• 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.

The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

andmark

andmark

International Captain
Coronis said:
Tangentially related but from an article not so long ago... Herbert Sutcliffe scored quickly, faster than any of the heavy run-makers of the time except Bradman, believing that the new ball was more opportunity than threat. On the more-coal-for-the-winter theory, Sutcliffe picked gaps with a forensic eye and ran hard between the wickets. He glanced and cut, as did many of the players of the age, and drove with surprising power. Above all his gifts were those of temperament and application. John Arlott wrote, "Herbert was cool beyond disturbance."

Interesting, since SR estimates I've seen put him lower than say, Hobbs, Hammond, Headly, Hutton (**** how good were the H's). Sorry to go off on a tangent but I just love my boy Herb. Best Ashes batsman outside of Bradman, saved his best for big occasions (compare his first class record to test), average uniquely never dipped below 60 in his career.
Click to expand...
That's a wonderful mindset from the spectators' perspective. It's entertaining to watch batsmen trying to survive the new ball, but it must've been even better watching a quality batsman actively attacking it.
 
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
Another tidbit I found about Sutcliffe - perhaps more relevant to the discussion. His brilliantined hair shining, Sutcliffe hooked bouncers like no one had previously done.
 
Red

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
I'd always pictured Sutcliffe as quite dour in my imagination. Obviously needs a reconsider.
 
Starfighter

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Red Hill said:
I'd always pictured Sutcliffe as quite dour in my imagination. Obviously needs a reconsider.
Click to expand...
Davis records his strike rate as being 37-38, slower than infamously dour Ken Barrington (41.1) but faster than Mitchell (30-31) Collins (36.5) and Woodfull (33-34) amongst contemporary openers. It might perhaps be reading a lot of Arthur Mailey, but I've known him as having a big reputation for using his pads in preference to his bat, I've even seen him padding away Tim Wall, pretty much just standing in front of the stumps with his bat in the air. I certainly wouldn't ever consider him fast.
 
bagapath

bagapath

International Captain
Bolo said:
Why doesn't he belong there within the bounds of this conversation? I've made an argument that Barry is more likely to succeed than Hobbs. You could make an argument that Sutcliffe would be more likely to succeed than Hobbs based on him being a more modern batsman and averaging more. I've made an argument for Sutcliffe above Gavaskar. So there is an argument for Barry above Sunny without actually comparing them.

Which one(s) of these arguments do you take issue with? They aren't watertight by any means- every one of them could be wrong for all I know. But you must take serious exception to at least one of them before comparing Barry and sunny even becomes relevant.
Click to expand...
Not buying those two. there is no way Barry could be assumed to be better than Hobbs. He can go back to where he belongs - clubs and first class teams. and leave the highest form of cricket to the big boys.

the careers of Sunil Gavaskar and Barry Richards overlapped for more than 10 years. One of them was a great test opener with 10000 runs in 125 matches with 34 centuries to his credit. Other one played in 4 tests. He doesn't deserve to be compared with the first guy.
 
Last edited:
B

Bolo

State Captain
bagapath said:
Not buying those two. there is no way Barry could be assumed to be better than Hobbs. He can go back to where he belongs - clubs and first class teams. and leave the highest form of cricket to the big boys.

the careers of Sunil Gavaskar and Barry Richards overlapped for more than 10 years. One of them was a great test opener with 10000 runs in 125 matches with 34 centuries to his credit. Other one played in 4 tests. He doesn't deserve to be compared with the first guy.
Click to expand...
I repeat that this is not about who is better, but who is more likely to succeed in modern conditions. For an opening batsman, this is about who is more likely to succeed against good pace and in pace friendly conditions.

Barry played in England (in conditions much more condusive to pace than Hobbs) against pretty much all the best quicks in the world (almost everyone who was good enough to get an overseas slot took one in those days, plus there were a number of good English quicks).

In AUS he played on the fastest decks in history against a large portion of the world's best (AUS national and domestic plus limited outings against WI).

In RSA, where the quicks dominated the game like nowhere else, he played another large chunk of the best.

Hobbs played in no pace friendly conditions, and against no high quality quicks (to my knowledge).

Hobbs must be regarded as greater, but he is probably less proven
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
It's important to note that playing domestic cricket against teams with some of the worlds best bowlers isn't the same as playing international cricket against full strength international attacks of the same bowlers.
 
StephenZA

StephenZA

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
bagapath said:
the careers of Sunil Gavaskar and Barry Richards overlapped for more than 10 years. One of them was a great test opener with 10000 runs in 125 matches with 34 centuries to his credit. Other one played in 4 tests. He doesn't deserve to be compared with the first guy.
Click to expand...
Either their careers overlap and you compare the 2 on the careers they did have or they did not overlap for the reasons we all know. Can't have it both ways. You want to argue Barry did not have a international career and does not therefore get to be compared, that is your choice. But then don't talk about the 10 year overlap, disingenuous.
 
B

Bolo

State Captain
TheJediBrah said:
It's important to note that playing domestic cricket against teams with some of the worlds best bowlers isn't the same as playing international cricket against full strength international attacks of the same bowlers.
Click to expand...
Sure. They have different holes in their records. The question is which hole is more likely to be damaging given the parameters of the question?
 
bagapath

bagapath

International Captain
StephenZA said:
Either their careers overlap and you compare the 2 on the careers they did have or they did not overlap for the reasons we all know. Can't have it both ways. You want to argue Barry did not have a international career and does not therefore get to be compared, that is your choice. But then don't talk about the 10 year overlap, disingenuous.
Click to expand...
Ok. So...

Barry didnt have a test career at all. So he doesnt belong in the discussion.
 
bagapath

bagapath

International Captain
Bolo said:
I repeat that this is not about who is better, but who is more likely to succeed in modern conditions. For an opening batsman, this is about who is more likely to succeed against good pace and in pace friendly conditions.

Barry played in England (in conditions much more condusive to pace than Hobbs) against pretty much all the best quicks in the world (almost everyone who was good enough to get an overseas slot took one in those days, plus there were a number of good English quicks).

In AUS he played on the fastest decks in history against a large portion of the world's best (AUS national and domestic plus limited outings against WI).

In RSA, where the quicks dominated the game like nowhere else, he played another large chunk of the best.

Hobbs played in no pace friendly conditions, and against no high quality quicks (to my knowledge).

Hobbs must be regarded as greater, but he is probably less proven
Click to expand...
But barry played only first class cricket. Hobbs played 61 tests. Comparing them is blashphemous.
You can compare gavaskar and hobbs and state that sunny was better, using he same logic as above. I may or may not agree with the conclusion. But i wont question the logic.
 
Last edited:
B

Bolo

State Captain
bagapath said:
You can compare gavaskar and hobbs and state that sunny was better, using he same logic as above. I may or may not agree with the conclusion. But i wont question the logic.
Click to expand...
Better proven under these parameters, yes, Sunny definitely was.

Better, nah. Hobbs was clearly the best bat of his generation. Only Bradman and Grace have such a claim.

Sunny is clearly the best test opener of his playing career (and the last 60 or so years). But you don't often see claims that he was ahead of Viv for example.

You do see these claims for Barry, and very frequently. Mostly based on talent, but also on his performances at every level of cricket.

So it's a choice between one of the greatest (but unproven in modern conditions), one of the potentially greatest (but relatively unproven at the top levels), and someone who was proven to be just a fraction below the greatest.

I lean towards Sunny here- the risk of either of the others failing pretty badly doesn't seem worth the small gain you are likely to get. But I'm not sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top