Who Is The Second Greatest Batsman Ever?

[Fusion]

Why wouldn't be Inzi part of the list.....

Because he's not even the 2nd greatest batsman from Asia.

 

[zaremba]

With 13 joke votes going to Hobbs and 9 to Martin shows the value of these polls.

I doubt many informed cricket fans would agree with your view that Hobbs is a "joke vote" as 2nd greatest batsman of all time. Let's see if one single person comes here and agrees with you on that.

 

[Amobokobokoboko]

Hard questions, all of them are great batsmen. They have had their moment of merit in their specific time so very hard to name the second best, who's the best actually?

I chose Richards as I really liked his style as well as his clashes with Botham ( maybe you could add him to the list as well)

 

[Goughy]

I doubt many informed cricket fans would agree with your view that Hobbs is a "joke vote" as 2nd greatest batsman of all time. Let's see if one single person comes here and agrees with you on that.

Yeah, given there were a significant proportion of players that played against both Hobbs and Bradman that held Hobbs in a higher regard (even if I dont agree) it seems pretty narrow minded to call Hobbs a "joke vote"

 

[Maximus0723]

Yeah, given there were a significant proportion of players that played against both Hobbs and Bradman that held Hobbs in a higher regard (even if I dont agree) it seems pretty narrow minded to call Hobbs a "joke vote"

In what regards?

 

[Richard]

domestic cricket is an inferior form of cricket compared to tests.

Although that statement has only rarely been untrue in the last ~40 years, the difference has not been significant enough for most of cricket history to rule that any batsman must have played Test cricket to have his case for being among the best ever taken seriously.

 

[Richard]

Nothing wrong with Hobbs, voting him second best is comical and shows how unreliable and funny these polls are.

Not as unreliable as whatever evidence you have about how good a batsman Hobbs was, clearly.

 

[Richard]

You seem to be confusing instinct with first impressions. I said that you can only get a feeling for how good a player really is if you were around when he was.

And I said you can't. Either way, I don't see us reaching agreement on the matter so I'll leave it at I think you can and you think you can't. There are plenty of others who share both views, so neither are ridiculous.

 

[Richard]

Thought it was interesting that you'd posted it when I looked at it - why did you decide to do so, out of interest?

 

[The Sean]

Nothing wrong with Hobbs, voting him second best is comical and shows how unreliable and funny these polls are.

Ok I'll bite.

How do you figure?

 

[Goughy]

In what regards?

As in they thought he was a better player

 

[Maximus0723]

better player is broad term.

Better player to watch vs. better player for the team vs. better player statistically
Note: I mean not trying to pick on you but just trying to get as much info out as possible so all of us have better idea.
Sir Don clearly wtfowns Hobbs, SRT, WIs or anyone out there in last two categories.

If those people made comments in those regards than I can't take them seriously.

 

[Goughy]

better player is broad term.

Better player to watch vs. better player for the team vs. better player statistically
Note: I mean not trying to pick on you but just trying to get as much info out as possible so all of us have better idea.
Sir Don clearly wtfowns Hobbs, SRT, WIs or anyone out there in last two categories.

If those people made comments in those regards than I can't take them seriously.

No problem, I dont consider you to be picking on me.

Better is a subjective term. Each person can use it differently. My point is that of players that played against both a proportion thought Hobbs was 'better'. Its a view that has become less common as time has passed and fewer people commenting actually saw them and over time Bradman has become almost deified.

While you may not be able to take them seriously, primary evidence is far more vauable than number crunching 3-4 generations later. Now I am a product of my time and I hold Bradman as possibly the most dominant sportsman that has ever lived, let alone batsman but I still recognise the opinions of people that knew Bradman and Hobbs as humans and cricketers rather than just legends.

 

[The Sean]

To add to Goughy's explanation, remember that for a considerable number of people - particularly traditionalists in England back in those days - considered technical merits and "batsmanship" as at least as important as what the scorebook said.

Hobbs was of course universally admired as a man, and this no doubt contributed to his reputation. However there were those (and plenty of them) who considered Sir Jack a more complete all-round player than Bradman, insofar that his batsmanship under all conditions, on all wickets, against all opposition, over the course of his career was superior to Bradman's even if his (and everybody else's) pure numbers were later dwarfed by The Don.

 

[Uppercut]

You seem to be confusing instinct with first impressions. I said that you can only get a feeling for how good a player really is if you were around when he was.

Instinct? Sounds quite airy to me. Like something a Philosophy student might say. Do you really think your mind is so infallible?

 

[Maximus0723]

To add to Goughy's explanation, remember that for a considerable number of people - particularly traditionalists in England back in those days - considered technical merits and "batsmanship" as at least as important as what the scorebook said.

Hobbs was of course universally admired as a man, and this no doubt contributed to his reputation. However there were those (and plenty of them) who considered Sir Jack a more complete all-round player than Bradman, insofar that his batsmanship under all conditions, on all wickets, against all opposition, over the course of his career was superior to Bradman's even if his (and everybody else's) pure numbers were later dwarfed by The Don.

all wickets, all opposition? Only played vs 2 teams and in only three 3 countries.

 

[Goughy]

all wickets, all opposition? Only played vs 2 teams and in only three 3 countries.

There was a greater variety of wickets due to them being uncovered and using different types of soil and grass than can be seen now.

Hobbs was seen as 'The Master' as he was the most complete batsman on all possible surfaces. Bradman the most clinical compiler of runs on less varied tracks.

 

[The Sean]

all wickets, all opposition? Only played vs 2 teams and in only three 3 countries.

What Goughy said. I also wasn't just talking about opposition in terms of Test nations played against.

 

[Faisal1985]

Because he's not even the 2nd greatest batsman from Asia.

Why not.............?

 

[Pothas]

Instinct? Sounds quite airy to me. Like something a Philosophy student might say. Do you really think your mind is so infallible?

Yeah think there is some confusion on how we judge someone here, I understand the argument that you cannot fully judge a player for oneself until you have seen him, but that is only in forming purely a personal and subjective judgement, for example my own personal 'instinct' or whatever puts say Pietersen above Smith.

That is very different than arguing or that Hobbs or whoever is the second greatest batsman, that for me comes from a sense of history and their place in the game, which overides both statistical analysis and purley subjective judgements.