Herbert Sutcliffe vs Jack Hobbs

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

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.

Imagine Australia playing as much as England in 1930s. Even with the lesser number of matches then and war in between, Bradman would have held the record for entire 20th century.

 

[Coronis]

Imagine Australia playing as much as England in 1930s. Even with the lesser number of matches then and war in between, Bradman would have held the record for entire 20th century.

Throughout his career, Hammond missed 14 matches of a possible 99. Bradman missed 8 of a possible 60. If Hammond had played for Australia he’d only have had the opportunity for 50 tests. If Bradman had played for England, he’d have had the opportunity for 105 tests.

Assuming Bradman would miss the same % of matches and score the same amount of runs per match, he’d end up with 91 matches and 12234 runs. Holding the record until the final match of the 2008 B/G Trophy. Or would Lara play another series to grab those extra 300 runs?

 

[peterhrt]

generally people view 1910s and 1900s as a tougher time for batting than 1920s where Sutcliffe peaked

There are two reasons for this. Everybody who watched and played cricket after WW1 agreed that standards had fallen significantly compared with pre-war days, especially standards of English bowling. This wasn't surprising since there had been no top-level cricket for the best part of five years and no opportunity for young players to develop. Hobbs said he found batting a lot easier after the war despite considering being at his peak in 1914. Armstrong reckoned his all-conquering side of 1921 would have lost comfortably to the 1902 tourists of which he was a member. One of the reasons the twenty years before WW1 was dubbed the Golden Age was because the balance between bat and ball was thought to be about right.

Which leads onto the second point. Pitches in Australia had been good for batting since the mid-1890s. More extensive covering after the war made them too good. During the 1920s Ponsford's average for Victoria was 102, Woodfull's 87. Alan Kippax averaged 82 for NSW and was selected for only six of the fifteen Tests for which he was available. When Bradman came on the scene and piled up a similar amount of runs, nobody took much notice.

Pitches in England now also unduly favoured batsmen. The 1928 season saw two batsmen averaging over 80 (including Hobbs at the age of 45), four more over 70 and another six over 60. Woolley's 3352 runs and 12 hundreds were not enough to see him on the boat to Australia.

Runs had become seriously devalued, unless they had been scored on a now much rarer rain-damaged pitch. The yearning for Trumper wasn't just about nostalgia. And the theory that standards always move forward in linear fashion doesn't apply here.

 

[sayon basak]

Seriously? How?

Are you talking about the years he missed due to the war?

Matches would be my very educated guess. After all, Don didn't play for 52 years (afaik).

 

[Coronis]

Seriously? How?

Are you talking about the years he missed due to the war?

Matches. Is it sad once I knew the number I could figure out which tests of the top of my head?

Famously dropped after his first test. Missed the first test of Bodyline due to all the stress of constant cricket and the fight between the Sun and the ACB or due to a nervous breakdown depending on who you ask. Dropped out of the 5 test SA tour because he was “unfit” but was healthy enough to lead the other SA to the shield and develop new bias about bowlers. And also didn’t play in the match against NZ post war (I’m not sure whether it was initially considered a test? But iirc he had reservations about returning to cricket post-war anyway)


(I know too much about the bloke and his career, and you can’t even have logical arguments about him vs other players because he defied logic. Very sad)

 

[Johan]

There are two reasons for this. Everybody who watched and played cricket after WW1 agreed that standards had fallen significantly compared with pre-war days, especially standards of English bowling. This wasn't surprising since there had been no top-level cricket for the best part of five years and no opportunity for young players to develop. Hobbs said he found batting a lot easier after the war despite considering being at his peak in 1914. Armstrong reckoned his all-conquering side of 1921 would have lost comfortably to the 1902 tourists of which he was a member. One of the reasons the twenty years before WW1 was dubbed the Golden Age was because the balance between bat and ball was thought to be about right.

Which leads onto the second point. Pitches in Australia had been good for batting since the mid-1890s. More extensive covering after the war made them too good. During the 1920s Ponsford's average for Victoria was 102, Woodfull's 87. Alan Kippax averaged 82 for NSW and was selected for only six of the fifteen Tests for which he was available. When Bradman came on the scene and piled up a similar amount of runs, nobody took much notice.

Pitches in England now also unduly favoured batsmen. The 1928 season saw two batsmen averaging over 80 (including Hobbs at the age of 45), four more over 70 and another six over 60. Woolley's 3352 runs and 12 hundreds were not enough to see him on the boat to Australia.

Runs had become seriously devalued, unless they had been scored on a now much rarer rain-damaged pitch. The yearning for Trumper wasn't just about nostalgia. And the theory that standards always move forward in linear fashion doesn't apply here.

Makes sense.

 

[Johan]

This is exactly why Hutton is HIM

 

[DrWolverine]

Famously dropped after his first test. Missed the first test of Bodyline due to all the stress of constant cricket and the fight between the Sun and the ACB or due to a nervous breakdown depending on who you ask. Dropped out of the 5 test SA tour because he was “unfit” but was healthy enough to lead the other SA to the shield and develop new bias about bowlers. And also didn’t play in the match against NZ post war (I’m not sure whether it was initially considered a test? But iirc he had reservations about returning to cricket post-war anyway)


(I know too much about the bloke and his career, and you can’t even have logical arguments about him vs other players because he defied logic. Very sad)

Australia played 60 Tests between 1928-1948.

England played 113 Tests during the same period.

 

[DrWolverine]

Bradman missed 8 of a possible 60.

I made a huge mistake

Instead of reading as Bradman missed 8 Tests, I read as Bradman missed 60 Tests

 

[DrWolverine]

Is it sad once I knew the number I could figure out which tests of the top of my head?

No

I used to be proud I could recite Don Bradman’s stats in school and my friends asked me why I remember that

 

[kyear2]

There are two reasons for this. Everybody who watched and played cricket after WW1 agreed that standards had fallen significantly compared with pre-war days, especially standards of English bowling. This wasn't surprising since there had been no top-level cricket for the best part of five years and no opportunity for young players to develop. Hobbs said he found batting a lot easier after the war despite considering being at his peak in 1914. Armstrong reckoned his all-conquering side of 1921 would have lost comfortably to the 1902 tourists of which he was a member. One of the reasons the twenty years before WW1 was dubbed the Golden Age was because the balance between bat and ball was thought to be about right.

Which leads onto the second point. Pitches in Australia had been good for batting since the mid-1890s. More extensive covering after the war made them too good. During the 1920s Ponsford's average for Victoria was 102, Woodfull's 87. Alan Kippax averaged 82 for NSW and was selected for only six of the fifteen Tests for which he was available. When Bradman came on the scene and piled up a similar amount of runs, nobody took much notice.

Pitches in England now also unduly favoured batsmen. The 1928 season saw two batsmen averaging over 80 (including Hobbs at the age of 45), four more over 70 and another six over 60. Woolley's 3352 runs and 12 hundreds were not enough to see him on the boat to Australia.

Runs had become seriously devalued, unless they had been scored on a now much rarer rain-damaged pitch. The yearning for Trumper wasn't just about nostalgia. And the theory that standards always move forward in linear fashion doesn't apply here.

The period was like the 2000's on steroids, and in general without the variety of different playing conditions around the world. Not to mention no Steyn or McGrath to temper the procession of runs.