Was Clem Hill better than Victor Trumper?

[mr_mister]

We all know that photo of Trumper. I feel in the eyes of many, before Bradman Trumper was known as Australia's greatest test bat. It was more than his stats, it was the way he got them etc, plus batting conditions were tougher at the turn of the century.

But outside of this forum you really don't see much love for Clem Hill. Both born in 1877, both had massive career overlap and both probably batted together many times for their country, being an opener and a number 3.

Both had 89 test innings. Clem made slightly more runs and at a slightly higher average, but it's so close that's it not worth much in terms of saying whos better than the other. Though it does hurt the argument that Trumper was a modest upgrade on Hill, which casual cricket fans would surely think.

What is interesting is this stat:

Trumper - 8 tons and 13 fifties
Hill 7 tons and 19 fifties (including 6 nineties)

Now ignoring the fact that Trumper was better at converting 50s and his 0 nineties sure makes him seem he was calmer under pressure(i assume batsmen still knew they were close to approaching 100 back then, not sure when big scoreboards were invented) it does seem like Clem made bigger contributions far more regularly.

Last point of comparison is that against England Hill averaged 35 and Trumper 32. Against South Africa, it was 62 for Hill and 75 for Trumper. So nothing to really change the argument there.


So I think it's fair to say Clem was as good if not better than Trumper.

 

[Borges]

Clem made slightly more runs and at a slightly higher average. Perhaps.
Was Clem Hill better than Victor Trumper? No.

 

[Starfighter]

I think there's a strong case of subjectivity with the historic assessments of each. I'd be interested in the difference between their overall touring records if someone (morgieb seems to have these things on hand a lot) has them. Trumper's 1902 season seems to be the main source of his reputation, beating by a distance the touring run record in what was considered a very wet season, but not so special in the tests.

The fact Trumper was a very fast scorer would also tilt perceptions. I don't know how fast Hill scored but I don't think it was anything out of the ordinary. Trumper does have a slightly better FC record.

 

[trundler]

Only Burgey can tell us.

 

[mr_mister]

Clem made slightly more runs and at a slightly higher average. Perhaps.
Was Clem Hill better than Victor Trumper? No.

I raised that as a non point. The amount of 50+ scores I found more telling. And when it comes to 80+ scores Clem had nearly double

 

[mr_mister]

From 89 innings each, Trumper made ten 80+ scores, Hill made eighteen.

When it came to big daddy hundreds, Trumper had four 150+ scores to Hill's three. So he saves some face. But that first stat..

 

[Midwinter]

Its how they made them.
Everybody liked watching Trumper.

More like a comparison between Gooch and Gower perhaps.

 

[Malcolm]

The fact Trumper was a very fast scorer would also tilt perceptions. I don't know how fast Hill scored but I don't think it was anything out of the ordinary.

In the last 12 matches they played together

Hill - 787 runs striking at 75 plus
Trumper - 1106 runs striking at 70

 

[Starfighter]

In the last 12 matches they played together

Hill - 787 runs striking at 75 plus
Trumper - 1106 runs striking at 70

Where'd you get those figures from, may I ask? I've never really heard anyone point out Hill's scoring the same way as Trumper's

Trumper's innings on sticky wickets would be another one. Don't know about those for Hill either.

 

[mr_mister]

Maybe Trumper got all his runs with shots as extravagant as the one in that photo where as Hill was a nudger and noodler?

 

[aussie tragic]

Trumper and Hill played 41 Tests together so you should be able to compare averages.

Trumper: 41T, 2862 runs @ 41.47, 8 hundreds, 11 fifties
Hill: 41T, 2930 runs @ 40.13, 6 hundreds, 16 fifties

Very interesting that it is so close, especially as Clem would have played on those same sticky wickets that Trumper is famous for.

 

[Malcolm]

Where'd you get those figures from, may I ask? I've never really heard anyone point out Hill's scoring the same way as Trumper's

Trumper's innings on sticky wickets would be another one. Don't know about those for Hill either.

Statsguru.

 

[mr_mister]

Was there possibly some added romanticism with openers back then that boosted their reputation and influenced the opinion that Trumper > Hill?

Grace, Shrewsbury, Fry, Trumper, Hobbs. It feels like that's where you sent in your best bat in the Golden age(Hammond/Bradman changed that spot to number 3).Maybe it was considered noble or couragous to face the opening bowlers and lead the charge. I'm just spitballing but the world had weird views and customs before world war 1

 

[Starfighter]

Ranji generally batted around 4 I think.

 

[a massive zebra]

Where'd you get those figures from, may I ask? I've never really heard anyone point out Hill's scoring the same way as Trumper's

Trumper's innings on sticky wickets would be another one. Don't know about those for Hill either.

According to Charles Davis, Trumpers career strike rate was 67-68 and Hill's was 58-59.

The Hot 50: The Fastest-scoring Batsmen of All Time

 

[Starfighter]

I just added up each of the balls and runs from Davis' scorecards for matches with balls available in which both Trumper and Hill batted. Got a strike rate of 71.0 for Trumper and 62.5 for Hill.

I think another thing to consider might be Hill's absence from the 1909 tour, despite Trumper's mediocre record in the test series.

 

[a massive zebra]

If you read contemporary early 20th century cricket books or articles, you will see that pretty much no one who saw them both bat considered Hill to be an equal of Trumper. Trumper was capable of pulling off strokes that no one else would even think of attempting, and of playing innings of genius on dire wickets that everyone else found impossible to bat on.

Their respective stature as batsmen is only debatable if we base our judgement entirely on stats. On that basis, Ken Barrington was a better Test player than Viv Richards and Thilan Samaraweera was superior to Aravinda de Silva. Again, pretty much no one who saw these guys bat and used their intellect to evaluate the stature of these batsmen would come to this conclusion.

 

[mr_mister]

Those are two exceptions to the rule that we generally do rate batsman on their statistical achievements, IMO

Edit - and re the Aravinda-Samaweera example, Aravinda did get 6 more test tons and played only 12 more games. He also got 1000 more runs total so runs per test would have been superior I believe. He comfortably loses the average battle, but as someone has in their signature here(i forget who) 'average" is not synonymous with 'stats'. Good quote

 

[fredfertang]

There's a new book just been published about Trumper - the writer's mission statement is to justify the title of the book 'The Genius' and there are a lot of stats in it, and the writer is undoubtedly 'a fan', but amidst all that there is also an appendix that has some old and not very good quality photos of Trumper batting which haven't been published in book form before, but poor quality or not they still exude style in the same way Beldam's iconic image does - he must have been something else to watch

 

[Red]

Trumper, Archie Jackson, Alan Kippax, David Gower, Mark Waugh, Peter May, Carl Hooper, VVS Laxman.

Stats shouldn't even come into this conversation.