Ranking the Batsmen

[silentstriker]

I can only think that Trumper must have done something to you blokes in a former life!

Hehe, just think there are at least five others that deserve to get in front of Trumper.

 

[The Sean]

Fair enough mate - seems like you're well and truly in the majority! Just a few of us romantics trying to fly the flag for the Hero of the Golden Age.

 

[silentstriker]

Fair enough mate - seems like you're well and truly in the majority! Just a few of us romantics trying to fly the flag for the Hero of the Golden Age.

Generally speaking, 1960's and recent > amateurs

 

[The Sean]

So C_C has finally converted you?

 

[silentstriker]

So C_C has finally converted you?

Oh, God no! That's what he thinks?

OK, 60's amateurs > Professionals.

 

[The Sean]

Hahaha no mate - I've just read a lot of his posts arguing that, barring the odd exception, modern players are much better than their old-time equivalents (Hobbs being no better than Trescothic was one of my favourites). Thought you must have come around to the same way of thinking!

 

[silentstriker]

Hahaha no mate - I've just read a lot of his posts arguing that, barring the odd exception, modern players are much better than their old-time equivalents (Hobbs being no better than Trescothic was one of my favourites). Thought you must have come around to the same way of thinking!

I don't know about that, but I am not for PhoenixFire's contention that Ponting can never surpass Hobbs. IMO he's level with him already, or close to it. It always perplexes me how some people give God like status to players, especially the old timers which, by all accounts, did not have to face the quality of competition that exists today (GM-OLAS obviously exempted).

 

[silentstriker]

I have a strong feeling that if Don Bradman were playing today, he'd average something like 70 over his career, but PhoenixFire would come on and argue he would never surpass Hobbs.

 

[chaminda_00]

Personally i have no problem with olden day players, just cus they had a full time job as well as playing cricket, doesn't mean their amateurs. Im sure most would have trained as hard as your average grade cricket and most call themselves semi professionals.

With Trumper i just think he was too inconsistant compared to even players of his same era. Really for me his just an olden day Mark Waugh or VVS Laxman. He could produce one of greatest innings you'll ever see, but failed more often then succeded. There is a reason why his average was so low, even compared to his fellow players.

 

[The Sean]

Fair enough. I wouldn't have him level just yet - my personal rankings (and honestly, what would I know? But anyway...) based on all I've heard and read, places JB Hobbs as the second best Test batsman of all time, with Sobers, Richards, Tendulkar and Lara making up the top 6. I've deliberately excluded WG Grace from that list as the time he played in makes it very hard to judge him as a Test player.

Punter isn't quite in that class yet, but I think the level he is batting at right now, and has been for 2-3 years, puts him in a very elite group and I have no problem placing him among the all time greats. I don't think he needs any more runs to go any higher in the rankings as he is already amassing them at a ridiculous volume. I think he just needs a few more big scores in "career-defining" kind of situations, and particularly in India. I reckon he might just be one big series in India away from being rated virtually in the Lara-Tendulkar class of modern greats.

 

[chaminda_00]

I don't know about that, but I am not for PhoenixFire's contention that Ponting can never surpass Hobbs. IMO he's level with him already, or close to it. It always perplexes me how some people give God like status to players, especially the old timers which, by all accounts, did not have to face the quality of competition that exists today (GM-OLAS obviously exempted).

One called argue that the great batsmen of this era faced worse bowling then those of the 50s and 60s. Apart from McGarth, Warne and Murali, what else do you have Pollock, Shane 'Mr Injury' Bond, Gillespie, Kumble...

 

[The Sean]

Personally i have no problem with olden day players, just cus they had a full time job as well as playing cricket, doesn't mean their amateurs. Im sure most would have trained as hard as your average grade cricket and most call themselves semi professionals.

With Trumper i just think he was too inconsistant compared to even players of his same era. Really for me his just an olden day Mark Waugh or VVS Laxman. He could produce one of greatest innings you'll ever see, but failed more often then succeded. There is a reason why his average was so low, even compared to his fellow players.

