Wally Hammond vs Allan Border

[PlayerComparisons]

Two top 20 batsmen

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Hammond arguably 2nd Best batsman of Alltime .

Border arguably top 5 Australian batsman of Alltime

 

[CricketFan90s]

Hammond was better no doubt about it as he was batting at no3 or no4 usually and he was also a very good medium fast bowler and used to bowl an average of 12 overs per innings.

 

[kyear2]

Hammond the much better cricketer, but Border just faced much better bowling

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Border a better batsmen clearly

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Walter Hammond easily and it’s nowhere close too.Border isn’t a better or comparable batsman to W.R Hammond.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Hammond is overrated(and the only thing to his credit was he batted well on sticky wickets). Border has a far more complete record, dominance vs the great bowlers of his era(and a massive range of them), incredible longevity, and versatility in batting anywhere from 3-6.

 

[kyear2]

Hammond is overrated(and the only thing to his credit was he batted well on sticky wickets). Border has a far more complete record, dominance vs the great bowlers of his era(and a massive range of them), incredible longevity, and versatility in batting anywhere from 3-6.

Yeah, when you look at the attacks that Border faced, there's absolutely no comparison.

 

[DrWolverine]

Hammond is overrated(and the only thing to his credit was he batted well on sticky wickets). Border has a far more complete record, dominance vs the great bowlers of his era(and a massive range of them), incredible longevity, and versatility in batting anywhere from 3-6.

Replace Border with most all time great batsmen post 1970s

Replace Hammond with the great batsmen before 1970s

And everything you said will be completely true and it’s hard to deny that

All of the yesteryear greats would have faced at maximum 2 good teams

The only exception could be Don Bradman whose exceptional record is impossible to ignore

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Replace Border with most all time great batsmen post 1970s

Replace Hammond with the great batsmen before 1970s

And everything you said will be completely true and it’s hard to deny that

All of the yesteryear greats would have faced at maximum 2 good teams

The only exception could be Don Bradman whose exceptional record is impossible to ignore

but with a lot of batsmen pre 70s who we rate higher such as Hobbs(I mean just the variety of crazy conditions plus the longevity), Hutton(domination of Lindwall and Co, Ramadhin and Valentine, and thriving in the 50s(a very tough era) despite his war injury with a near perfect record) and Sobers(again a very complete record and a crazy peak) we have reasons. Plus amongst the post 70s batsmen with a great all round record, Borde will be close to or at the very top

 

[DrWolverine]

but with a lot of batsmen pre 70s who we rate higher such as Hobbs(I mean just the variety of crazy conditions plus the longevity), Hutton(domination of Lindwall and Co, Ramadhin and Valentine, and thriving in the 50s(a very tough era) despite his war injury with a near perfect record) and Sobers(again a very complete record and a crazy peak) we have reasons. Plus amongst the post 70s batsmen with a great all round record, Borde will be close to or at the very top

Hobbs faced two teams. One of them was a minnow.

Sobers faced five teams. The only good teams he faced were Australia and England.

I ain’t saying they aren’t great. Just saying most of the old legends did not really face that much competition.

 

[Coronis]

but with a lot of batsmen pre 70s who we rate higher such as Hobbs(I mean just the variety of crazy conditions plus the longevity), Hutton(domination of Lindwall and Co, Ramadhin and Valentine, and thriving in the 50s(a very tough era) despite his war injury with a near perfect record) and Sobers(again a very complete record and a crazy peak) we have reasons. Plus amongst the post 70s batsmen with a great all round record, Borde will be close to or at the very top

Not really a war injury tbh

 

[Coronis]

Hobbs faced two teams. One of them was a minnow.

Sobers faced five teams. The only good teams he faced were Australia and England.

I ain’t saying they aren’t great. Just saying most of the old legends did not really face that much competition.

You can’t choose who you play. Hobbs, Hammond and others did magnificent against the teams and bowlers they were able to face.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Yea I mean Hammond averaged close to 60. That’s ATG level regardless of how hard/easy his era was.

 

[Coronis]

Yea I mean Hammond averaged close to 60. That’s ATG level regardless of how hard/easy his era was.

Personally I don’t really count his post-war record, similar to Headley. He was 43 and hadn’t played tests for 7 years. Average went down 3 points in those extra 13 innings.

He was seriously unfortunate to have his career coincide with Bradman. Finally someone surpassed the Master and then he had to live in Bradman’s shadow the rest of his career.

 

[DrWolverine]

You can’t choose who you play.

True

 

[DrWolverine]

Finally someone surpassed the Master and then he had to live in Bradman’s shadow the rest of his career.

Hammond played between 1927-1947.
Bradman played bwtween 1928-1948.

Hammond had a dream start to his career. In just his second year, he scored a record 905 runs in 5 Tests and 9 innings at an average of 113.

Just one year later Don arrived. He broke Hammond’s record. He scored 974 runs in just 7 innings with a world record score of 334.

In any other era, Hammond would have been the numero uno batsman. But due to playing in the same era as Bradman, he was second best.

Even post retirement, Hammond had to face financial struggles. The Don did not have to worry about money and was treated like a King

 

[Coronis]

Hammond played between 1927-1947.
Bradman played bwtween 1928-1948.

Hammond had a dream start to his career. In just his second year, he scored a record 905 runs in 5 Tests and 9 innings at an average of 113.

Just one year later Don arrived. He broke Hammond’s record. He scored 974 runs in just 7 innings with a world record score of 334.

In any other era, Hammond would have been the numero uno batsman. But due to playing in the same era as Bradman, he was second best.

Even post retirement, Hammond had to face financial struggles. The Don did not have to worry about money and was treated like a King

Held the test record for most runs for 33 years but nobody really seemed to care. Was second behind Bradman in tons until 1971, second behind Bradman in double tons until 2005. Still to this day second in FC double centuries (by a massive margin), has the second best ratio of tons to innings by batsmen who scored 100 FC centuries.

Just… stuck in the shadow.

Impressive considering Hammond was the taller.

 

[Johan]

Hammond was truly the Fabiano to Bradman's Magnus

 

[DrWolverine]

Was second behind Bradman in tons until 1971

second behind Bradman in double tons until 2005

Still to this day second in FC double centuries (by a massive margin)

has the second best ratio of tons to innings by batsmen who scored 100 FC centuries.

Yohan Blake

1. Gold Medal 2012 Olympics 4 x 100m

2. 2nd place in 2012 Olympics 100m

3. 2nd place in 2012 Olympics 200m

4. 100 metre - Second fastest timing ever

5. 200 metre - Second fastest timing ever

Between 2011-2012, he achieved all of these incredible feats and would have been a legend. He would have been on par with Jesse Owens and Carl Lewis. Sadly he competed in the same time period as the unbeatable and incomparable Usain Bolt.