PlayerComparisons
International Vice-Captain
I would pick Pietersen over Hobbs against an ATG attack
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
J Hobbs Vs Imran
- Thread starter Jumno
- Start date
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
By the way, I can understand why we put Bradman so high as he was such an outlier and had 50 tests to show. But if it's someone like Hobbs with a more conventional ATG record, we should be committed to rated higher cricketers of more professional eras, ideally post WW2.
sayon basak
International Debutant
Pietersen only opened in one inning. Joe Root is better number 4 than Pietersen anyway.
And 45 average against Australia and 40 against NZ doesn't seem to be ATG level stuff
shortpitched713
International Captain
The whole Hobbes = Shakib batting "meme" I've pushed has a pretty straightforward rationale.
A while back there was a clip out, which presumably showed Sidney Barnes bowling in an county match. We all laughed at the notion of him doing the sorts of feats attributed to him with that action, and at the very least there was a level of credulity about it (even moreso than that around the really bad looking clip of Grimmett recently). It's just so hard to be certain about what that level of skill actually signifies in the context of cricket that most of us know.
Ultimately, that ends up meaning there's a great deal of polarization between those who look at his otherworldly stats, and that reality of how relatively primitive the style was. So even though he could end up being ranked top 10-12 all time in a final vote, some would put him top 4-5 based on those stats presumably, and others might leave him out altogether.
Batsmen's techniques should have every bit the level of skepticism about them, when we realize they can only impress in relatio to the quality of bowling faced. Hobbs was a contemporary, who played at and beyond the tail end of Barnes' career. Hobbs' career has historical value, and I don't doubt he had keen reflexes to do as well as he did. But there's no way you can tell me he didn't have the opportunity to feast on bowling, of a level unlikely to be found even in domestic FC cricket in more modern eras.
If Barnes has an asterisk, then certainly Hobbs does too, and he shouldn't be forced down our throats as some standard of opening excellence, when he simply didn't face nearly as good bowling as his batting successors which came after him. His longevity can't make up for that fact either.
Heck, I'd even go so far as to say Barnes had more value as a historical pioneer, as it is bowlers, not batsmen, who historically push the game forward with better techniques, new types of deliveries and styles, etc.
So yeah, Hobbs was an excellent bat for his time. But don't try to make me value that, in the context of cricket that I know.
A while back there was a clip out, which presumably showed Sidney Barnes bowling in an county match. We all laughed at the notion of him doing the sorts of feats attributed to him with that action, and at the very least there was a level of credulity about it (even moreso than that around the really bad looking clip of Grimmett recently). It's just so hard to be certain about what that level of skill actually signifies in the context of cricket that most of us know.
Ultimately, that ends up meaning there's a great deal of polarization between those who look at his otherworldly stats, and that reality of how relatively primitive the style was. So even though he could end up being ranked top 10-12 all time in a final vote, some would put him top 4-5 based on those stats presumably, and others might leave him out altogether.
Batsmen's techniques should have every bit the level of skepticism about them, when we realize they can only impress in relatio to the quality of bowling faced. Hobbs was a contemporary, who played at and beyond the tail end of Barnes' career. Hobbs' career has historical value, and I don't doubt he had keen reflexes to do as well as he did. But there's no way you can tell me he didn't have the opportunity to feast on bowling, of a level unlikely to be found even in domestic FC cricket in more modern eras.
If Barnes has an asterisk, then certainly Hobbs does too, and he shouldn't be forced down our throats as some standard of opening excellence, when he simply didn't face nearly as good bowling as his batting successors which came after him. His longevity can't make up for that fact either.
Heck, I'd even go so far as to say Barnes had more value as a historical pioneer, as it is bowlers, not batsmen, who historically push the game forward with better techniques, new types of deliveries and styles, etc.
So yeah, Hobbs was an excellent bat for his time. But don't try to make me value that, in the context of cricket that I know.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Hobbs could literally average 60 with the bat in today's era. Or maybe 30 with the bat. We don't know and watching clips of him gives us less confidence. That may be club standard cricket for all we know.
