Richards, Smith, Lara, Hammond

[capt_Luffy]

Because he watched him bat. And like literally everyone who has, decided he was one of the best batsmen he's seen.

Plus he literally declared that he was factoring in tests and first class cricket .

I saw that. And that's why I found it fascinating really. I know Barry's reputation and Peterhrt is very knowledgeable regarding old players; I was just interested in the why.

 

[kyear2]

I saw that. And that's why I found it fascinating really. I know Barry's reputation and Peterhrt is very knowledgeable regarding old players; I was just interested in the why.

Don't think anyone who's ever watched him didn't come away with the impression he was the best opener they've ever watched.

Think @fredfertang has him up there with Sobers

 

[BazBall21]

You can agree or disagree with @subshakerz sentiment, but marking Kallis down relatively for not being an aggressive batsman isn't checklist-y. It's a consistently applied fundamental preference.

 

[kyear2]

You can agree or disagree with @subshakerz sentiment, but marking Kallis down relatively for not being an aggressive batsman isn't checklist-y. It's a consistently applied fundamental preference.

Or lack of ability or reluctance to adjust as required in real time scenarios.

But as a cricketer I love Kallis, near unparalleled skill set and value for any team lucky enough to have him. Really think with his temperament and technique would have been a superb opener.

 

[peterhrt]

No Steve Smith, Hutton, Hammond, Headley, Gavaskar or Chappell before Barry Richards? Not complaining or anything, just interested in why Barry is rated so highly despite playing only 4 Tests and a few games in WSC.

My impression is that Steve Smith is not rated as highly in England. Certainly not as Top 10 material. He is seen in a bracket with other post-war Australians: Harvey, Greg Chappell, Border, Steve Waugh, Ponting. At least one Australian poster here has seen them all and rates Harvey highest. Some English writers/commentators would place Chappell and Ponting ahead of Smith. Also Kallis, whose orthodox technique and temperament were always admired here.

Gavaskar is close, but during the 1970s he was never considered as good as Barry Richards, except perhaps in India and parts of the Caribbean (Guyana and Trinidad).

For a long time, according to English cricket historians of a certain vintage, there was a fixed hierarchy among English batsmen. Grace and Hobbs in tier 1; Hammond in tier 2; Hutton and Compton in tier 3. Ranji had been in the second tier, but following Indian independence these writers appeared to lose interest in him.

Their reporting revolved largely around personal experience of watching the game. The present trend, evident in Cricinfo and elsewhere, of reducing cricketers to a set of numbers would have been alien to them. Aussie Jack Fingleton claimed he never looked at averages, which may not have been entirely sensible. Pre-Packer, cricket commentary, verbal and written, was dominated by Englishmen and Australians with a disproportionate focus on the Ashes and county cricket. Hence the under-rating of players like Headley and Merchant with limited opportunity to impress.

Slow batting was rarely criticised before WW2, but once timeless matches were abolished and cricket faced more competition for people's time, the likes of Hutton did receive flak. He rarely appeared in theoretical all-time England XIs since Grace and Hobbs were automatic picks to open the batting. As Grace faded into the mists of time, and Tests increasingly attracted more attention than the first-class game, Hutton's reputation prospered.

Of course many of these things are subjective at the end of the day and no two lists will be identical. Ideally all Test and most first-class matches would be between two strong evenly-matched teams, with conditions not unduly favouring either batsmen or bowlers, or the home side. Since this often hasn't been the case, there will always be room for personal interpretation.

 

[kyear2]

My impression is that Steve Smith is not rated as highly in England. Certainly not as Top 10 material. He is seen in a bracket with other post-war Australians: Harvey, Greg Chappell, Border, Steve Waugh, Ponting. At least one Australian poster here has seen them all and rates Harvey highest. Some English writers/commentators would place Chappell and Ponting ahead of Smith. Also Kallis, whose orthodox technique and temperament were always admired here.

Gavaskar is close, but during the 1970s he was never considered as good as Barry Richards, except perhaps in India and parts of the Caribbean (Guyana and Trinidad).

For a long time, according to English cricket historians of a certain vintage, there was a fixed hierarchy among English batsmen. Grace and Hobbs in tier 1; Hammond in tier 2; Hutton and Compton in tier 3. Ranji had been in the second tier, but following Indian independence these writers appeared to lose interest in him.

Their reporting revolved largely around personal experience of watching the game. The present trend, evident in Cricinfo and elsewhere, of reducing cricketers to a set of numbers would have been alien to them. Aussie Jack Fingleton claimed he never looked at averages, which may not have been entirely sensible. Pre-Packer, cricket commentary, verbal and written, was dominated by Englishmen and Australians with a disproportionate focus on the Ashes and county cricket. Hence the under-rating of players like Headley and Merchant with limited opportunity to impress.

Slow batting was rarely criticised before WW2, but once timeless matches were abolished and cricket faced more competition for people's time, the likes of Hutton did receive flak. He rarely appeared in theoretical all-time England XIs since Grace and Hobbs were automatic picks to open the batting. As Grace faded into the mists of time, and Tests increasingly attracted more attention than the first-class game, Hutton's reputation prospered.

Of course many of these things are subjective at the end of the day and no two lists will be identical. Ideally all Test and most first-class matches would be between two strong evenly-matched teams, with conditions not unduly favouring either batsmen or bowlers, or the home side. Since this often hasn't been the case, there will always be room for personal interpretation.

So who gets your vote here?

 

[Coronis]

So who gets your vote here?

Just enjoy the quality post man

 

[peterhrt]

So who gets your vote here?

Among these four, Viv Richards. But I would probably have him higher than number five.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Among these four, Viv Richards. But I would probably have him higher than number five.

