Sunil Gavaskar vs Wally Hammond

[capt_Luffy]

Yeah you deserve this you racist piece of Dogcrap!

Shut up you Bengali rascal!!

 

[sayon basak]

Shut up you Bengali rascal!!

Did you just assume my Nationality? That's so racist!

I identify as a butterfly.

 

[kyear2]

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

Writings, and liiterally the only one I do that for is Hammond, and it's based purely on contemporary reports.

But do you know how ridiculously good one has to be as a slip fielder for it to be part of your legacy.

The a little footage on Simpson and tons on Garry.

After that Chappell, Comey, Richards there's more than enough from their early days.

The rest I've seen myself.

 

[Johan]

Just realized I've been milking Larwood to prove Hammond and Sutcliffe against true pace, based.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Did you just assume my Nationality? That's so racist!

I identify as a peacoc.k.

No nationality bitch, I assumed your ethnolinguistic group and made that comment. You can be a Bengali peacoc.k

 

[sayon basak]

No nationality bitch, I assumed your ethnolinguistic group and made that comment. You can be a Bengali peacoc.k

BS. I changed my mind. I am a butterfly now.

 

[capt_Luffy]

BS. I changed my mind. I am a butterfly now.

A Bengali Butterfly then. Don't care.

 

[sayon basak]

A Bengali Butterfly then. Don't care.

Butterfly>Andy Flower>jose andrade

 

[subshakerz]

On Hammond vs Hutton, Hammond has two big holes in his Resume that Hutton just doesn't

• Hammond's home record against Australia isn't good, even in the 30s he is averaging less than 40 at home against Australia, with only one big inning (240)
• His one sided domination by Sir Constantine.

On the other hand, Hutton's the exact opposite

• in his first home Ashes, Hutton made 473 runs in 4 innings at an average of 118.25 and two hundreds.
• In his first series against Carribean, Hutton made 480 runs in 6 innings at an average of 96 and two hundreds.

due to this + opening + general domination in the horrid 50s era/England I believe Hutton to be a clearly superior Batsmen, the bowling of Hammond and captaincy of Hutton cancels each other out for me. so It's just, does Hammond's slip work make the batting gap for me irrelevant? No imo, it makes it close tho.

Yeah I am sold now on moving Hutton ahead in my ATG batting list. I have him behind Lara now.

 

[subshakerz]

Let me add another, Gavaskar opened. No opener is a sure shot ATG to debut post War except him.

Sure but I think he is a smidge behind.

 

[kyear2]

On Hammond vs Hutton, Hammond has two big holes in his Resume that Hutton just doesn't

• Hammond's home record against Australia isn't good, even in the 30s he is averaging less than 40 at home against Australia, with only one big inning (240)
• His one sided domination by Sir Constantine.

On the other hand, Hutton's the exact opposite

• in his first home Ashes, Hutton made 473 runs in 4 innings at an average of 118.25 and two hundreds.
• In his first series against Carribean, Hutton made 480 runs in 6 innings at an average of 96 and two hundreds.

due to this + opening + general domination in the horrid 50s era/England I believe Hutton to be a clearly superior Batsmen, the bowling of Hammond and captaincy of Hutton cancels each other out for me. so It's just, does Hammond's slip work make the batting gap for me irrelevant? No imo, it makes it close tho.

Understand your argument.

I just need to be clear that I have Hutton way ahead of Hammond as bat.

I have Hutton in the sub tier as Smith and Lara.

I have Hammond with Sunny and Chappell. Not challenging Hutton's batting edge at all. I have one at 8th and the other 11th(ish)

This might just be me, but unless you're a great captain it's not something that I factor in, and if I'm being honest it's not something I even thought about when rating Hutton.

He was seen as being pretty defensive (par for the course some would say), and his selection policies, especially with regards to a certain ATG (for some) fast bowler, was very questionable.

For Hammond, his bowling was pretty good when he could be bothered to run in, but his slip catching was superb.

I guess that if I did factor in the captaincy for Hutton I would have them closer though.

 

[kyear2]

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.

I was going to ignore this but I can't.

He did have a full career with all of those things, and his career was basically the 3 toughest for batsmen during that era.
His career should have started in the late 60's and he was still doing work in 78 in WSC. He had a full career.

This is the part that annoyed me though, considering that it's one of your main arguments against Kallis. Contemporary peer rating is what you value extremely highly, but now it's jumping the gun, because you disagree with it? For over half a decade he was rated the best batsman in the world, in an era with Sunny and Chappell playing. That's one of your arguments for deciding who's your top tier batsmen, or don't you remember? You literally tired to use it against Lara and use it for Smith.

But I assume when they voted him to the Cricinfo 2nd team decades later, they were also jumping the gun?

 

[Johan]

Understand your argument.

I just need to be clear that I have Hutton way ahead of Hammond as bat.

I have Hutton in the sub tier as Smith and Lara.

I have Hammond with Sunny and Chappell. Not challenging Hutton's batting edge at all. I have one at 8th and the other 11th(ish)

This might just be me, but unless you're a great captain it's not something that I factor in, and if I'm being honest it's not something I even thought about when rating Hutton.

He was seen as being pretty defensive (par for the course some would say), and his selection policies, especially with regards to a certain ATG (for some) fast bowler, was very questionable.

For Hammond, his bowling was pretty good when he could be bothered to run in, but his slip catching was superb.

I guess that if I did factor in the captaincy for Hutton I would have them closer though.

