Sunil Gavaskar vs Wally Hammond

[capt_Luffy]

He basically called them savages and said they should go back to the trees where they belong. It's one of the most blatantly racist things you can say.

I don't think he ever said they should go back to trees. He said they were savages though, as according to him, the crowd behaved savagely. Was reading a Reddit Thread on it the other day, the argument overall seemed pretty convincing to me.

 

[subshakerz]

Australia in the 70s and 80s was perfect for bowlers like Lillee and Holding as the pitches were indeed the classic bouncy and lightning fast but it was also brutal for inferior bowlers which Chappel got plenty of, not to mention for the first half of Gavaskar's career the pitches were designed for the quaret

There was no quartet then.

 

[capt_Luffy]

There was no quartet then.

The Indian one....

 

[kyear2]

I'd say India was probably not a minnow attack really, they had remarkable bowlers like Amar Singh and Mahomed Nissar, and South Africa while definitely didn't have remarkable bowlers, their output honestly is not that awful, 36 avg is definitely on the higher side of things but not really that bad. I'd say Hammond definitely had an issue with express pace though. I agree that Constantine more or less bitched Hammond though, Hammond's best work against pace seems to be two hundreds against Larwood and Voce

https://stats.acscricket.com/Archive/Scorecards/13/13795.html

https://stats.acscricket.com/Archive/Scorecards/14/14332.html

but there were times where Larwood bitched him too

https://stats.acscricket.com/Archive/Scorecards/13/13269.html

Definitely agree that Hutton is a greater player than Hammond, Hammond's bowling makes it very close but Hutton's captaincy pulls it back to him.

I think it's forgotten that first class cricket was also a part of these resumes and he did face those decent pacers as well.

And while he was bitched in the Caribbean, it was a different proposition to facing them at home, and even in Australia, Bradman was one dropped catch away from a mortal average against them.

Not to mention him facing an elite ATG spinner and a great one in tests, which considering the dead ass pitches in Australia was more effective than pace there.

Re the last bit. Yes Hutton was easily the better bat, Hammond's bowling definitely made it a closer, and while Hutton's captaincy may have pushed it back out a bit, Hammond's catching at slip surpasses Hutton for me.

 

[Johan]

Really dude, I have read that part. It might be culturally insensitive or a shitty thing to say, saying it was racist is honestly a stretch according to me.

Drop it.

 

[kyear2]

Imo Hutton was a good captain, but not a Great one. Similarly, Hammond wasn't a half bad captain itself. What I mean to say is, I don't think captaincy is a big buff for Hutton.

He was very defensive, though that was probably what was required to keep the job. But good, not great captain.

 

[Johan]

There was no quartet then.

The spin one

 

[subshakerz]

Don't think I will thanks.

And it was a direct response to a question asked.

I believe he's a top 10 batsman and that's borne out by the opinions of others. You don't have to agree, or even comment really.

I can make a much more convincing argument that Graeme Pollock was a top ten bat than Barry using all the methods you employ (limited showings, peer rep, rankings). What bothers me is that you know this but just ignore it as if the counter argument doesn't exist.

If you were consistent you would just admit that yes, Barry can be counted as a 'missed opportunity' but you prefer to rate him highly regardless.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I don't think he ever said they should go back to trees. He said they were savages though, as according to him, the crowd behaved savagely. Was reading a Reddit Thread on it the other day, the argument overall seemed pretty convincing to me.

Before defending a piece of garbage like gavaskar you should atleast look up what the actual quote is next time.

 

[kyear2]

I rate Hutton as a very good captain, just a little...tough on his bowlers. I think Hammond's all round contributions are a little overrated and his batting a little underrated for albeit, quite a bit of minnow bashing, I rate Worrel's bowling significantly higher

His catching was his significant all round contribution, the bowling was secondary to that.

Arguably the greatest slip fielder ever.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Before defending a piece of garbage like gavaskar you should atleast look up what the actual quote is next time.

