Will Matt Hayden go down as an all-time great?

[silentstriker]

Sutcliffe, Bradman, Hammond, Ponsford etc

Bradman came after Hobbs, and by all accounts, Hobbs was better than all the rest.

 

[social]

Bradman came after Hobbs, and by all accounts, Hobbs was better than all the rest.

Despite Sutcliffe and Hammond having appreciably better records til end of eary 30s

 

[Engle]

Hobbs was considered the greater opener over his partner Sutcliffe....one whose Test avg never dipped below 60. That surely says something.

 

[Matt79]

By which time Hobbs was beginning his 3rd decade at the top level of the sport. Nobody who saw Hobbs and Sutcliffe together seems to have thought Sutcliffe was a better batsman. Besides which batting in the 30s seems to have been a fair bit easier than batting before WWI and the early 20s.

 

[social]

Hobbs was considered the greater opener over his partner Sutcliffe....one whose Test avg never dipped below 60. That surely says something.

Possibly that people are romantics when discussing the old days

Bottom line is that it's a batsman's job to score runs. The better player (particularly if you have a direct comparison not a pair separated by 80 years) is the one that scores more - end of story

There's no doubt that Hobbs is an all-time great but as much because he was the first highly prolific batsman. IMO, that earns him enough brownie points for some people to place in all-time x1s (just as Grace is sometimes picked for reasons other than skill)

 

[The Sean]

Not too difficult to grasp

Like saying the 5'11", 180 pound Jack Johnson would be a match for the 6'5", 250 pound Lennox Lewis simply because they were both heavyweight champions

You simply cannot say that sportsman x from 1900 would be a champion today because the differences in the bame itself are so huge as to make the sports almost unrecognisable

Take 2 great cricketers in W.G. Grace and Warwick Armstrong as prime examples - if nothing else, their weight would prohibit them from even reaching first class cricket today.

I understand and appreciate your point clearly, but disagree utterly.

The time Jesse Owens ran to win Olympic gold in Berlin in 1936 wouldn't even get him near qualifying for the US team now, let alone going close to winning anything.

A 1969 serve from Rod Laver would be smashed back past him before he's even finished his follow through today.

Do you believe, therefore, that neither Owens nor Laver deserve to rated among the greatest ever in their respective sports?

Simply picking them up and magically transporting them into today's world without the benefit of any of today's training methods or equipment will of course see them get owned. But take the same two men, with their natural ability, ambition and desire, and give them the current sporting environment, technology and tools with which to develop and I'd back them to outshine the stars of today just as they outshone their contemporaries.

 

[social]

I understand and appreciate your point clearly, but disagree utterly.

The time Jesse Owens ran to win Olympic gold in Berlin in 1936 wouldn't even get him near qualifying for the US team now, let alone going close to winning anything.

A 1969 serve from Rod Laver would be smashed back past him before he's even finished his follow through today.

Do you believe, therefore, that neither Owens nor Laver deserve to rated among the greatest ever in their respective sports?

Simply picking them up and magically transporting them into today's world without the benefit of any of today's training methods or equipment will of course see them get owned. But take the same two men, with their natural ability, ambition and desire, and give them the current sporting environment, technology and tools with which to develop and I'd back them to outshine the stars of today just as they outshone their contemporaries.

Unfortunately, there are no guarantees

Take a relatively simple case in Owens.

In order to get his times down to today's level he needs more than improved technique, diet and equipment.

Primarily, he also needs leg-speed and, amongst other things, that requires muscle development.

Could his body handle the extra bulk? Who knows

However, the biggest question I have is whether they were genuinely outstanding talents (like we are certain that someone like Viv Richards is) or just the best of a fairly ordinary and relatively small selection.

Take Babe Ruth for example.

Virtually every baseball fan would rank him as one of the greatest ever. However, how can we actually judge whether he was any good when the guy almost certainly never played with or against a black, hispanic or even Japanese player who history has proven produce by far the highest proportion of champion players.

Call Hobbs, and others from the early days, greats "for their time" but to call them "the best" (or to even assume that they could compete today) is far too much of a stretch for me.

 

[Kweek]

completely agree with Social, they are all time greats in the term that for there time that they were the best thus being a great batsman, and one of the greats in the sport.
but I think most of the early 1900 batsman wouldn't survive in todays cricket, bowlers got fitter, faster(most likely ) and batsman fitter, better trained etc.
and I think it's weird to not agree with this, as this doesn't take down any shine on the oldtimers, they were absolute awesome for there time, but simply wouldn't have a 60 average nowadays...

simple

 

[aussie]

Simply picking them up and magically transporting them into today's world without the benefit of any of today's training methods or equipment will of course see them get owned. But take the same two men, with their natural ability, ambition and desire, and give them the current sporting environment, technology and tools with which to develop and I'd back them to outshine the stars of today just as they outshone their contemporaries.

