J Hobbs Vs Imran

[smash84]

Professional cricket goes back more than 300 years.

WG Grace was technically an amateur but earned more than £1 million from the game in today's money, at a time when there was no sponsorship. For a single tour to Australia in 1873-74, before the days of Test cricket, he was paid the equivalent of over £100,000.

Grace's "day job" as a doctor was non-existent during the summer, which he spent almost entirely on the cricket field.

Thank you

 

[Coronis]

If cricket became professional from WSC that means I can exclude 1976 from Viv’s record with no issues right?

 

[subshakerz]

If cricket became professional from WSC that means I can exclude 1976 from Viv’s record with no issues right?

No. It wasn't just WSC. I would say it started with Chappells captaincy in the early mid 70s.

 

[subshakerz]

It is arbitrary.

Same argument can be used for Hobbs, modern batsmen are fitter, sure. Better? No evidence of that.

Are you willing to take the stats of George Lohmann seriously?

 

[smash84]

No. It wasn't just WSC. I would say it started with Chappells captaincy in the early mid 70s.

Probably not, but that is because the 19th century bowlers were likely bowling on minefields.

 

[subshakerz]

Probably not, but that is because the 19th century bowlers were likely bowling on minefields.

Yeah so I take that skepticism attached to that time and extend it a bit to Hobbs as well, which I why I cant treat him the way as you. I'm not saying you have to agree with me bro, but it's not some crackpot opinion. I think we all also do that with Barnes too.

 

[smash84]

Yeah so I take that skepticism attached to that time and extend it a bit to Hobbs as well, which I why I cant treat him the way as you. I'm not saying you have to agree with me bro, but it's not some crackpot opinion. I think we all also do that with Barnes too.

Yeah, but you are pushing this opinion like it must be adhered to.

I just feel there is a good enough strong argument to be made for it not to be pushed either.

So, we can agree to disagree.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah, but you are pushing this opinion like it must be adhered to.

I just feel there is a good enough strong argument to be made for it not to be pushed either.

So, we can agree to disagree.

Chalo bhai aap kay marzi, khush raho yaar

 

[capt_Luffy]

The latest entry on list of cricketers getting punched down by @subshakerz - Jack Hobbs. Sometimes I feel @honestbharani gave you the perfect nickname.

 

[shortpitched713]

And taking this reasoning to its extreme, since general fitness standards have been increasing for the last 50 years, Jimmy Anderson > all the fast bowlers of the 70s and 80s.

I unironically believe this.

But, given they are just refinements of more or less the same skillset, I think we can do actual "if he grew up 30 years earlier, or transported 30 years later in that environment" type comparisons with it being actually valid.

Barnes vs Anderson simply is invalid, as they simply are not honing comparable skill-sets, imho.

 

[subshakerz]

The latest entry on list of cricketers getting punched down by @subshakerz - Jack Hobbs. Sometimes I feel @honestbharani gave you the perfect nickname.

As long as I dont get accused of downgrading Hobbs because I am anti-India and love Imran.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I unironically believe this.

But, given they are just refinements of more or less the same skillset, I think we can do actual "if he grew up 30 years earlier, or transported 30 years later in that environment" type comparisons with it being actually valid.

Barnes vs Anderson simply is invalid, as they simply are not honing comparable skill-sets, imho.

Correct. Pretty rare from you actually....

 

[capt_Luffy]

As long as I dont get accused of downgrading Hobbs because I am anti-India and love Imran.

Well, all I can say is if you believe Hobbs wasn't a big deal, just remember that Viv won't do as well today as Harry Brooks; or Imran as Sam Curran.

 

[subshakerz]

I unironically believe this.

But, given they are just refinements of more or less the same skillset, I think we can do actual "if he grew up 30 years earlier, or transported 30 years later in that environment" type comparisons with it being actually valid.

Barnes vs Anderson simply is invalid, as they simply are not honing comparable skill-sets, imho.

I think that is the point. I can look at hours of Sobers play with a similar range of defense and shots to today and get a good idea of him transitioning into a modern era. The more I watch of Hobbs, the less I have that confidence. Seems like a chasm in terms of how the batting skillset has developed.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I think that is the point. I can look at hours of Sobers play with a similar range of defense and shots to today and get a good idea of him transitioning into a modern era. The more I watch of Hobbs, the less I have that confidence. Seems like a chasm in terms of how the batting skillset has developed.

You knows whose batting gives me even less confidence of doing good in the modern game? Steve Smith.

 

[subshakerz]

You knows whose batting gives me even less confidence of doing good in the modern game? Steve Smith.

Sure but he is playing in the modern game so we dont have to wonder.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Sure but he is playing in the modern game so we dont have to wonder.

30 years later people will look at Smith batting and say he won't perform in that era.

 

[kyear2]

Sutcliffe played post WW1. Pre that, Hobbs had near unprecedented dominance(apart from Bradman and Grace) over his peers. He was averaging 60 when averaging 36 was considered good.

Cmon bro. Hobbs behind Smith? I understand if you put Tendulkar or Viv or Sobers ahead.

Not yet. Hobbs is still ahead. Was considering it but Kyear makes a good point, it defies too much cricket consensus to do so.

Agree with all three.