Imran Khan best all-rounder of my era, says Sir Richard Hadlee

[Cricket World]

Imran Khan was the best all rounder of all times

 

[Arham_PakFan]

Imran Khan for me was the best out of the quartret of the 80's.Best bowler of the lot,Hadlee a close second.

 

[Saj]

As far as all-round talent goes Imran was the best out of the 4 (Botham, Hadlee, Imran and Kapil).

Imran was a great bowler and had the ability to bat anywhere in the order.

Imran improved his batting so much over the years and eventually became a 'proper' batsman.

 

[Snatch]

Imran is obviously the best of the 4 from the 80s

Imran/Miller = The greatest bowling all-rounders ever

Sobers/Kallis = The greatest batting all-rounders ever

Of the 80s all-rounders I'd rate them like this in Test matches

Batting:
Botham 7.5
Imran 7
Kapil 6.5
Hadlee 5.5

Bowling:
Hadlee 9.5
Imran 9
Botham 7.5
Kapil 7

Totals:
1st Imran - 16 points
2nd = Botham/Hadlee - 15 points
4th - Kapil - 13.5 points

It's possible I was a bit generous on Hadlee's bowling, but I do believe he was a slightly better bowler than Imran & I only think Marshall was better.

I know Imran averaged higher than Botham with the bat, but Botham's 13 test hundreds, including some of the greatest innings ever played is a factor for me.

I felt like I was tough on Kapil when I saw the end score of 13.5, but when I went back to the individual disciplines, I think it's right. He was slightly inferior to both Botham and Imran with the bat (I'm judging Tests only) and the ball.

Botham's numbers really took a bashing in the 2nd half of his career when he lacked consistency, but between 1978-1984 he averaged over 40 with the bat and about 23 with the ball if I recall correctly.

 

[Robert]

Hadlee wasn't a test batsman really - just two centuries, and Marshall said he could only score in certain conditions.

Imran said Hadlee was probably the best bowler on a greentop that has ever been. He was lucky to play half his tests in NZ. He had a lovely action and his quicker ball was so well disguised. He would bowl four leg-cutters an over, then with the other two balls do something different - yorker, bouncer, outswinger, slower ball. He was very thoughtful and planned how many wickets he would get on a certain pitch. He used visualisation techniques extensively.

My only criticism of his bowling is that he could go into his shell when attacked, while Imran got more aggressive.

 

[Snatch]

Hadlee wasn't a test batsman really - just two centuries, and Marshall said he could only score in certain conditions.

Imran said Hadlee was probably the best bowler on a greentop that has ever been. He was lucky to play half his tests in NZ. .

Well that is just plain wrong. Of the 86 tests he played he played 43 at home and 43 away, averaging 22.96 in NZ & an incredible 21.72 away, so if anything he was unlucky not to play more away from home.

This includes an average of 22 from 6 tests in India. So you really should do your homework before making what seem like obvious assumptions, but are actually incorrect.

In regards to his batting, you will see in my ratings above I rate his batting the lowest of the 4 allrounders of the 80s, but he still averaged 27 per innings, and was over 30 in the 2nd half of his career, which wasn't an easy time for big averages, so he was definitely a legit all-rounder. Not sure about Marshall comment either, I think to Hadlee's 99 on a greentop vs England when England were bowled out for 82 & 93 in their two innings.

 

[Bilal7]

The best all-rounders of all time:

1) Khan
2) Miller
3) Sobers
4) Kallis
5) Botham

Numbers 1 and 5 are set in stone. #2, #3 and #4 can be moved around any which way.

 

[Robert]

Well that is just plain wrong. Of the 86 tests he played he played 43 at home and 43 away, averaging 22.96 in NZ & an incredible 21.72 away, so if anything he was unlucky not to play more away from home.

This includes an average of 22 from 6 tests in India. So you really should do your homework before making what seem like obvious assumptions, but are actually incorrect.

In regards to his batting, you will see in my ratings above I rate his batting the lowest of the 4 allrounders of the 80s, but he still averaged 27 per innings, and was over 30 in the 2nd half of his career, which wasn't an easy time for big averages, so he was definitely a legit all-rounder. Not sure about Marshall comment either, I think to Hadlee's 99 on a greentop vs England when England were bowled out for 82 & 93 in their two innings.

Oh, it is not doing my homework to recognise that a bowler who got a lot of seam movement would do well on lavishly seaming pitches such as Christchurch and Trent Bridge? Gracious me, how lax. I suppose my actually having watched Hadlee bowl live in 1983, and on TV over three successive tours of England means nothing either. I even saw him open the bowling with Marshall on the belting pitch at Lords on the Bicentennary Test of 1987.

I remember the match you refer to clearly. It does not matter if it is a green seamer if England bowl consistently the wrong length, which is what happened during that test. Hadlee was amazed by their failure - he wrote that it was the sort of wicket on which the England pros usually excel (most NZ players were amateurs at the time), but they keep bowling short, which on that slow deck meant that the ball sat up for him to whack.

Stats are the beginning of understanding, not the end.

 

[Snatch]

Oh, it is not doing my homework to recognise that a bowler who got a lot of seam movement would do well on lavishly seaming pitches such as Christchurch and Trent Bridge? Gracious me, how lax. I suppose my actually having watched Hadlee bowl live in 1983, and on TV over three successive tours of England means nothing either. I even saw him open the bowling with Marshall on the belting pitch at Lords on the Bicentennary Test of 1987.