Coronis
International Coach
You could say the same for modern players, we have no idea how they would fair in previous eras either. That’s why you can only judge players based on how they performed against their peers.
Its true in every sport. LeBron would be crying on the floor after a quarter in the 60’s from all the hard fouls. How would any of the modern NBA players handle being constantly called for travelling? (as they would have been) How would a modern F1 driver handle 50’s F1 cars without all the technological luxuries afforded to them today? How would Federer/Nadal/Djokovic have handled playing hundreds of matches in professional tours in the 60’s? Just impossible questions.
If you don’t want to include players before a certain era thats fine but I’m not a fan of downgrading a player in a direct comparison by saying oh he played in this time period so he sucks.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Not saying he sucked. Saying because of the unprofessional era we don't have a good idea how great he was and can't treat his ATG stats at face value.
shortpitched713
International Captain
TV and money in sports = professionalism = players training more, from earlier in life, and against stiffer opposition than earlier, non professional eras .
Steve Smith or any other pro of the modern Era would do just fine on sticky wickets or whatever conditions they had in past eras. Because the bowlers utilizing them would be sending him pies and lollipops compared to what he is used to facing in the modern age.
Steve Smith or any other pro of the modern Era would do just fine on sticky wickets or whatever conditions they had in past eras. Because the bowlers utilizing them would be sending him pies and lollipops compared to what he is used to facing in the modern age.
smash84
The Tiger King
Dude, this is so ridiculous. You're essentially giving all the advantages Smith has now and that he will carry them into the past without giving the same charity to Hobbs.
When Steve Smith boards onto the steam boat and gets to England in 6 weeks time he will take a fairly long time to recover. The wickets won't have the nice bounce he is used to and the protection for the body will be pretty low.
He won't get the diet he has now either. Much less protein likely and many chances to fall ill. Not to mention that a small bruise or cut that gets infected could become very serious very quickly. A strep throat might even see him out of action for many months. A more severe infection may result in death because he won't have antibiotics. Oh, and if he develops something like dysentry on his 6 weeks voyage to England, we wouldn't know what happens to him. Neither do we know if he survives WW1 if he gets called up.
So yeah.....Smith won't be the same Steve Smith that we know now.
Arachnodouche
International Captain
Natives are breaking free 
shortpitched713
International Captain
Skinny, malnutritioned Steve Smith also does great. He just has spent more time hitting cricket balls during his development, and is thus more skilled.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
All fair. But why trust Hobbs numbers is the point?
smash84
The Tiger King
Only reason I might discount numbers is if he was facing only underarm bowling.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Why stop there? Dude the game was almost completely different then.
smash84
The Tiger King
Were all his contemporaries making truckloads of runs like him?
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Again that just says he was better in those conditions than others not whether those numbers collectively can be taken at face value.
For example, we do adjustment for 2000s era bats knowing conditions changed. But Hobbs era is off the spectrum.
This is zero way to know also that Hobbs success can translate into a more professional era.
HouHsiaoHsien
International Debutant
For me one of the reasons why Hobbs is the joint greatest after h the Don is the dominance he had over his peers in the pre war era. Couple that with his longevity across eras, mastery of extreme conditions(from stickies to pace and bounce to matted wickets etc), it’s easy for me. But Imran is the better cricketer
HouHsiaoHsien
International Debutant
I sort of understand where you are coming from, in this argument.
smash84
The Tiger King
Well, that's exactly your job as a cricketer. To try and perform at a much higher level than your contemporaries. It's not required to plan for cricketers 100 years down the line.
And you can adjust all the era you want to be but if Hobbs is head and shoulders above his competition, what good does era adjustment really do?
The 2000s era is adjusted because you had people like moyo and Jayawardene with 50 plus Averages. How many other batsmen of Hobbs time average anywhere close to that?