It is an interesting discussion but there are some points that need to be clarified at the outset. The war interrupted their careers at different stages and they were not contemporaries in that respect.
Code:
[B]Particulars Bradman Headley Hammond[/B]
Date of Birth 27/08/08 30/05/09 19/06/03
Age when World War II broke out 31 30 [COLOR="DarkRed"]36[/COLOR]
Age when World War II ended 37 36 [COLOR="DarkRed"]42[/COLOR]
Age when played 1st post war Test 38 38 [COLOR="DarkRed"]43[/COLOR]
Age when he played his last Test 40 44 [COLOR="DarkRed"]48[/COLOR]
Number of Post war Tests 15 3 8
Batting Avg at the end of the war [B]97.9 66.7 61.5[/B]
Batting Average post war [B]105.7 13.8 30.5[/B]
Bat Avg at the end of career 99.9 60.5 58.5
As can be seen, it is Headley and Bradman who are contemporaries. Hammond is their senior by five and six years respectively. Thus while the WW II interrupted the careers of the first two, it effectively ended Hammond's. There is no way Hammond would have played in Test matches post the war. He wasn't inclined to but England wanted him to lead in the post war Ashes series and he agreed to play in the 1946-47 tour of Australia and the series against India earlier in the English summer to prepare for the big winter campaign. He was too old, not fit, not inclined and but for the honour to lead England in the post war win series would have never played.
Headley, though still 37 when the war ended was also not the player he was before the war and should never have played in those three games including the one in 1954. I have never ever considered Headley's performances in those three Tests post war when evaluating his merits as an all time great. For me his 19 Tests pre war and the average of 66 plus is what counts.
Same is true for Hammond though to a lesser extent as far as stats go. His average was 61.5 at the breakout of hostilities and that is where it would have remained. That he played those Tests and dropped to a yet imposing average of 58 plus is not something I consider of any importance. If England had decided to bring back some other veterans their figures too would have similarly suffered. Would they have become any less for that than we think they were today without those extra Tests when well past it ?
This is one point.
The more important point, particularly in the case of Hammond is the dent made in his reputation in the post war Tests against a rampaging Lindwall and Miller. These have done more to make the uninitiated believe in Hammond's 'fallibility' against pace than the great man's game ever deserved to be so addressed.
Hammond was not Bradman's equal in the matter of playing pace bowling but then he was probably a better player of great spin bowling and definitely a better player on poor tracks than the great Don.
This is not to suggest that Hammond was Bradman's superior but to put the tendency to use stats and innuendo to run down all time greats that is the refuge of the pseudo-cricketing-pundit.
However, the comparison of these thre great players still fascinates me and I will surely try and address that along with the quality of the attacks they faced in subsequent posts.
) but the 37 side could have been very awkward with Pritchard assisting Cowie.