I remember the match you refer to clearly. It does not matter if it is a green seamer if England bowl consistently the wrong length, which is what happened during that test. Hadlee was amazed by their failure - he wrote that it was the sort of wicket on which the England pros usually excel (most NZ players were amateurs at the time), but they keep bowling short, which on that slow deck meant that the ball sat up for him to whack.

Stats are the beginning of understanding, not the end.

Yeah, they did bowl a load of tripe that innings, Tony Piggot on debut from memory, but it was still a green top, and the other thing Hadlee said of that innings is that they all felt it was worth 150, considering what followed in that match. I'd suggest more like a double hundred.

 

[Snatch]

The best all-rounders of all time:

1) Khan
2) Miller
3) Sobers
4) Kallis
5) Botham

Numbers 1 and 5 are set in stone. #2, #3 and #4 can be moved around any which way.

You seem to favour bowling all-rounders over batting ones.

The fact Sobers bowled 3-4 different styles is a factor for me & his fielding was a weapon in it's own right at leg slip.

My top 5

1. Sobers
2. Imran
3. = Miller, Kallis & Botham

 

[street cricketer]

Like there was any doubt in it..

 

[Bilal7]

You seem to favour bowling all-rounders over batting ones.

The fact Sobers bowled 3-4 different styles is a factor for me & his fielding was a weapon in it's own right at leg slip.

My top 5

1. Sobers
2. Imran
3. = Miller, Kallis & Botham

Bowlers win you matches, therefore bowling all-rounders are the better match-winners by design.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

You seem to favour bowling all-rounders over batting ones.

The fact Sobers bowled 3-4 different styles is a factor for me & his fielding was a weapon in it's own right at leg slip.

My top 5

1. Sobers
2. Imran
3. = Miller, Kallis & Botham

In test match you need good bowlers. Good batsmen can draw a test match, if you want to win you must have bowlers who can take 20 wickets. Bowling allrounders are more valuable in test than batting.

 

[Snatch]

Bowlers win you matches, therefore bowling all-rounders are the better match-winners by design.

Sorry, but this is the biggest myth in cricket. Sure you need 20 wickets to win Tests, but guess what? You also need runs on the board. Batsmen are MOTM as often as bowlers in my expedience & win as many Test matches if you're prepared to look at things another way.

 

[Bilal7]

Sorry, but this is the biggest myth in cricket. Sure you need 20 wickets to win Tests, but guess what? You also need runs on the board. Batsmen are MOTM as often as bowlers in my expedience & win as many Test matches if you're prepared to look at things another way.

Nope. You can have four batsmen in the same team get triple centuries but if the bowlers don't get the wickets, you won't win. It is not a myth, it is a simple fact.

You can win a match with minimal runs scores, teams have won matches without scoring more than 500 runs over the course of the match. However, you need 20 wickets to win no matter what.

Also, your claim that batsmen are MOTM as much as bowlers is false seeing how three of the top four MOTM winners are Murali, Akram and Warne. Imran Khan has the best MOTS award/number of series ratio, etc.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Imran
Botham
Kapil
Hadlee

Talking about ARs.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Hadlee can be swapped with Kapil but Hadlee's batting makes me feel he wasn't as complete an AR as others.

 

[Snatch]

Nope. You can have four batsmen in the same team get triple centuries but if the bowlers don't get the wickets, you won't win. It is not a myth, it is a simple fact.

Bowlers need to take wickets (including part-timers sometimes) & Batsmen needs to score runs (tailenders sometimes). Yes that's cricket.

Considering the two greatest cricketers in Test history, Bradman and Sobers are more known for the batting prowess than anything else hardly suggest cricket is ALL about bowlers.

Marshall the greatest fast bowler (in my opinion), & Warne the greatest spinner, probably makes my 4th & 5th best cricketer of all-time behind Bradman, Sobers, Imran.

 

[Snatch]

Hadlee can be swapped with Kapil but Hadlee's batting makes me feel he wasn't as complete an AR as others.

I agree, if Hadlee averaged 35 with the bat, he'd probably be right up there with Imran considering he was actually the better of the two as bowlers. but you're right, batting average of 27 with just 2 hundreds (and a 99), doesn't quite cut it. But I still say he's a better allrounder than Kapil Dev since the extra points he gets for his bowling is so much more than Kapil's extra points he gets for batting over Hadlee.

Which is why I break it down like this.

Batting:
Botham 7.5
Imran 7
Kapil 6.5
Hadlee 5.5

Bowling:
Hadlee 9.5
Imran 9
Botham 7.5
Kapil 7

Totals:
1st Imran - 16 points
2nd = Botham/Hadlee - 15 points
4th - Kapil - 13.5 points

 

[Bilal7]

Bowlers need to take wickets (including part-timers sometimes) & Batsmen needs to score runs (tailenders sometimes). Yes that's cricket.

Considering the two greatest cricketers in Test history, Bradman and Sobers are more known for the batting prowess than anything else hardly suggest cricket is ALL about bowlers.

Marshall the greatest fast bowler (in my opinion), & Warne the greatest spinner, probably makes my 4th & 5th best cricketer of all-time behind Bradman, Sobers, Imran.

Yes, they probably do place 4th and 5th in your list. That is not the case for everyone else. The greatest cricketer of them all, in my opinion, will always be an all-rounder and the greatest all-rounder of them all is Imran Khan.

Bowlers need to take all 20 wickets, if your team is not good enough to do that, you won't be winning any games of cricket. The batsmen don't need to score a set number of runs. Even if the batsmen fail and don't manage to score more than 150 runs in each innings, the game can still be won by the bowlers. However, if the bowlers fail to take 20 wickets, no amount of runs will be winning you the game.

