Wally Hammond vs Keith Miller

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Walter I think by a noticeable enough margin.
He may well have been The Greatest cricketer to have ever come from England. No Bradman and No WW2 and I think it would be all different on how people would have looked at him in todays date.

 

[kyear2]

Walter I think by a noticeable enough margin.
He may well have been The Greatest cricketer to have ever come from England. No Bradman and No WW2 and I think it would be all different on how people would have looked at him in todays date.

Without Sobers, Hammond is in with a shout to be first team all time. Close to the perfect cricketer.

 

[Zinzan]

Wally Hammond, just.

Both slightly underrated all-time greats.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Hammond, as I said in another thread today, one of the two ATGs that's underrated on the forum.

Borderline top 10 all time batsman, greatest slip and more than useful relief bowler.

Hammond is the biggest minnow basher among the great batsmen by far and faced virtually no quality pacers in his test career. He's closer to 30 than he is to 10 imo.

 

[Line and Length]

Hammond is the biggest minnow basher among the great batsmen by far and faced virtually no quality pacers in his test career. He's closer to 30 than he is to 10 imo.

You could use that argument (no quality pacers) against Bradman. Other than Larwood, where was the quality pace (emphasis on pace)? Voce, Tate and Bedser were fine bowlers but weren't the quickest.

 

[OverratedSanity]

You could use that argument (no quality pacers) against Bradman. Other than Larwood, where was the quality pace (emphasis on pace)? Voce, Tate and Bedser were fine bowlers but weren't the quickest.

I didn't talk about pace when I said pacers tbf. But yes even bradman faced larwood (and voce, farnes,tate etc) . And averaged 100 which is impossible to argue against.

Hammond just averaged "normal" ATG numbers and didn't have to face any truly high quality pacers. No other ATG batsman is similar .

 

[sayon basak]

Bradman's average against individual bowlers:

Verity dismissed him the most amount of time. Larwood caused him a little bit trouble in the BODYLINE series (still managed to average 56 in that series). Bedser's stats against Don is actually very respectable (even got him out for a duck twice).

Other than that, Magical stats.

 

[DrWolverine]

I have always found it weird that Don Bradman had seven ducks in just 80 innings

 

[OverratedSanity]

Bradman's average against individual bowlers:
View attachment 43763
Verity dismissed him the most amount of time. Larwood caused him a little bit trouble in the BODYLINE series (still managed to average 56 in that series). Bedser's stats against Don is actually very respectable (even got him out for a duck twice).

Other than that, Magical stats.

Aren't those averages wrong. Iirc they only show the average in games they were actually dismissed by those bowlers.

 

[sayon basak]

Aren't those averages wrong. Iirc they only show the average in games they were actually dismissed by those bowlers.

I mean, this is the best I could do, as there aren't database of older players in cricmetric.

And I'm not sure whether what you're saying is right or not. If you come to know, enlighten me.

But in both cases, magical stats nonetheless (actually better for Don because if other matches were counted, his Average would go even higher).

 

[BazBall21]

Surprised Hammond is winning

 

[Fanboy375]

Are Hammond and Miller better all rounder than Imran and Botham

 

[DrWolverine]

Are Hammond and Miller better all rounder than Imran and Botham

Imran ~ Miller > Botham >>> Hammond

 

[sayon basak]

Imran ~ Miller > Botham >>> Hammond

As all rounders? Definitely.
As overall cricketers? Absolutely not.

 

[sayon basak]

Surprised Hammond is winning

Why? This is actually very close.

 

[Prince EWS]

I mean, this is the best I could do, as there aren't database of older players in cricmetric.

And I'm not sure whether what you're saying is right or not. If you come to know, enlighten me.

But in both cases, magical stats nonetheless (actually better for Don because if other matches were counted, his Average would go even higher).

Yeah Cricinfo just shows averages when dismissed by X bowler. Absolutely totally useless.

 

[Johan]

Imran ~ Miller > Botham >>> Hammond

How even

 

[sayon basak]

Yeah Cricinfo just shows averages when dismissed by X bowler. Absolutely totally useless.

Any better statistical database that you'd suggest? (Except cricmetric)

 

[Prince EWS]

Any better statistical database that you'd suggest? (Except cricmetric)

They just didn't collect ball by ball data from back then so it's not actually possible.

 

[kyear2]

I didn't talk about pace when I said pacers tbf. But yes even bradman faced larwood (and voce, farnes,tate etc) . And averaged 100 which is impossible to argue against.

Hammond just averaged "normal" ATG numbers and didn't have to face any truly high quality pacers. No other ATG batsman is similar .

He did face O'Reilly and Grimmett though, the actually only great bowlers of the era. And then there was Constantine and Martindale... in the Caribbean, he gets a tiny bit of credit for that, despite not doing well against them.

And while you can argue that he only averaged "normal" ATG numbers, he did average 75 in Australia, and again against the only ATG bowler of the era.

Bradman averaged 178 and 201 vs India and South Africa. And fast bowling was pretty useless in Australia at the time, and the one tactic that was impactful, was immediately banned.

That was the era, anyone ever wondered why the pitches didn't liven up till 1950 or so?

Can't just pick on Hammond, you actually went where most didn't want to and toured the Caribbean.