• 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.

Jack Hobbs vs Sachin Tendulkar

Jack Hobbs vs Sachin Tendulkar

  • Total voters
    54
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
capt_Luffy said:
According to him basically, the difference in Bradman's and Sobers' batting and of Sobers' and Lara's is the same. That's what I disagree with, not for the lines but what he meant by that.

Yeah, this thread got way off after a Great start, and I am to blame for that partially.
Click to expand...
He never said that? He just put them in different tiers, unless I missed it.
 
debraj72

debraj72

Cricket Spectator
Hobbs had an average of 57 in test cricket before first world war,apart from ranjitsinghji and faulkner, anyone else crossed 40? (At least with 1000 runs).Also if i am not wrong, he was the first one to successfully combat with south african googly bowlers, Don't think, Sachin was ever this much of a standout from his generation,with all due respect.(Sorry if i have committed any grammatical mistake)
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
debraj72 said:
Hobbs had an average of 57 in test cricket before first world war,apart from ranjitsinghji and faulkner, anyone else crossed 40? (At least with 1000 runs).Also if i am not wrong, he was the first one to successfully combat with south african googly bowlers, Don't think, Sachin was ever this much of a standout from his generation,with all due respect.(Sorry if i have committed any grammatical mistake)
Click to expand...
Trumper and Hill almost did, and Herbie Taylor, Warren Bardsley and Charlie MaCartney did overall; but no one else purely pre WWI with a decent sample size. Pretty much why I rate Hobbs higher
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
debraj72 said:
Hobbs had an average of 57 in test cricket before first world war,apart from ranjitsinghji and faulkner, anyone else crossed 40? (At least with 1000 runs).Also if i am not wrong, he was the first one to successfully combat with south african googly bowlers, Don't think, Sachin was ever this much of a standout from his generation,with all due respect.(Sorry if i have committed any grammatical mistake)
Click to expand...
That is very true.

His overall thought process is that both were head and shoulders above their peers.

Sachin was never head and shoulders above Lara and there was constant discussion throughout their career about who was the best and they took turns as the leading and best batsman in the world.

I assure you there was no such discussion during Viv's time.


I don't rate pre WWI players, and for multiple reasons, but Hobbs was indeed the GOAT and the stand out until Bradman came along.
 
Johan

Johan

State Vice-Captain
kyear2 said:
That is very true.

His overall thought process is that both were head and shoulders above their peers.

Sachin was never head and shoulders above Lara and there was constant discussion throughout their career about who was the best and they took turns as the leading and best batsman in the world.

I assure you there was no such discussion during Viv's time.


I don't rate pre WWI players, and for multiple reasons, but Hobbs was indeed the GOAT and the stand out until Bradman came along.
Click to expand...
Late 90s where Lara seemed to be fading might be a time, tho Lara had similar timeframes over Tendulkar.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
Johan said:
Late 90s where Lara seemed to be fading might be a time, tho Lara had similar timeframes over Tendulkar.
Click to expand...
2003-06??? SRT's Greatest advantage over Lara is simply that when Lara retired he already was ahead, and then played for 6 more years and had another brilliant late peak.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
kyear2 said:
That is very true.

His overall thought process is that both were head and shoulders above their peers.

Sachin was never head and shoulders above Lara and there was constant discussion throughout their career about who was the best and they took turns as the leading and best batsman in the world.

I assure you there was no such discussion during Viv's time.


I don't rate pre WWI players, and for multiple reasons, but Hobbs was indeed the GOAT and the stand out until Bradman came along.
Click to expand...
More about perceptions really. Both Tendulkar and Lara were attacking attractive batsmen. Viv was so, Gavaskar wasn't. For similar reasons many people rated Compton higher than Hutton when they played together.
 
0

_00_deathscar

International Regular
capt_Luffy said:
Might be Sobers found Gupte a bit difficult to bat. Or it can be Qadiresque situation (though better spinners existed back then, Sobers himself played a fair few). Or my favourite, it was a jab at Benaud as the latter rated Kanhai higher.
Click to expand...
So basically, cricket player opinions on each other can be discarded
 
0

_00_deathscar

International Regular
subshakerz said:
I find this a very arrogant position frankly.
Click to expand...
Not really - a lot of sports players have bizarre opinions, either cos they’re really weird or like attention seeking pieces (Pele considered El Hadji Diouf one of the 100 best players. Sometimes, like you see in cricket especially, it can just be a case of “I found this player the hardest to face/bowl to” (Crowe/Wasim) but they don’t always caveat it like that and just go all in with “this guy was the best”.

You could argue consensus sure, but individual opinions don’t really matter much as shown above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top