Bradman is a legendary figure because he was the exception and was so far ahead of any batsman in history. Not Sachin, not Viv come close. But I tell you, if there emerges a bowler who averages 10 and manages to take 300 wickets or more at that average, he'll definitely be rated above Bradman.

 

[Snatch]

Yes, they probably do place 4th and 5th in your list. That is not the case for everyone else. The greatest cricketer of them all, in my opinion, will always be an all-rounder and the greatest all-rounder of them all is Imran Khan.

Bowlers need to take all 20 wickets, if your team is not good enough to do that, you won't be winning any games of cricket. The batsmen don't need to score a set number of runs. Even if the batsmen fail and don't manage to score more than 150 runs in each innings, the game can still be won by the bowlers. However, if the bowlers fail to take 20 wickets, no amount of runs will be winning you the game.

Bradman is a legendary figure because he was the exception and was so far ahead of any batsman in history. Not Sachin, not Viv come close. But I tell you, if there emerges a bowler who averages 10 and manages to take 300 wickets or more at that average, he'll definitely be rated above Bradman.

Why do you keep repeating that bowlers need to take 20 wickets to win Test matches as if nobody knows this? Cricket is a game in which both runs and wickets matter, and of course you need 20 wickets, but I don't think that automatically follows that Bowling allrounders like Miller & Imran are better than batting allrounders like Sobers and Kallis, who got you massive runs & also chipped in with important, if not quite as many wickets as the other two.

You will find universally in cricket circles that Sobers is considered the Greatest allrounder ever, even though Imran is almost definitely number 2.

That said, the fact that this forum seems to rate Tendulkar as the greatest cricketer of all time and a better batsmen than Bradman, it certainly wouldn't surprise me if the consensus here is that Imran was better than Sobers, Wasim a better bowler than Marshall & Waqar better than Steyn etc etc.

Nothing surprises me here anymore. But anywhere else, you'll find that along with Bradman being rated the greatest batsman ever, Sobers is rated the greatest allrounder.

 

[Bilal7]

Why do you keep repeating that bowlers need to take 20 wickets to win Test matches as if nobody knows this? Cricket is a game in which both runs and wickets matter, and of course you need 20 wickets, but I don't think that automatically follows that Bowling allrounders like Miller & Imran are better than batting allrounders like Sobers and Kallis, who got you massive runs & also chipped in with important, if not quite as many wickets as the other two.

You will find universally in cricket circles that Sobers is considered the Greatest allrounder ever, even though Imran is almost definitely number 2.

That said, the fact that this forum seems to rate Tendulkar as the greatest cricketer of all time and a better batsmen than Bradman, it certainly wouldn't surprise me if the consensus here is that Imran was better than Sobers, Wasim a better bowler than Marshall & Waqar better than Steyn etc etc.

Nothing surprises me here anymore. But anywhere else, you'll find that along with Bradman being rated the greatest batsman ever, Sobers is rated the greatest allrounder.

I keep repeating it in the hopes that you finally understand that bowlers are almost definitely the actual match-winners in test cricket. Therefore, bowling all-rounders are more valuable than batting all-rounders who are in the same league.

It definitely isn't universal although yes, Sobers is rated very highly by the older generation, mostly due to nostalgia. Someone with a bowling SR of 92 will not be getting you "important" wickets with enough frequency to be anywhere near a top bowler. Same goes for Kallis, who barely contributed one wicket in an innings for his team.

Compared to more balanced and complete all-rounders like Imran - who averaged over 50 with the bat and under 20 with the ball for a period of 10 years, whilst also being one of the greatest captains of all time - and Miller, they come out just short.

The general consensus here definitely does not place Wasim over Marshall, Sachin over Bradman, etc but in the case of these all-rounders, the facts are staring you in the face. You are not being forced to be a part of the best cricket forum on the internet. This is actually a privilege, something you need to understand and respect.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

I agree, if Hadlee averaged 35 with the bat, he'd probably be right up there with Imran considering he was actually the better of the two as bowlers. but you're right, batting average of 27 with just 2 hundreds (and a 99), doesn't quite cut it. But I still say he's a better allrounder than Kapil Dev since the extra points he gets for his bowling is so much more than Kapil's extra points he gets for batting over Hadlee.

Which is why I break it down like this.

Batting:
Botham 7.5
Imran 7
Kapil 6.5
Hadlee 5.5

Bowling:
Hadlee 9.5
Imran 9
Botham 7.5
Kapil 7

Totals:
1st Imran - 16 points
2nd = Botham/Hadlee - 15 points
4th - Kapil - 13.5 points

Yeah I read your post above.

You have a good point.

However I feel that while Hadlee was an incredible bowler, he just about managed to cross the threshold with the bat to be considered AR.

Kapil while nowhere close to Hadlee with the ball has played some ridiculous knocks with the bat carting around ATG bowlers. Even in the twilight of his career, he smashed Allan Donald in tests.

He looks much more of an AR while Hadlee looks like an incredible bowler who just about makes it to the AR category.

If you split it by points, Hadlee wins comfortably.
If you look at it from who is more of an assured AR, Kapil wins it imho.

If Hadlee had achieved just a bit more with the bat and had been rated more for his batting ability, then I would say Hadlee all the way.

Right now, I feel Kapil as an AR is ahead.

But I get why people would rate Hadlee ahead though.

 

[Sadevdesai]

Every time our present Cricket Team suffers a setback.... we bring out Imran Khan .... some kind of a crutch I suppose !!!!

 

[Snatch]

It definitely isn't universal although yes, Sobers is rated very highly by the older generation, mostly due to nostalgia. Someone with a bowling SR of 92 will not be getting you "important" wickets with enough frequency to be anywhere near a top bowler. Same goes for Kallis, who barely contributed one wicket in an innings for his team.

