• 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.

Walter Hammond vs George Headley

Who was the better batsman between Hammond and Headley?


  • Total voters
    38

the big bambino

Cricketer Of The Year
I wouldn't write off Anar Singh just bcos of his pace. He had enough kick off the wicket to impress Hammond. All the appraisals I've read of those who faced him called him a bowler of the highest class. Nissar was a good deal more than brisk and was said to match Larwood for pace (CK Nayudu).

I agree that Hammond's triple and dbl v NZ was against one of the weakest attacks ever (in fact the games weren't slated as tests until the MCC realised that an Englishman would be the highest scorer in a test innings and retrospectively upgraded the games to internationals :) ) but the 37 side could have been very awkward with Pritchard assisting Cowie.
 

kyear2

International Coach
Wasn't writing him off, and the point was never that Hammond couldn't play quality bowling, it was the he was troubled by and not comfortable againts genuine pace bowling and for the most part of his career he was never tested againts it and when he faced Martindale and Constatine he was found wanting. As stated previously he was near peerless againts quality spin but he did cash in vs the minnows and that N.Z. series was no more or less Test level than Headley games vs Lord Tennyson's touring teams or the Indian and South African teams Bradman teed of againts.
Same applies for the Zimbabwe team we slaughtered yesterday.
 

the big bambino

Cricketer Of The Year
You do realise Hammond played some great innings against Martindale, Constantine and Hylton on some disgraceful pitches?
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
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.
 
Last edited:

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
So as a number 3 batsman coming behind Ponsford and Woodful, or Morris and Barnes or Hobbs and Sutcliffe isn't easier than coming behind Roach and Hoad, and coming out to bat within the first five overs and being the virtual opener especially knowing that there was no one else after you either? He was the only world class or even very good batsman in the team and the entire opposing attack was keyed towards him and he knew that if he got out, more than likely all was lost.
Yes that would add to your legacy.
To me that just means that we should rate openers much higher than we do.

btw, I just had a quick glance through some of Headley's bigger innings on cricinfo. And it seems to me, often the openers HAD done their jobs in his team.
 

Coronis

International Coach
Corrected :o)
Think you switched their pre-war averages too. Very informative as always, SJS. Honestly in my opinion both of them were excellent players and I find it very, very hard to split them.
 

kyear2

International Coach
To me that just means that we should rate openers much higher than we do.

btw, I just had a quick glance through some of Headley's bigger innings on cricinfo. And it seems to me, often the openers HAD done their jobs in his team.
Opening the batting is the most difficult job in cricket, something I would not dispute.

I also rank batsmen who bats 5/6, lower than I would rate batsmen who batted primarily at no. 3 and to a slighly lesser extent no. 4. Still don't understand why we allow Chanders to hide at 5/6, and similarily Michael Clarke. Also why I rate Sobers below Richards and Headley, even though he performed exceptionally well everywhere, he spent too much time at no. 6
 
Last edited:

archie mac

International Coach
Opening the batting is the most difficult job in cricket, something I would not dispute.

I also rank batsmen who bats 5/6, lower than I would rate batsmen who batted primarily at no. 3 and to a slighly lesser extent no. 4. Still don't understand why we allow Chanders to hide at 5/6, and similarily Michael Clarke. Also why I rate Sobers below Richards and Headley, even though he performed exceptionally well everywhere, he spent too much time at no. 6
Agree with this, although there is a skill to batting with 9 - 10 jack. I think Steve Waugh should be marked down for instance
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Think you switched their pre-war averages too. Very informative as always, SJS. Honestly in my opinion both of them were excellent players and I find it very, very hard to split them.
Thanks. Corrected.

I do split them, however, and will explain why I rate one of them higher than the other when I write the detailed bit :-) But as I have said often, these are truly greats and it is purely an academic exercise that we are undertaking.
 

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Thanks. Corrected.

I do split them, however, and will explain why I rate one of them higher than the other when I write the detailed bit :-) But as I have said often, these are truly greats and it is purely an academic exercise that we are undertaking.
When SJS? :nopity:
 

complan

Cricket Spectator
Very hard to compare these two giants, due to so many variables discussed by everybody here. My main considerations - Hammond had a much longer Test career (in terms of innings played), and was consistently good during that span. Headley may have played weaker bowling in his home Tests, but then again that kind of applies to Hammond also, who had a go against the relatively weak teams like NZ, SA, Ind and WI themselves.

Headley was seen as a "saviour" for his team, which is not Hammond's fault of course, but it raises Headley's profile, makes him the most valuable player on his team which brings its own pressures.

Let's also not forget that Headley scored a century in 25% of his innings, second only to Bradman (36%). Hammond is around 15%, I believe.

My vote goes to Headley. A tough vote, though.
 

the big bambino

Cricketer Of The Year
Hammond averaged 35 against the WI and played in 2 losing series against SA. They were somewhat tougher than you'd imagine.
 

Top