Probably not a bad call in that he had that fallible charm about him - but if you really read cricket history, and the opinions of the commentators of the day as well as the players Trumper played with and against, you'll see that he really was considered an absolute genius. I'd love to see what a guy like Neville Cardus would have to say about M Waugh or Laxman being considered in the same class as Trumper!

And his average of nearly 40 was definitely NOT "so low, even compared with his fellow players". It didn't necessarily outshine his contemporaries, but it was still among the highest of batsman who played a lot of cricket in the first decade of the 20th century. I can only think of a couple of blokes who averaged over 40, and none of them played nearly as many Tests as Trumper did.

 

[chaminda_00]

Hmm looking at a bit closely only really Clem Hill and Clarlie Macartney played a similar number of games and only marginally average higher then him. Still don't think he should be in the top 25 all time.

 

[The Sean]

Well it's not all about stats - but fair enough mate, there are plenty on here who agree with you.

Though with relation to Macartney - if you look at his record, pre WWI he only averaged 26.64 with 1 century. It was in the better batting conditions of the 1920s that he hit 6 centuries and averaged nearly 70, thus taking his overall average above 40.

 

[chaminda_00]

Well it's not all about stats - but fair enough mate, there are plenty on here who agree with you.

Though with relation to Macartney - if you look at his record, pre WWI he only averaged 26.64 with 1 century. It was in the better batting conditions of the 1920s that he hit 6 centuries and averaged nearly 70, thus taking his overall average above 40.

Yeah but its hard to judge someone just on what other people say. I wouldn't be surprsied in a couple decades time people talk so much about Laxman 281, that he gets rated higher then someone like Kallis, purely on the back of one innings. Also you just have to look at statement said by Sobers with Gupte and Bradman with Merchant. If Warne came out and said that Laxman's the best batsmen his bowled to, does that make him the greatest in his generation.

Most things i've read about Trumper, are purely saying he was the best batsmen in his era and Australia batsmen before Bradman. Not many have said that his undoubtly the 2nd best batsmen Australia produced, or even in the top 25 all time. Then again i could be reading the wrong books.

 

[silentstriker]

Yeah but its hard to judge someone just on what other people say. I wouldn't be surprsied in a couple decades time people talk so much about Laxman 281, that he gets rated higher then someone like Kallis, purely on the back of one innings. Also you just have to look at statement said by Sobers with Gupte and Bradman with Merchant. If Warne came out and said that Laxman's the best batsmen his bowled to, does that make him the greatest in his generation.

Most things i've read about Trumper, are purely saying he was the best batsmen in his era and Australia batsmen before Bradman. Not many have said that his undoubtly the 2nd best batsmen Australia produced, or even in the top 25 all time. Then again i could be reading the wrong books.

Right - thats why I have a little bit of a problem going by what people say. I mean I love Boycott but he's a bit of a loon, and fifty years from now, if some fan uses 'well the great Boycott said this' as an argument...I'm not sure how much validity it would have.

 

[The Sean]

Yeah fair enough mate - obviously opinions are by their nature always very subjective so it can be hard to tell. I guess my thing with Trumper is that it's not one or two guys but rather pretty much unanimous from everyone who ever played with or against him, or watched him play. But I understand your point - there have been so many great batsmen down the years that a lot of them won't make a list of the top 25. Plenty have to miss out - I personally think Trumper is well within the top 25 ever, but it seems there are more of you guys who think he's not.

Meh, democracy.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I don't know about that, but I am not for PhoenixFire's contention that Ponting can never surpass Hobbs. IMO he's level with him already, or close to it. It always perplexes me how some people give God like status to players, especially the old timers which, by all accounts, did not have to face the quality of competition that exists today (GM-OLAS obviously exempted).