Who would you displace then? Bradman is a fixed; so among Grace, Hobbs, Sobers and Tendulkar; ahead of whom would you have Viv?

 

[kyear2]

Who would you displace then? Bradman is a fixed; so among Grace, Hobbs, Sobers and Tendulkar; ahead of whom would you have Viv?

The assumed top 4 were Bradman, Tendulkar, Sobers and Hobbs. Grace wasn't included.

 

[kyear2]

Just enjoy the quality post man

Are you serious dude?

 

[peterhrt]

Who would you displace then? Bradman is a fixed; so among Grace, Hobbs, Sobers and Tendulkar; ahead of whom would you have Viv?

Personally I would have Richards as the leading West Indian batsman, ahead of Sobers and Lara.

Grace in his twenties was the most dominant batsman and cricketer of all. As his long career progressed he carried increasing weight and became just one among a group of leading batsmen of the day. By the age of fifty he could no longer handle the pace of Ernest Jones and retired from Tests, but still played first-class cricket until he was almost sixty, and club matches beyond that.

Due to Grace's remarkable longevity his average level would fall below that of the names above.

 

[Coronis]

Are you serious dude?

I am serious. And don’t call me dude, bro.

 

[kyear2]

I am serious. And don’t call me dude, bro.

You are way too uptight

 

[kyear2]

My impression is that Steve Smith is not rated as highly in England. Certainly not as Top 10 material. He is seen in a bracket with other post-war Australians: Harvey, Greg Chappell, Border, Steve Waugh, Ponting. At least one Australian poster here has seen them all and rates Harvey highest. Some English writers/commentators would place Chappell and Ponting ahead of Smith. Also Kallis, whose orthodox technique and temperament were always admired here.

Gavaskar is close, but during the 1970s he was never considered as good as Barry Richards, except perhaps in India and parts of the Caribbean (Guyana and Trinidad).

For a long time, according to English cricket historians of a certain vintage, there was a fixed hierarchy among English batsmen. Grace and Hobbs in tier 1; Hammond in tier 2; Hutton and Compton in tier 3. Ranji had been in the second tier, but following Indian independence these writers appeared to lose interest in him.

Their reporting revolved largely around personal experience of watching the game. The present trend, evident in Cricinfo and elsewhere, of reducing cricketers to a set of numbers would have been alien to them. Aussie Jack Fingleton claimed he never looked at averages, which may not have been entirely sensible. Pre-Packer, cricket commentary, verbal and written, was dominated by Englishmen and Australians with a disproportionate focus on the Ashes and county cricket. Hence the under-rating of players like Headley and Merchant with limited opportunity to impress.

Slow batting was rarely criticised before WW2, but once timeless matches were abolished and cricket faced more competition for people's time, the likes of Hutton did receive flak. He rarely appeared in theoretical all-time England XIs since Grace and Hobbs were automatic picks to open the batting. As Grace faded into the mists of time, and Tests increasingly attracted more attention than the first-class game, Hutton's reputation prospered.

Of course many of these things are subjective at the end of the day and no two lists will be identical. Ideally all Test and most first-class matches would be between two strong evenly-matched teams, with conditions not unduly favouring either batsmen or bowlers, or the home side. Since this often hasn't been the case, there will always be room for personal interpretation.

So Hutton may have received flak even in his own era for his s/r?

 

[subshakerz]

Or lack of ability or reluctance to adjust as required in real time scenarios.

But as a cricketer I love Kallis, near unparalleled skill set and value for any team lucky enough to have him. Really think with his temperament and technique would have been a superb opener.

Oh yes. He was an I'll fit for number 4 where a more dominant bat is preferable.

All these arbitrary 35/40 thresholds are meaningless when Kallis averages a full 6 points higher than Ponting away from home. Ponting also never had a single truly great series away from home against a strong attack.

I said 35 is 'below par' for Kallis (and any ATG) whereas Ponting in India is a fail.

And I am really not a fan of using cumulative averages. For example, their difference in difference shrinks when you remove Zimbabwe/Bangladesh.

Which great away series did Kallis have against a great attack?

 

[subshakerz]

Personally I would have Richards as the leading West Indian batsman, ahead of Sobers and Lara.

Grace in his twenties was the most dominant batsman and cricketer of all. As his long career progressed he carried increasing weight and became just one among a group of leading batsmen of the day. By the age of fifty he could no longer handle the pace of Ernest Jones and retired from Tests, but still played first-class cricket until he was almost sixty, and club matches beyond that.

Due to Grace's remarkable longevity his average level would fall below that of the names above.

I go for Sobers over Viv mainly due to higher rep for the former.

 

[kyear2]

I go for Sobers over Viv mainly due to higher rep for the former.

Is there though? Both were seen as best of their respective eras.

 

[subshakerz]

Is there though? Both were seen as best of their respective eras.

I have listened to quite a few contemporaries of the 60s/70s crossover and they are solidly Sobers. It may not be unanimous though.

 

[peterhrt]

So Hutton may have received flak even in his own era for his s/r?

Copying part of a previous post. Strike rates refer to first-class cricket.

Hutton scored at 35 runs per hour and Sutcliffe 34. Sutcliffe largely escaped criticism but not Hutton. There was a certain amount of hypocrisy involved. Nobody minded Hutton batting slowly against Australia but at other times it was different. Compton was one critic:

His class was way, way above all but a tiny few in any era, but to me it was all the more puzzling that he remained suspicious and defensive and allowed all types of bowlers to dictate to him on good wickets, when he should have been the boss...As the years went by and I watched him plod against inferior attacks, I could not fathom why.

During the 1950s there was an anti-professional captain agenda in England and also West Indies. The implication was that professional captains like Hutton encouraged dull cricket.