Compared to more balanced and complete all-rounders like Imran - who averaged over 50 with the bat and under 20 with the ball for a period of 10 years, whilst also being one of the greatest captains of all time - and Miller, they come out just short.

The general consensus here definitely does not place Wasim over Marshall, Sachin over Bradman, etc but in the case of these all-rounders, the facts are staring you in the face. You are not being forced to be a part of the best cricket forum on the internet. This is actually a privilege, something you need to understand and respect.

It is universal that Sobers is the greatest allrounder and it's not just the older generation at all.

By universal I mean if you take the consensus evenly (not on which country has the biggest population) across even the 7-8 Test cricketing nations, you would find it would be Sober's quite comfortably.

You cite his SR failing to realize, he bowled spin if it was needed, he bowled the stock containing overs when required, he bowl very good sharp pace in his younger days, I'm not for a second trying to imply he was near as good a bowler as Imran, but i think he SR is deceptive since he wore so many hats and was often the main stock bowler on flat decks to give the real fast men like Hall etc a break.

Don't forget he averaged a whole 20 more than Imran with the bat, that is significant, it's not a small amount. Many argue (I won't claim this to be a consensus) that Sobers was the 2nd greatest batsman after Bradman, even forgetting that he ever bowled.

I'm pleased to hear the consensus isn't that Tendulkar was a better batsmen than Bradman, that was the impression I got and as I mentioned I've never heard this prior to coming here.

I did however find it both interesting & surprising that when I did an 'Asia's greatest cricketer" poll that Tendulkar won out over Imran. I personally think it would be Imran, especially if you're telling me many here view him ahead of Sobers. That doesn't quite add up.

 

[Bilal7]

It is universal that Sobers is the greatest allrounder and it's not just the older generation at all.

By universal I mean if you take the consensus evenly (not on which country has the biggest population) across even the 7-8 Test cricketing nations, you would find it would be Sober's quite comfortably.

You cite his SR failing to realize, he bowled spin if it was needed, he bowled the stock containing overs when required, he bowl very good sharp pace in his younger days, I'm not for a second trying to imply he was near as good a bowler as Imran, but i think he SR is deceptive since he wore so many hats and was often the main stock bowler on flat decks to give the real fast men like Hall etc a break.

Don't forget he averaged a whole 20 more than Imran with the bat, that is significant, it's not a small amount. Many argue (I won't claim this to be a consensus) that Sobers was the 2nd greatest batsman after Bradman, even forgetting that he ever bowled.

I'm pleased to hear the consensus isn't that Tendulkar was a better batsmen than Bradman, that was the impression I got and as I mentioned I've never heard this prior to coming here.

I did however find it both interesting & surprising that when I did an 'Asia's greatest cricketer" poll that Tendulkar won out over Imran. I personally think it would be Imran, especially if you're telling me many here view him ahead of Sobers. That doesn't quite add up.

I disagree. Among the younger generation, Imran Khan is the preferred all-rounder. Sobers did some great things but he didn't have the competition that Imran did and therefore stood out a bit more.

That SR of 92 shows that Sobers' bowling fluctuated between mediocre stuff and absolute garbage. If his spin bowling has ruined his figures, he really had no business to be bowling spin on any sort of wicket. Sobers' appeal is his ability to bowl three different kinds of styles and you really can't use his strength as an excuse for his poor figures.

Sobers was easily a better batsman than Imran, even if you consider that Imran averaged 50+ for a period of ten years. There is no doubt about that. Just like how there is no doubt that Imran the bowler was equally ahead of Sobers the bowler, if not more.

So what we are left with is a comparison of their secondary skills where Imran certainly wins out. Sobers with his SR of 92 and "stock" bowling was never going to impact a match like Imran would, who was a proper frontline batsman for most of his career, despite batting lower down the order. If you bring in the captaincy factor, Imran Khan comfortably moves past Sobers.

I do not know which thread you are speaking of but that only proves that this forum is not overwhelmingly biased towards Pakistani players. I doubt the majority of the forum participated in that poll and it is quite possible that desperate Sachin fans used underhanded measures to ensure their boy came out on top.

 

[Snatch]

I disagree. Among the younger generation, Imran Khan is the preferred all-rounder. Sobers did some great things but he didn't have the competition that Imran did and therefore stood out a bit more.

That SR of 92 shows that Sobers' bowling fluctuated between mediocre stuff and absolute garbage. If his spin bowling has ruined his figures, he really had no business to be bowling spin on any sort of wicket. Sobers' appeal is his ability to bowl three different kinds of styles and you really can't use his strength as an excuse for his poor figures.

Sobers was easily a better batsman than Imran, even if you consider that Imran averaged 50+ for a period of ten years. There is no doubt about that. Just like how there is no doubt that Imran the bowler was equally ahead of Sobers the bowler, if not more.

So what we are left with is a comparison of their secondary skills where Imran certainly wins out. Sobers with his SR of 92 and "stock" bowling was never going to impact a match like Imran would, who was a proper frontline batsman for most of his career, despite batting lower down the order. If you bring in the captaincy factor, Imran Khan comfortably moves past Sobers.

I do not know which thread you are speaking of but that only proves that this forum is not overwhelmingly biased towards Pakistani players. I doubt the majority of the forum participated in that poll and it is quite possible that desperate Sachin fans used underhanded measures to ensure their boy came out on top.

You're reading way too much into one stat the SR, Good test teams generally batted a longer time in the 60s, so SR were higher and ER were lower, his average of 34 is what we should be focusing on, which is handy without being very good.

