OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
NopeHutton has a lower SR than Hammond and faced worse bowlers.
NopeHutton has a lower SR than Hammond and faced worse bowlers.
Lindwall-Miller-Johnston-Davidson-Benaud?The 30s had 2 of the greatest spinners in Grimmett and O'Reilly. There were no clear bowling greats that played the majority of their careers in the 40s. Even though Hutton played some matches in the 50s the majority of his Ashes matches did not have as high a bowling standard as Hammond did.
The 'top group' are batsman that you'd put in your ATG XI without too much hesitation.I cannot figure out why people don't include Greg Chappell in the top group.
During the 1930s when Hammond played most of his cricket Australia only had one fast bowler of note - Tim Wall, and with all the best will in the world I don't think that we can compare Wall to the 1940s/50s quicks of Lindwall and Miller, or even Johnston.The 30s had 2 of the greatest spinners in Grimmett and O'Reilly. There were no clear bowling greats that played the majority of their careers in the 40s. Even though Hutton played some matches in the 50s the majority of his Ashes matches did not have as high a bowling standard as Hammond did.
All of them played the majority of their careers in the 50s.. Hutton played them in about half his Ashes matches.. 15 of his 79 total matches.Lindwall-Miller-Johnston-Davidson-Benaud?
Facing great quicks is very different to facing great spinners. They are two separate beasts.All of them played the majority of their careers in the 50s.. Hutton played them in about half his Ashes matches.. 15 of his 79 total matches.
Lindwall/Miller were great bowlers but not as great as Grimmett and O'Reilly were.
My point is even if Hutton eventually faced better pace bowling, it's unfair to say Hammond faced easier bowling when he clearly faced some ATG bowlers.
No. I'm saying that in the ideal world it is easier to rate ATG batsman who have competed regularly against both great fast bowlers and great spinners. Hammond was never really tested by a 'decent' pace attack at the Test level apart from after WWII when he was past it anyway.Are you suggesting that facing great quicks is tougher than facing great spinners?
Anyway I was probably being harsh on Hutton, but I'm just pointing out that facing 2 ATG spinners in tandem is something that batsmen haven't had to do since O'Reilly and Grimmett.. Closest to that has been Kumble and Harbhajan, who weren't in the same class.
As good as Lindwall/Miller/Davidson were they were not in the same class as Grimmett and O'Reilly when it came to just bowling. The two spinners made much more of an impact in the matches they played.
Interesting angle regarding Chappell here. I started watching from mid 80s and missed all of this.The 'top group' are batsman that you'd put in your ATG XI without too much hesitation.
Chappell almost makes that category because of his brilliance against the West Indian quicks during the 1970s and Richard Hadlee most of the time.
However, Chappell fell apart during the 1980/81 season against NZ when he ordered his brother to bowl underarm, and then opted out of the subsequent tour to England thus effectively handing the Ashes to Brearley, Botham, and Willis. During the West Indian tour of 1981/82 he made 7 consecutive ducks and managed only 61 runs during the 3 Tests. Obviously it is being overly picky to place too much emphasis on a batsmen failing briefly agaist Holding, Roberts, Garner, Croft and Clarke but unfortunately I watched most of those innings at the time on TV and it was terrible.
None of those above things prevent Chappell from being Australia's second best ever batsman, or being in the upper echelons of batsmanship. But they do create some hesitation when penciling my ATG XI.
Posted by its.rachit on (July 26, 2014, 13:17 GMT) - Featured comment
i have always believed that Imran never quite got his due ... IMHO, he is up there with Sobers and Bradman as the greatest cricketer ... average of 22 with the ball and 37 with the ball comfortably compares to Sobers with 57 and 34 ... even better than him according to me ... Imran averaged 19 with the ball an 51 with the bat between 1982-1992 ... comfortably matching the 99.94 of bradman as a combined contribution ... somehow due to his being an all-rounder, the bowler got lost some where .. he averages better than wasim,waqar and lillie ... neve quite understood why these 3 are universally put above him as bowlers .. Ananth your comments on this ???
[[
I would say, as a bowler Imran was right up there with the best. Add the batting average of 37 (7 above Srikkanth, let me remind readers), he is certainly in a class of his own. A class which had five players. So I must say i agree with you.
Ananth
]]
I have not come across many fans who rate Waqar above IK. Don't know where the writer on ESPN got this idea.Blogs: Anantha Narayanan: Test streaks: 52 and 27 matches long | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo
One of the comments below echoes my sentiments actually (and the writer's too I suppose)
I am bit surprised to see you put MoYo up there in 2nd line. He was pretty poor against spin or bounce. He rarely had good time in SL/Ind or Aus/SA. That's 30 tests out of 90 tests for him. He played another 30 in Pakistan. If Pakistan had turning tracks like Ind or SL , I think he would have had a horrible career. He was one of the most elegant batsman to watch for sure. I found him very pleasing to watch.I'd go something like (post WW2)…
Bradman
Sobers
Tendulkar - V.Richards - Hutton - G.Chappell - Weekes - Ponting
Kallis - Sangakkara - S.Waugh - May - Pieterson - MoYo - Miandad - N.Harvey - DeVilliers - Walcott - G. Smith - Hayden - Greenidge - Gooch
Worrell - M.Hussey - M.Waugh - Jayawardene - Haynes - Bell
Not comprehensive or anything, more based on which players I think are more influential to their teams, and my personal opinion. All these players are "gold tier" or whatever in my opinion, however the bottom line is much closer to silver tier than the third.