I tend to agree, though there are some players from past eras whose records stand out. Bradman obviously, Grace, Hobbs, perhaps Barnes. And there are other players from the same sort of period I'd happily class as extremely good, like Sutcliffe, Hammond or even McCabe. The second tier players from that sort of period I don't really rate, and I'd never consider someone like Sutcliffe for an all-time team, because of the gap in professionalism in the main. The thing with Hobbs is that he played across a fair expanse of time and a range of conditions. He might not have been tested in terms of quality pace bowling like people who came before and after him were, but he encountered a greater range of conditions and bowlers than someone who just played between the wars, and his record is quite phenomenal. Throw in his first class record and the accolades he recieved from his peers and he's unquestionably the best batsman in test cricket before Bradman, and probably the best opener you could find.

Hobbs is almost a certainty in an all-time XI for me, along with Bradman, Sobers and Gilchrist. Simply head and shoulders above the competition in their respective positions, while any other place in the team can be debated, though I think Gavaskar pretty much has a lock on the other opening spot.

The problem with PhoenixFire's position isn't that he rates players from the past highly, it's that he simply refuses to acknowledge the possibility that anyone could be better than them, and places them on a pedestal far beyond what is warranted. Saying "Ponting can never be better than Hobbs" is simply absurd because Ponting could finish with a test average of 80, 70 centuries and 20,000 runs. Obviously he won't, but if he batted like Bradman for the rest of his career it's possible. Records are made to be broken, and all players, aside from Bradman perhaps, will probably be surpassed at some time or another. The problem going the other way, towards a C_C sort of perspective, is that you can't cut down a great player from another era with mere speculation. Obviously Hobbs never faced a bowler like, say, Lillee, but he faced bowlers and conditions that current players don't have to contend with as well, and these sort of things even out in the end. It's fair enough to rate professionalism as a key aspect of strong competition, but picking out specifics like speculating about the pace bowlers bowled at or ideas about sportsmanship and stuff is just a waste of time, IMO.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I'm happy to admit that I'm very stubborn and short sighted about this matter. I don't believe that Ponting will ever be as good as Hobbs was, and I can fully understand people disagreeing with me. I just get annoyed when people forget the past. For instance, Shaun Pollock is a very fine bowler, but no way on earth is he in the top 25 or so of all time, but that's just my opinion.

 

[silentstriker]

I tend to agree, though there are some players from past eras whose records stand out. Bradman obviously, Grace, Hobbs, perhaps Barnes. And there are other players from the same sort of period I'd happily class as extremely good, like Sutcliffe, Hammond or even McCabe. The second tier players from that sort of period I don't really rate, and I'd never consider someone like Sutcliffe for an all-time team, because of the gap in professionalism in the main. The thing with Hobbs is that he played across a fair expanse of time and a range of conditions. He might not have been tested in terms of quality pace bowling like people who came before and after him were, but he encountered a greater range of conditions and bowlers than someone who just played between the wars, and his record is quite phenomenal. Throw in his first class record and the accolades he recieved from his peers and he's unquestionably the best batsman in test cricket before Bradman, and probably the best opener you could find.

Hobbs is almost a certainty in an all-time XI for me, along with Bradman, Sobers and Gilchrist. Simply head and shoulders above the competition in their respective positions, while any other place in the team can be debated, though I think Gavaskar pretty much has a lock on the other opening spot.

The problem with PhoenixFire's position isn't that he rates players from the past highly, it's that he simply refuses to acknowledge the possibility that anyone could be better than them, and places them on a pedestal far beyond what is warranted. Saying "Ponting can never be better than Hobbs" is simply absurd because Ponting could finish with a test average of 80, 70 centuries and 20,000 runs. Obviously he won't, but if he batted like Bradman for the rest of his career it's possible. Records are made to be broken, and all players, aside from Bradman perhaps, will probably be surpassed at some time or another. The problem going the other way, towards a C_C sort of perspective, is that you can't cut down a great player from another era with mere speculation. Obviously Hobbs never faced a bowler like, say, Lillee, but he faced bowlers and conditions that current players don't have to contend with as well, and these sort of things even out in the end. It's fair enough to rate professionalism as a key aspect of strong competition, but picking out specifics like speculating about the pace bowlers bowled at or ideas about sportsmanship and stuff is just a waste of time, IMO.

100% agreed with what you just said.