If you want to play that game of selecting certain periods when Imran averaged 50m you can do the same with Sobers and he'll average close to 70.

In fact even if you remove his record against the weakest side Sobers played against, New Zealand, who he didn't do well against and some suggest he wasn't challenged enough, he suddenly averages 63 in his career, and that's across 20 years, not 10.

Also, if you want to add Imran's captaincy, I'll see his captaincy and raise you Sober's freakish never seen before leg slip/silly mid on fielding. There's some footage of it on you tube, he was freakish.

Also I'm not talking about any one forum when i mentioned the universal thing, I was meaning among cricket lovers, historians, & past players, there is a strong consensus that Sobers is the greatest ever allrounder.


Here's one brilliant example, (Wisden's 5 cricketers of the century) & probably the most comprehensive one I've seen since it was across 100 cricket experts, writers and past players across a whole bunch of nations, including 11 from the West Indies & 8 from Pakistan, and this was done around the year 2000, so well after Imran's career was complete.

Here's the number of nominees each player got, and you'll see Sobers received 90 out of 100, & Imran just 13... I mean that is an enormous difference, and you can't put that down to bias since the cross section was across many cricket nations.

Can you show me anything even close to as comprehensive as this where a massive group of cricket experts, historians & past players overwhelmingly voted for Imran ahead of Sobers? And no I don't mean a thread on Pakistan Passion (with respect)

1. Sir Donald Bradman 100
2. Sir Garfield Sobers 90
3. Sir Jack Hobbs 30
4. S. K. Warne 27
5. Sir Vivian Richards 25
6. D. K. Lillee 19
Sir Frank Worrell 19
8. W. R. Hammond 18
9. D. C. S. Compton 14
10. Sir Richard Hadlee 13
Imran Khan 13
12. S. M. Gavaskar 12
13. S. F. Barnes 11
Sir Leonard Hutton 11
15. W. J. O'Reilly 10
16. I. T. Botham 9
17. H. Larwood 6
R. R. Lindwall 6
S. R. Tendulkar 6
20. R. Benaud 5
G. A. Headley 5
Kapil Dev 5
23. R. G. Pollock 4
W. Rhodes 4
V. T. Trumper 4
26. T. G. Evans 3
M. D. Marshall 3
Wasim Akram 3
29. Sir Alec Bedser 2
C. V. Grimmett 2
F. S. Trueman 2
F. E. Woolley 2
33. C. E. L. Ambrose 1
K. C. Bland 1
A. R. Border 1
B. J. T. Bosanquet 1
B. S. Chandrasekhar 1
I. M. Chappell 1
Lord Constantine 1
A. A. Donald 1
A. P. Freeman 1
L. R. Gibbs 1
M. A. Holding 1
C. H. Lloyd 1
S. J. McCabe 1
B. Mitchell 1
K. S. Ranjitsinhji 1
M. W. Tate 1
Sir Pelham Warner 1

Here's the panel of judges who voted;

THE ELECTORATE

England (28)

Jonathan Agnew
Trevor Bailey
Jack Bannister
Sir Alec Bedser
Scyld Berry
Dickie Bird
Brian Close
Lord Cowdrey
Ted Dexter
Matthew Engel
Alf Gover
Tom Graveney
Frank Keating
Tony Lewis
George Mann
Vic Marks
Christopher Martin-Jenkins
Derek Pringle
Netta Rheinberg
Mike Selvey
E. W. Swanton
Bob Taylor
Fred Trueman
Crawford White
John Woodcock
Ian Wooldridge
Peter Wynne-Thomas
Australia (20)

Greg Baum
Percy Beames
Richie Benaud
Bill Brown
Richard Cashman
Ian Chappell
Mike Coward
Alan Davidson
Gideon Haigh
Murray Hedgcock
John Inverarity
Bill Lawry
Peter McFarline
Jim Maxwell
Arthur Morris
Jack Pollard
Paul Sheahan
Bob Simpson
Cec Starr
Steve Waugh
South Africa (11)

Ali Bacher
Eddie Barlow
Colin Bryden
Russell Endean
Trevor Goddard
Norman Gordon
Michael Owen-Smith
Peter Pollock
Krish Reddy
Peter van der Merwe
John Waite
West Indies (11)

Gerry Alexander
Tony Becca
Sir Carlisle Burton
Tony Cozier
Esmond Kentish
Clive Lloyd
Reds Pereira
Allan Rae
Donna Symmonds
Sir Clyde Walcott
Sir Everton Weekes
India (10)

Mihir Bose
Dilip Doshi
Sunil Gavaskar
Ayaz Memon
R. Mohan
K. N. Prabhu
Raj Singh
Kris Srikkanth
Polly Umrigar
S. Venkataraghavan
New Zealand (8)

Dick Brittenden
Don Cameron
Walter Hadlee
Don Neely
John R. Reid
Bert Sutcliffe
Lindsay Weir
Graeme Wright
Pakistan (8)

Arif Abbasi
Fareshteh Gati
Hanif Mohammad
Intikhab Alam
Javed Burki
Mushtaq Mohammad
Omar Kureishi
Qamar Ahmed
Sri Lanka (3)

Stanley Jayasinghe
Ranjan Madugalle
Gerry Vaidyasekera
Zimbabwe (1)

Dave Houghton

 

[Bilal7]

^ History keeps changing and there is a clear bias in that list you are treating like a holy grail. However, I do respect the names on there and I acknowledge that Sobers is rated higher than Imran by many of those eminent names. That is not the be all, end all however, but merely the reason Sobers is one of the greatest players of all time and is ahead of someone like Kallis and Botham.