We would never know though. Thats why i would say judging post-war players excpet for Bradman is so difficult. Since in picking all-time sides (which is pure imagination anyway) i would always take current players (mainly batsmen) from the 1950's to current day since it over post war players since its comparable when you look at the quality of bowling they faced & their techniques. But given their status i would give them due respect & pick them though but still have my doubts about them.

You look at some tapes of guys like Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Ponsford, Trumper etc batting on video's like Story of the Ashes, 20th century cricket, cricket the great bowlers etc & the technique is one where there feet are so close together you imagine some of them facing the real pace i.e the Windies pace battery & well damn they really would get owned.

In Jack Hobbs case he made most of his 197 centuries past 50 or something? geez in modern times thats impossible to happen. Added to the fact the quality of bowling must have been pretty poor then.

 

[Engle]

Hobbs was known as " The Master "

What is Hayden known as ?

 

[subshakerz]

Hobbs was known as " The Master "

What is Hayden known as ?

"The Bully"

 

[subshakerz]

completely agree with Social, they are all time greats in the term that for there time that they were the best thus being a great batsman, and one of the greats in the sport.
but I think most of the early 1900 batsman wouldn't survive in todays cricket, bowlers got fitter, faster(most likely ) and batsman fitter, better trained etc.
and I think it's weird to not agree with this, as this doesn't take down any shine on the oldtimers, they were absolute awesome for there time, but simply wouldn't have a 60 average nowadays...

simple

Well, if you have guys like Dravid, Ponting and Hussey averaging around or well over 60 nowadays, why can't we assume that there were players of that quality and ability before?

I agree that we can't emphatically say that a player like Hobbs would be as good as he was in his time, but we also can't say emphatically that he wouldn't succeed as well. I agree there is a bit of question mark over players of the past, but all we have to judge from are how well they did compared to their contemporaries, the recognition of their peers, and the conditions they played in.

 

[Beleg]

In the main, I agree with social's point. Cricketing greatness should be measured based on performance and in the case of Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Larwood and the other stalwarts of the era, they didn't get a chance to display their potential on the field. Hayden did and that's why I'll pick him over any of the aforementioned names.

Judging cricketers based on 'preceived' ability of unutilized potential pretty much kills the point of these debates in the first place. Unfortunately, this is precisely what a lot of people do.

 

[Engle]

Hobbs was Bradman's hero

Who considers Hayden their hero ?

 

[adharcric]

Bottom line is that it's a batsman's job to score runs. The better player (particularly if you have a direct comparison not a pair separated by 80 years) is the one that scores more - end of story

Your point? Did anyone argue that Hayden isn't the best opener of his time?

 

[adharcric]

Hobbs was Bradman's hero

Who considers Hayden their hero ?

social

 

[Smudge]

Modern-day great, but not all-time great.

 

[Matt79]

Unfortunately, there are no guarantees

Take a relatively simple case in Owens.

In order to get his times down to today's level he needs more than improved technique, diet and equipment.

Primarily, he also needs leg-speed and, amongst other things, that requires muscle development.

Could his body handle the extra bulk? Who knows

However, the biggest question I have is whether they were genuinely outstanding talents (like we are certain that someone like Viv Richards is) or just the best of a fairly ordinary and relatively small selection.

Take Babe Ruth for example.

Virtually every baseball fan would rank him as one of the greatest ever. However, how can we actually judge whether he was any good when the guy almost certainly never played with or against a black, hispanic or even Japanese player who history has proven produce by far the highest proportion of champion players.

Call Hobbs, and others from the early days, greats "for their time" but to call them "the best" (or to even assume that they could compete today) is far too much of a stretch for me.

In Owen's case, all of those factors would have produced a whole massive 4% difference. And don't forget the drugs. More of the improvement in athletics can be put down to drugs rather than any great refinement in techniques.

 

[Matt79]

Hobbs was Bradman's hero

Who considers Hayden their hero ?

Probably quite a few kids who are yet to make their debut.

 

[shortpitched713]

In Owen's case, all of those factors would have produced a whole massive 4% difference. And don't forget the drugs. More of the improvement in athletics can be put down to drugs rather than any great refinement in techniques.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and in this case I'm seeing none.