Fair.

now, on Hutton's captaincy, I completely agree that his assessment on Jim Laker and Fred Trueman were incorrect and the later was very clearly a decision influenced by person factors and personal spat between Hutton and Trueman, and also between the MCC and Trueman.

but regardless, He backed Frank Tyson for Ashes 1955-56 and Tyson completely blew away Australia, he led England to the first Ashes win in 20 years and the first win in Australia in 22 years, very important moments for English cricketting history, Hammond on the other hand as a bowler was a decent 5th option and a lot of the times it's just him taking the lower order wickets, I think it's fair to say his bowling isn't really overpowering Hutton's captaincy edge.

regardless, at the end of the day the discussion very steeply comes down to whether one thinks Hammond's slipwork overpowers Hutton's batting prowess, and for me that's a No but you seem to value slip fielding more than even I do, so it being a Yes for you is completely fair.

 

[kyear2]

Yk I rate Viv and Gavaskar next to eachother, hence I said that. Barry was a dig just.

And I have disagreed. I think Gavaskar is in that Top tier (below Don one), and Hammond is probably too. Not Chappell, who belongs in the one below with Kallis, Ponting and Root.

By peer rating, Lillee is much better than Marshall.

His WSC one, yes. But I have my questions regarding them. Overall, his away record is Farzi as hell.

That's the thing, no he wasn't. Lillee was seen as being supreme in the 70's and the baton was passed to Marshall in '83.

They never competed and outside of Australia it's well seen that Marshall was better than he was.

 

[kyear2]

The conversation has ended. I have remembered the comment wrong. Have apologised already. You being totally oblivious to it is kinda shocking though given you were constantly posting.

I'm responding as I proceed, I don't jump ahead.

And after what you tried to defend and especially since we had this same conversation less than a year ago, you don't get to be snarky or defensive.

That being said, for the 2nd time, I accept your apology.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah you deserve this you racist piece of Dogcrap!

Please note that I didn't, nor wouldn't go this far.

I would for Sunny though, the comments weren't off the top of his head, they were written.

I don't dislike many cricketers, Nel a bit when we played them, but that's basically it. But that human is one that I have a personal distaste for and would never have respect for.

 

[subshakerz]

I was going to ignore this but I can't.

He did have a full career with all of those things, and his career was basically the 3 toughest for batsmen during that era.
His career should have started in the late 60's and he was still doing work in 78 in WSC. He had a full career.

He didn't have a full international cricket career. FC doesn't count. WSC and a single home series aren't enough.

This is the part that annoyed me though, considering that it's one of your main arguments against Kallis. Contemporary peer rating is what you value extremely highly, but now it's jumping the gun, because you disagree with it? For over half a decade he was rated the best batsman in the world, in an era with Sunny and Chappell playing. That's one of your arguments for deciding who's your top tier batsmen, or don't you remember? You literally tired to use it against Lara and use it for Smith.

Peer rating doesn't trump an actual record. I have always been clear on this.
Otherwise why not vote Lillee over Marshall?

Barry's peer rating based on getting tested in county games is completely suspect. This is obvious.

There is no substitute to an actual international career. Barry shouldn't be considered in the top 20 bats at least.

But I assume when they voted him to the Cricinfo 2nd team decades later, they were also jumping the gun?

Graeme Pollock was voted SA cricketer of the century, was shortlisted in Benaud's team unlike Barry, rated higher than Barry in both Wisden and ESPN rankings as well as others, gets rated by many of the 60s era jointly with Sobers as best or next best bat. Are you going to acknowledge that based on peer rating and more of an international career sample, Pollock has a better case than Barry?

 

[kyear2]

Yeah I am sold now on moving Hutton ahead in my ATG batting list. I have him behind Lara now.

Like literally that's where he is for me.

Only "strike" I can hold against him is the strike rate.

No pun intended.

 

[subshakerz]

Like literally that's where he is for me.

Only "strike" I can hold against him is the strike rate.

No pun intended.

I think we may end up having the same top ten except for your Barry infatuation

 

[kyear2]

Fair.

now, on Hutton's captaincy, I completely agree that his assessment on Jim Laker and Fred Trueman were incorrect and the later was very clearly a decision influenced by person factors and personal spat between Hutton and Trueman, and also between the MCC and Trueman.

but regardless, He backed Frank Tyson for Ashes 1955-56 and Tyson completely blew away Australia, he led England to the first Ashes win in 20 years and the first win in Australia in 22 years, very important moments for English cricketting history, Hammond on the other hand as a bowler was a decent 5th option and a lot of the times it's just him taking the lower order wickets, I think it's fair to say his bowling isn't really overpowering Hutton's captaincy edge.

regardless, at the end of the day the discussion very steeply comes down to whether one thinks Hammond's slipwork overpowers Hutton's batting prowess, and for me that's a No but you seem to value slip fielding more than even I do, so it being a Yes for you is completely fair.

Fair as well.

If I can nit pick here, I don't think backing Tyson was such a huge leap of faith, and to fair he could have travelled with both. So I'm not sure that there is a captaincy edge.

I do rate slip fielding highly, annoying to most I would imagine. Sure it's a toss up between that and Barry that pisses off some the most. But I find one to be deserving and the other to be grossly underrated, in any event it's better than just pushing a player from what ever country we come from.

As I said in another post this morning. One of the determinators of this great test series that no one seems to be discussing is catching.

When Australia drops their chances, they lose or lose the opportunity to win. Khawaja off Jaiswal that cost them the match, and K.L by Smith which cost time and the opportunity to enforce the follow on and at least the chance of victory. Khawaja was way better in this game and Smith was superb.

This isn't even looking at the drops by India this match of the couple half chances that Kohli didn't even get close to.

Without their slip cordons neither Australia nor the WI reaches the heights that they do, but it doesn't fit into a spread sheet, so it's ignored.
Neither squad had batting nor bowling all rounders, but caught almost everything. Yet no one factors it in, or even acknowledges it when selecting all time teams and the like.

So yeah, I give Hammond credit for being possibly the GOAT.