That average of 34 is poor. Coupled with a SR of 90+, Sobers bowling stats are atrocious and he clearly did not have the impact on games that Imran Khan did. There is a reason Imran has the best Man of the Match Award ratio/ Number of matches played, in history. This is despite Khan missing a good two years of his bowling peak through a crippling injury.

Sobers was a very good fielder but Imran was pretty good in his own right. He despised poor fitness and being the man he was, ensured that he was one of, if not the fittest player in his team.

All in all, Imran is clearly the best all-rounder of them all. We should now move this discussion to the other thread that has been bumped. This thread is about Imran, Botham, Hadlee and Kapil.

 

[Robert]

That SR of 92 shows that Sobers' bowling fluctuated between mediocre stuff and absolute garbage.

I would say it fluctuated between very good FM swingers (when he opened the bowling with Wes Hall, displacing the top-class Griffith to first change) to moderate SLA, to poor wrist-spin.

The sixties was a decade of low strike rates, to be fair.

 

[Bilal7]

I would say it fluctuated between very good FM swingers (when he opened the bowling with Wes Hall, displacing the top-class Griffith to first change) to moderate SLA, to poor wrist-spin.

The sixties was a decade of low strike rates, to be fair.

If a very good SR is 55, and if Sobers bowled FM at least half the time (which he should have if he was very good at it), that means the rest of his bowling styles were utter tripe which fetched him wickets at a rate of nearly 150 balls. Which begs the question, why was he bowling spin at all? Surely even on the most turning of pitches, a spell of FM stuff would be more useful than a bowling style that was never going to dismiss the batsman. Perhaps he did it to hold up one end but that just proves that Sobers was a defensive bowler who would rarely impact the match.

 

[Tusker]

Here's one brilliant example, (Wisden's 5 cricketers of the century) & probably the most comprehensive one I've seen since it was across 100 cricket experts, writers and past players across a whole bunch of nations, including 11 from the West Indies & 8 from Pakistan, and this was done around the year 2000, so well after Imran's career was complete.

Here's the number of nominees each player got, and you'll see Sobers received 90 out of 100, & Imran just 13... I mean that is an enormous difference, and you can't put that down to bias since the cross section was across many cricket nations.

Can you show me anything even close to as comprehensive as this where a massive group of cricket experts, historians & past players overwhelmingly voted for Imran ahead of Sobers? And no I don't mean a thread on Pakistan Passion (with respect)

1. Sir Donald Bradman 100
2. Sir Garfield Sobers 90
3. Sir Jack Hobbs 30
.......
.......

I don't understand this blind reverence towards "Experts" and what they say. It really astonishes me. To see what I mean ..pls watch Hobbs bat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkHWtsrt9Sk&t=325s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rrx2nrgev4

Those clips are self explanatory(If they aren't then we have a bigger problem lol). So my question is do you really think it is fair to compare any of the modern Greats like Viv, Sunny, Tendulkar, Lara etc with Hobbs ? How can you take the words of these cricketers as Gospel when you know that they are merely rehashing cricketing convention and not necessarily ranking players based on real cricketing skills ?

 

[Snatch]

I don't understand this blind reverence towards "Experts" and what they say. It really astonishes me. To see what I mean ..pls watch Hobbs bat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkHWtsrt9Sk&t=325s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rrx2nrgev4

Those clips are self explanatory(If they aren't then we have a bigger problem lol). So my question is do you really think it is fair to compare any of the modern Greats like Viv, Sunny, Tendulkar, Lara etc with Hobbs ? How can you take the words of these cricketers as Gospel when you know that they are merely rehashing cricketing convention and not necessarily ranking players based on real cricketing skills ?

We've already been though this with Bradman highlights. I think Hobbs looked all class in those highlights with his very small bat.

Just like I think Len Hutton looks awesome if you look at the first minute or so of these highlights https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHrS_S1EO8M from the 1930s.

Now to the point about expert cricket writers, past players etc. I agree that one mans opinion isn't the be all and end all, but when you have a selection of 100 experts from a decent cross section of all cricket nations, both older and younger & they vote 90% for Sobers & only 13% for Imran, I think that's something that says a great deal, especially given most of those experts saw both play. It would be different if they were 100 west indians experts, or 100 Pakistan experts, but I posted the even cross section of experts voting for a reason.

Which is why I placed what i thought was a reasonable challenge for those arguing for Imran,

Show me anything even close to as comprehensive as this where a massive group of cricket experts, historians & past players overwhelmingly voted for Imran ahead of Sobers? And no I don't mean a thread on Pakistan Passion (with respect). It's a fair question to ask, and you won't find it, because when you get a selection across a cross section of cricket nations, they'd always vote Sobers.

 

[Tusker]

We've already been though this with Bradman highlights. I think Hobbs looked all class in those highlights with his very small bat.

Sorry but there is no way anyone can agree that Hobbs looks like a proper batsman let alone classy. Even a die hard old era fan like [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] agrees. There is a reason why nobody bats like that today. Frankly this is the problem with your understanding of cricket and mine and there can be no real fruitful discussion that can be had with such a big disconnect.

And if you think Iam wrong please check with others and see if anyone else thinks that Hobbs looks like a proper batsman in those clips.

 

[Snatch]

Sorry but there is no way anyone can agree that Hobbs looks like a proper batsman let alone classy. Even a die hard old era fan like [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] agrees. There is a reason why nobody bats like that today. Frankly this is the problem with your understanding of cricket and mine and there can be no real fruitful discussion that can be had with such a big disconnect.

