriented bowling and spin bowling much easier to face than the ones from his era for example.

now if we put Kohli in 1908 he'd also probably find the era difficult, yeah there won't be any express pace but the movement of both spinners and seamers would be exaggerated, does it mean Kohli's era is inferior or undercooked? well No, it just means every cricketer is a product of their time, and expecting universal success throughout all of time for a cricketer is silly when the game's required skillset changes from country to country, hell it changes in the same country year to year (2023 England was flat, 2024 was traditional), so I don't really think it's fair to rate Hobbs low on the basis of an undercooked argument regarding eras, Yes he didn't face some challenges as say Cook did such as face 90mph pacers or great bowling attacks but Cook didn't face a lot Hobbs did either such as uncovered wickets and sticky dogs. At the end, it all evens out.

 

[ataraxia]

Truth is I don't know anything about Hobbs, in an "experiential" sense. Which is a part of what guides me in cricket, not just stats. But I do have this one place in the same match where I have video and my eyes showing Hobbs is clearly looking inferior to Sutcliffe.

And that visual helps solidify in my mind that Hobbs' era must have been kind of trash quality, sorry not sorry. I honestly believe that the period from early 20th century to 1970ish saw radical changes and improvements in the level of quality of play (with a more rapid level of change somewhat skewed more towards the earlier part of the period in question). Unfortunately Hobbs is on the fag end of that, and I have a high degree of skepticism of quality of opposition and hence level of accomplishment signified by those gaudy numbers. I apply the same principal for Barnes, Grace, and any of the other high performing players from before that era too.

In contrast, with Sutcliffe I simply have access to more that I can see, which validates his qualities, as well as shortcomings. For example, in a comparison between him and Hutton, it's a joke as Hutton comes out miles ahead for what he faced and the batting skill he demonstrated, regardless of their comparison in overall average. It's part of a spectrum of growth of the quality of the game over time, and for me these opinions are a natural consequence of that.

Ah so you're rating them in a very different way to everyone else, based on raw quality.

 

[Coronis]

Truth is I don't know anything about Hobbs, in an "experiential" sense. Which is a part of what guides me in cricket, not just stats. But I do have this one place in the same match where I have video and my eyes showing Hobbs is clearly looking inferior to Sutcliffe.

And that visual helps solidify in my mind that Hobbs' era must have been kind of trash quality, sorry not sorry. I honestly believe that the period from early 20th century to 1970ish saw radical changes and improvements in the level of quality of play (with a more rapid level of change somewhat skewed more towards the earlier part of the period in question). Unfortunately Hobbs is on the fag end of that, and I have a high degree of skepticism of quality of opposition and hence level of accomplishment signified by those gaudy numbers. I apply the same principal for Barnes, Grace, and any of the other high performing players from before that era too.

In contrast, with Sutcliffe I simply have access to more that I can see, which validates his qualities, as well as shortcomings. For example, in a comparison between him and Hutton, it's a joke as Hutton comes out miles ahead for what he faced and the batting skill he demonstrated, regardless of their comparison in overall average. It's part of a spectrum of growth of the quality of the game over time, and for me these opinions are a natural consequence of that.

You do know Hobbs and Sutcliffe played alongside each other, right?

 

[shortpitched713]

You do know Hobbs and Sutcliffe played alongside each other, right?

Yes, but Hobbs was still earlier than Sutcliffe and Sutcliffe played on after Hobbs retired. The game was developing incredibly rapidly in the first half of the 20th century. To me, all of the context makes a big difference.

 

[Coronis]

Yes, but Hobbs was still earlier than Sutcliffe and Sutcliffe played on after Hobbs retired. The game was developing incredibly rapidly in the first half of the 20th century. To me, all of the context makes a big difference.

Played 5 years longer, the big rule change being the lbw law re: pad play which Sutcliffe was a far larger exponent of than Hobbs. Makes little sense.

 

[shortpitched713]

Played 5 years longer, the big rule change being the lbw law re: pad play which Sutcliffe was a far larger exponent of than Hobbs. Makes little sense.

Huh, I could've sworn Sutcliffe went on to play much longer. Those five years I guess have all the old match footage you need in them.

Okay, I'm wrong. They were probably both cack by modern standards.

Now Bradman. There's an old school batsman to respect.

 

[Coronis]

Huh, I could've sworn Sutcliffe went on to play much longer. Those five years I guess have all the old match footage you need in them.

Okay, I'm wrong. They were probably both cack by modern standards.

Now Bradman. There's an old school batsman to respect.

Well, 5 years in test cricket. Believe both played FC for a few years after that, but Sutcliffe was retired before the war (apart from a one off match against an armed forces xi post war)

 

[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.

Since I asked for it..

from Hill taking over from MacLaren (the record changed hands 4 times in 1902, from Shrewsbury to Darling, Gregory, MacLaren and finally Hill)

1902
Hill 37 innings 1562 @ 43.44
MacLaren 47 innings 1543 @ 35.88
Gregory 60 innings 1465 @ 26.63
Darling 46 innings 1402 @ 31.15
Hayward 35 innings 1288 @ 39.03

1924
Hobbs 66 innings 3497 @ 58.28
Hill 89 innings 3412 @ 39.21
Trumper 89 innings 3163 @ 39.04
Armstrong 84 innings 2863 @ 38.68
Gregory 100 innings 2282 @ 24.53

1937
Hammond 104 innings 5528 @ 60.74
Hobbs 102 innings 5410 @ 56.94
Bradman 51 innings 4659 @ 97.06
Sutcliffe 84 innings 4555 @ 60.73
Hendren 83 innings 3525 @ 47.63

1970
Cowdrey 172 innings 7256 @ 47.21
Hammond 140 innings 7249 @ 58.45
Bradman 80 innings 6996 @ 99.94
Hutton 138 innings 6971 @ 56.67
Barrington 131 innings 6806 @ 58.67

1972
Sobers 147 innings 7591 @ 59.77
Cowdrey 179 innings 7459 @ 45.48
Hammond 140 innings 7249 @ 58.45
Bradman 80 innings 6996 @ 99.94
Hutton 138 innings 6971 @ 56.67

1981
Boycott 191 innings 8090 @ 48.15
Sobers 160 innings 8032 @ 57.78
Cowdrey 188 innings 7624 @ 44.06
Hammond 140 innings 7249 @ 58.45
Bradman 80 innings 6996 @ 99.94

1983
Gavaskar 169 innings 8123 @ 52.07
Boycott 193 innings 8114 @ 47.72
Sobers 160 innings 8032 @ 57.78
Cowdrey 188 innings 7624 @ 44.06
Hammond 140 innings 7249 @ 58.45

1993
Border 240 innings 10161 @ 51.31
Gavaskar 214 innings 10122 @ 51.12
Miandad 179 innings 8569 @ 54.23
Richards 182 innings 8540 @ 50.23
Gower 204 innings 8231 @ 44.25

2005
Lara 204 innings 11204 @ 53.86
Border 265 innings 11174 @ 50.56
Waugh 260 innings 10927 @ 51.06
Tendulkar 198 innings 10134 @ 57.25
Gavaskar 214 innings 10122 @ 51.12

2008
Tendulkar 248 innings 12037 @ 54.22
Lara 232 innings 11953 @ 52.88
Border 265 innings 11174 @ 50.56
Waugh 260 innings 10927 @ 51.06
Dravid 219 innings 10341 @ 53.58

Probs only cool for me. Cowdrey the only post-WWI player to lose the record mid career.

Hammond held the record for 33 years, Sachin currently at 16. He does have the record for most matches its been held for with 671. Darling held the record for just 26 days. Darling also only held the record for one match.