DrWolverine
U19 Cricketer
Two names who would make it to top 10 of most people’s all time great batsman list
-
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.
Wally Hammond vs Len Hutton
- Thread starter DrWolverine
- Start date
sayon basak
International Debutant
Hammond would take that for his bowling.
This one has shifted over time.
Wisden - not long after Hammond's death in 1965: "The judgment of cricket history is that the greatest batsmen the game has known are - in order of appearance, only - WG Grace, Jack Hobbs, Walter Hammond and Don Bradman. Others may come close indeed to those four but do not quite take place with them."
In 1976 three of the leading cricket historians, Arlott, Swanton and Frith, assembled to pick an all-time England XI: "It was eventually agreed that the supreme WG Grace was a mandatory inclusion, as was Hobbs, which forced the regretful exclusion of Hutton and other illustrious opening batsmen, none of whom could challenge Hammond for the number three position. The genius of Compton and Woolley (with the added resource of his left-handedness, his bowling if needed, and his slip fielding - alongside Hammond) guaranteed their places."
But when Hutton died in 1990 Wisden had changed its tune: "If English cricket alone is taken into consideration he was one of the two most accomplished professional batsmen to have played for his country, the other being Sir Jack Hobbs with Walter Hammond and Denis Compton coming next."
The word "professional" was included here to avoid dragging Grace into the discussion. Compton's reputation remained intact.
It would appear that in English cricket establishment circles Hutton overtook Hammond some time during the 1980s.
Wisden - not long after Hammond's death in 1965: "The judgment of cricket history is that the greatest batsmen the game has known are - in order of appearance, only - WG Grace, Jack Hobbs, Walter Hammond and Don Bradman. Others may come close indeed to those four but do not quite take place with them."
In 1976 three of the leading cricket historians, Arlott, Swanton and Frith, assembled to pick an all-time England XI: "It was eventually agreed that the supreme WG Grace was a mandatory inclusion, as was Hobbs, which forced the regretful exclusion of Hutton and other illustrious opening batsmen, none of whom could challenge Hammond for the number three position. The genius of Compton and Woolley (with the added resource of his left-handedness, his bowling if needed, and his slip fielding - alongside Hammond) guaranteed their places."
But when Hutton died in 1990 Wisden had changed its tune: "If English cricket alone is taken into consideration he was one of the two most accomplished professional batsmen to have played for his country, the other being Sir Jack Hobbs with Walter Hammond and Denis Compton coming next."
The word "professional" was included here to avoid dragging Grace into the discussion. Compton's reputation remained intact.
It would appear that in English cricket establishment circles Hutton overtook Hammond some time during the 1980s.
kyear2
International Coach
Hutton very easily for me the better batsman.
Better cricketer is very tough, I may have to take a peek but think I have Hammond very slightly higher. But I also rate elite slips who can bowl a bit higher than most.
But fot this, Hutton easily.
kyear2
International Coach
With regards to the Wisden list, I've seen you and others previously post how Hutton was slightly downgraded during and immediately after his career for his reluctance or inability to dominate attacks, even ones he clearly should have been capable of. One can say that could have initially been a factor.
The all time XI was just clearly a matter of only being two opening spots and Grace and Hobbs being (for them) automatics, and as I've said previously, Hutton doesn't fit into the classical or modern no. 3 mould.
And how can we argue with Woolley's inclusion, need to keep that cordon stacked.
The distinction for the later selection was also based on Grace being excluded.
Me personally, from the first time I read about him and his pre war exploits, I must say I loved the cricketer. He was tough and faced literally the greatest bowlers of his era, or at that point of all time. Was a little disappointed when I later leaned of his strike rate, but every team needs one anchor, so he's mine.
Last edited:
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Why do you regard Hutton as better? I am split between them.
Last edited:
shortpitched713
International Captain
If Kalis can't make up the difference with Tendulkar with bowling (and slip fielding for kyear), how could Hammond make up the difference with Hutton with bowling, while bowling significantly less frequently and less successfully than Kallis?
the big bambino
International Captain
Hutton rated Hammond the best he'd seen and Hammond would've agreed with him.
Coronis
International Coach
Remember, peer rating only counts when it supports your own views.
kyear2
International Coach
Why the "slip fielding for kyear" caveat?
If someone like Kallis is a top 10 performer in said discipline, shouldn't it factor into their ability as a cricketer, and beyond just for me?
But to answer the question, and for the sake of argument let's use my ratings for each of the 4.
If you're significantly ahead of someone based on primary ratings (not average but quality), it's hard to catch up with said secondary ratings.
Sachin is arguably the 2nd best batsman ever, Kallis is 14th or 15th. That's quite the gap. Additionally unlike Sobers, Kallis wasn't a front line contributor with ball, being the 4th, or more likely 5th option with the ball. His slip catching though pushes it closer, especially considering the team he played for.
Now for Hutton and Hammond, while I have Hutton a little above Hammond, the difference isn't nearly as wide. I have Hutton 8th, and Hammond 12th (with the argument to be made for up to 10th). And while Wally didn't bowl as often, he was effective in his role, could do some damage when required as well, and played in even flatter era. Additionally Wally was arguably the greatest slip fielder in the history of the game. So it's just not just "with bowling" and the original gap, not nearly as far apart.
Johan
State Vice-Captain
Hutton being a proper britisher and devitating from the proper answer of Bradman tbh
Coronis
International Coach
iirc Hammond was seen as better to watch, and had a much better reputation on sticky wickets. This may have contributed.
the big bambino
International Captain
That's right. I mean it was parochial but he kept it to metrics (if thats the right word) that were justifiable to the conclusion made.
Sutcliffe said Bradman was best on a good wicket but not as complete a batsman as Hobbs or Hammond. Overall he placed Hammond first.
Hammond's Gloucestershire teammate Tom Goddard might not have been wholly impartial. He said Hammond was superior to Bradman or anybody else, and also that, once when riled, he had bowled the fastest spell Goddard had ever seen.
Hammond's Gloucestershire teammate Tom Goddard might not have been wholly impartial. He said Hammond was superior to Bradman or anybody else, and also that, once when riled, he had bowled the fastest spell Goddard had ever seen.
Coronis
International Coach
Why didn’t his English teammates just get someone to piss him off every test match? Silly blokes.