And if you think Iam wrong please check with others and see if anyone else thinks that Hobbs looks like a proper batsman in those clips.

It's just biased to the new styles. Nobody would have dreamed of playing a reverse sweep in those days, they had no helmets for protection.

Besides, the style of a batsman comes down to personal preference, as an example I never found Tendulkar's style good to watch, I always found his short and squat at the wicket and have generally preferred tall batsmen, but I don't hold it against people who thought Tendulkar looked great to watch.

And while I did think you could see Hobbs' undoubted class from that small package, I think that footage of Hutton in 1938 looked even more classy.

Magnificent old players those guys, not near Bradman's level, but certainly some of the greats of all-time.

 

[Tusker]

It's just biased to the new styles. Nobody would have dreamed of playing a reverse sweep in those days, they had no helmets for protection.

Who is talking about reverse sweep or helmets ? Certainly not me. They are irrelevant in this discussion but not surprised at you randomly introducing red herrings to divert the attention to elsewhere. Stick to footwork, batting stance , grip, agility in the crease (or a catch all Term for all of it - Technique) while executing main cricket strokes and reverse sweep isn't one of them.

For instance if your stance is like Hobbs and you play the cut shot like he does and your feet movement is as cumbersome and slow as his you will be made short work by quick bowlers in no time today. And Iam not even talking about short bowling. It has ordinary written all over it and if you think otherwise there is really no point in continuing this discussion as it is a futile one.

Besides, the style of a batsman comes down to personal preference, as an example I never found Tendulkar's style good to watch, I always found his short and squat at the wicket and have generally preferred tall batsmen, but I don't hold it against people who thought Tendulkar looked great to watch.

And while I did think you could see Hobbs' undoubted class from that small package, I think that footage of Hutton in 1938 looked even more classy.

Magnificent old players those guys, not near Bradman's level, but certainly some of the greats of all-time.

You are definitely in the minority if you think Tendulkar is not good to watch. In anycase I wasn't referring to how pleasing and stylish a batsman looks. For example Matthew Hayden is not all that good to watch but it is very very obvious that he is a faaaaar superior batsman than Hobbs in all aspects of the game ... whereas Ashwin who is a tall languid graceful batsman is nowhere as good as Hayden.

Again nobody disagrees that they were greats of their times but to pretend that they were just as good as the modern players really requires some seriously creative thinking and willingness to believe in whatever is written about them.

 

[Snatch]

Who is talking about reverse sweep or helmets ? Certainly not me. They are irrelevant in this discussion but not surprised at you randomly introducing red herrings to divert the attention to elsewhere. Stick to footwork, batting stance , grip, agility in the crease (or a catch all Term for all of it - Technique) while executing main cricket strokes and reverse sweep isn't one of them.

For instance if your stance is like Hobbs and you play the cut shot like he does and your feet movement is as cumbersome and slow as his you will be made short work by quick bowlers in no time today. And Iam not even talking about short bowling. It has ordinary written all over it and if you think otherwise there is really no point in continuing this discussion as it is a futile one.



You are definitely in the minority if you think Tendulkar is not good to watch. In anycase I wasn't referring to how pleasing and stylish a batsman looks. For example Matthew Hayden is not all that good to watch but it is very very obvious that he is a faaaaar superior batsman than Hobbs in all aspects of the game ... whereas Ashwin who is a tall languid graceful batsman is nowhere as good as Hayden.

Again nobody disagrees that they were greats of their times but to pretend that they were just as good as the modern players really requires some seriously creative thinking and willingness to believe in whatever is written about them.

On the contrary, I thought Hayden was magnificent to watch, I prefer tall batsmen, I'm sure it's just a personal thing.

And I've no problem if you thought Tendulkar was great to watch, & you thionk Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman etc weren't. That's called personal preference.

I thought Hutton in particular was magnificent in those highlights I posted. Such style!

In terms of introducing shots, I know you did bring up reverse sweeps, but it is a modern shot they wouldn't have dreamed of playing in those days prior to helmets and really any decent protections. Gloves and pads weren't very good back them, I own a pair of gloves from the 1930s that I brought from an auction a few years back... one that were used at first class level and they weren't much better than paper gloves.

Once again we're going around in circles, I maintain that in any sport, things change, technology gets better, and it's no different in track athletics, swimming, boxing, whatever sports you wish to name.

By your logic, the great legendary sprinter Jesse Owen wasn't even worth discussing today, because he only ran the 100 meter in about 10.10 seconds, and wouldn't have even come 4th in the last olympics, but fortunately most people recognise the difference across eras, and therefore in establishing greatness, they look at how these sportsmen of yesterday year went against their competition in their era.

As I've said before, Babe Ruth is still known as possibly the greatest ever baseballer of all time... you go look at old footage, he looks chubby and nonathletic compared to pro baseballers today. Just as Tendulkar will look like a nonathlete in 50 years. But fortunately people in 50 years will be smart enough to judge Tendulkar on how he competed with his opposition in his era, they won't try to compare him against year 2050 bowlers.

 

[Tusker]

On the contrary, I thought Hayden was magnificent to watch, I prefer tall batsmen, I'm sure it's just a personal thing.

And I've no problem if you thought Tendulkar was great to watch, & you thionk Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman etc weren't. That's called personal preference.

I thought Hutton in particular was magnificent in those highlights I posted. Such style!

Topic is not about aesthetics. Topic is about batting technique. To most people it is obvious that Hobbs pocesses a very poor technique that will not work in modern times. It appears you disagree. If so please explain in proper Technical terms why you feel that way.