View attachment 43924

The part where he demanded claps from the crowd is ****ing hilarious btw

 

[kyear2]

My top three is Bradman, Imran, Sobers.

The next little lot I could rank in different orders in any given day really, but he's in it along with Hadlee, Kallis, Marshall and Miller.

I account for slip fielding more than the forum as a whole by a fair way but still a little less than you, and I also rate Hammond's bowling less than you do. But I rate him higher with the bat and also like allrounders more than you do.

I don't rate Hammond's bowling that highly tbh, he's a handy 5th bowling option, he was however l possibly the GOAT at slip, so yeah.

But my God you rate all rounders highly, Kallis and Miller in the top 8.

 

[OverratedSanity]

How are we supposed to know how good slip fielders were without meaningful footage

 

[kyear2]

12 is still way too on the lower side for a batsman, since you just decided to ignore him post War.

Was he supposed to keep playing vs the war.

Sorry, but this longevity over everything, especially in these scenarios is ridiculous.

You judge him on what he did, especially under these circumstances.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Before defending a piece of garbage like gavaskar you should atleast look up what the actual quote is next time.

View attachment 43924

Okay, yeah. That did sounded wayyyyy more racist than I remembered, I digress. Was tomfoolery on my behalf to comment before reading the comment once again. Sorry. I apologise to @kyear2 as well.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Was he supposed to keep playing vs the war.

Sorry, but this longevity over everything, especially in these scenarios is ridiculous.

You judge him on what he did, especially under these circumstances.

He specifically said the average to be 61, ignoring the post War matches. That's why I commented.

 

[kyear2]

I like most of your post, but no it totally could be denied he was an ATG.

If Mark Waugh was banned from Test cricket after seven Tests then most people would definitely call him at ATG and most people would be sure of his stature, and they'd say things like, "Oh everyone who played against him knows he would have averaged 50+ in Tests" - but sometimes looking amazing, having an awesome start to a Test career and dominating domestic attacks doesn't actually translate afterall.

I would agree, if his greatest was based on his test record. His test record exists to qualify him as a test batsman and further verify what he demonstrated there after.

His 4 tests in 1970 wasn't what was establishing and maintaining his status as the best batsman in the world 6 years later. It's how he was playing against the best players of his era thereafter.
His record of mid 50's vs the best bowlers of his era
His average of 75 vs touring test teams
How much better he was than his county opening partner, a test Great
His double and triple hundreds vs the very best and how he scored them
How he even all those years later was still the best in his WSC stint.

Mark Waugh's cause isn't comparable imo.

 

[subshakerz]

I think I will fall on Hammond over Gavaskar in this debate. Based on the arguments, both bats did their fair share of padding, Gavaskar faced better quality bowling but with mixed results, but Hammond clearly more dominant.

 

[subshakerz]

I would agree, if his greatest was based on his test record. His test record exists to qualify him as a test batsman and further verify what he demonstrated there after.

His 4 tests in 1970 wasn't what was establishing and maintaining his status as the best batsman in the world 6 years later. It's how he was playing against the best players of his era thereafter.
His record of mid 50's vs the best bowlers of his era
His average of 75 vs touring test teams
How much better he was than his county opening partner, a test Great
His double and triple hundreds vs the very best and how he scored them
How he even all those years later was still the best in his WSC stint.

Mark Waugh's cause isn't comparable imo.

None of that is a replacement for a full international career in which injuries, loss of form, boggie bowlers, difficult conditions and the decline due to age all apply.

Succeeding in dealing with the above given the talent one has is what makes an ATG.

Unfortunately, some peers of the time had such an impression of him they jumped the gun in declaring him a title meant for those with accomplished performance.

 

[kyear2]

If his home conditions were that tougher, I can't rate Lillee highly at all. Australia in the 70s wasn't really low scoring if you look at them. And slightly better against pace, at best, arguably. Worse to anything else. Guess should rate Ponting>Lara by that logic then.

That literally is the argument vs Lillee, he played primarily in helpful conditions, not all but mostly.

The pitches in India were primarily slow as hell.