In terms of introducing shots, I know you did bring up reverse sweeps, but it is a modern shot they wouldn't have dreamed of playing in those days prior to helmets and really any decent protections. Gloves and pads weren't very good back them, I own a pair of gloves from the 1930s that I brought from an auction a few years back... one that were used at first class level and they weren't much better than paper gloves.

Again ... who is talking about Helmets and the shots that they supposedly make possible just because a batsman wears a helmet ? I NEVER even mentioned any of that. Talk about the shots and the Technique that Hobbs is using to play and the exact same shots played by a modern player. Since he is playing a spinner in that video clip the helmet really is a classic red-herring that you have managed to introduce.

So once again ... who in today's ERA plays a spinner like Hobbs does ? How can you possibly pretend that he looks like a proper Test batsman (and a classy one at that !!) .

Once again we're going around in circles, I maintain that in any sport, things change, technology gets better, and it's no different in track athletics, swimming, boxing, whatever sports you wish to name.

By your logic, the great legendary sprinter Jesse Owen wasn't even worth discussing today, because he only ran the 100 meter in about 10.10 seconds, and wouldn't have even come 4th in the last olympics, but fortunately most people recognise the difference across eras, and therefore in establishing greatness, they look at how these sportsmen of yesterday year went against their competition in their era.

As I've said before, Babe Ruth is still known as possibly the greatest ever baseballer of all time... you go look at old footage, he looks chubby and nonathletic compared to pro baseballers today. Just as Tendulkar will look like a nonathlete in 50 years. But fortunately people in 50 years will be smart enough to judge Tendulkar on how he competed with his opposition in his era, they won't try to compare him against year 2050 bowlers.

See above ... I never even talked about technology. Just pure batting technique. So with no further tip-toeing around the topic I hope you will for once answer my question using proper technical explanation to elaborate on how Hobbs looks like a proper Test batsman and not try to divert the topic to Helmets, Gloves, technology and what have you.

 

[Snatch]

Topic is not about aesthetics. Topic is about batting technique. To most people it is obvious that Hobbs pocesses a very poor technique that will not work in modern times. It appears you disagree. If so please explain in proper Technical terms why you feel that way.

.

Sorry, when did you start caring what 'most' cricket experts think? You've been arguing for the last month that Tendulkar is somehow comparable to Bradman, something that is only believed by a decent number of people in Asia. So it's interesting you'll bring up what most people may think of old footage.

Techniques evolve, just like running styles evolve, baseball hitting has evolved, and just like techniques especially in short form cricket have evolved greatly in just the last 3-4 years since Tendulkar retired.

I'm not sure the bat-lifts could have been quite so high from Hobbs/Hutton's time if they were against faster bowlers, so that might have to be different for those players to face today's conditions, but the irony here is you're making such a fuss about techniques, when it's only be the last 10-20 years or so that the common consensus is that there's is NO longer a correct technique... it's whatever works.

Remind yourself how Chanderpaul bats for example. So yes I agree the techniques looked a little different, but that doesn't mean to say they wouldn't have been able to adapt had they needed to.

Once again, you've failed to address the point of other sports and whether we should just have this universal rule that says any sportsman in any sport from more than 50 years ago (and you've yet to establish your magic cut-off point when cricket suddenly became competitive in your eyes & when we could recognise a past players as being any good ) should be discarded from comparisons with modern players, because it was a different era.

For the 1000th time, whether you happen to like it or not, greatness in sport has always been about how sportsmen competing against the best competition in their era.

The reason Mohammad Ali is still universally considered the greatest boxer of all time, Babe Ruth the greatest baseballer & Bradman the greatest batsmen.

You wanting to somehow recreate things using a time machine & plonking Bradman in a 1990s Test match doesn't work.

But don't let me stop you from making your won rules and simply discounting past sportsmen as inferior because they played a long time ago & that you spot differences in their techniques.

 

[Tusker]

Sorry, when did you start caring what 'most' cricket experts think? You've been arguing for the last month that Tendulkar is somehow comparable to Bradman, something that is only believed by a decent number of people in Asia. So it's interesting you'll bring up what most people may think of old footage.

Techniques evolve, just like running styles evolve, baseball hitting has evolved, and just like techniques especially in short form cricket have evolved greatly in just the last 3-4 years since Tendulkar retired.

I don't (and I never used the word "Expert" in that post you quoted ) its just that you would rather go by what the Herd says you to do. Whereas Iam very comfortable in dissecting Hobbs technique based on what I see and I am pretty sure you will keep dodging the topic never once directly addressing the issue.

So let me know if you want me to explain why he had poor technique. And I will do that using widely accepted cricketing conventions. Pretty sure you cant do the same which is why you try to nudge the discussion into different directions where your position is more defend-able.

I'm not sure the bat-lifts could have been quite so high from Hobbs/Hutton's time if they were against faster bowlers, so that might have to be different for those players to face today's conditions, but the irony here is you're making such a fuss about techniques, when it's only be the last 10-20 years or so that the common consensus is that there's is NO longer a correct technique... it's whatever works.

Yes there is ... just recently Kohli explained all the minute adjustments he had to make in his game. All the top players still aspire to play with proper techniques. Yes there are those with un-conventional techniques but they get away with it due to their superior hand-eye co-ordination.

Remind yourself how Chanderpaul bats for example. So yes I agree the techniques looked a little different, but that doesn't mean to say they wouldn't have been able to adapt had they needed to.

Once again, you've failed to address the point of other sports and whether we should just have this universal rule that says any sportsman in any sport from more than 50 years ago (and you've yet to establish your magic cut-off point when cricket suddenly became competitive in your eyes & when we could recognise a past players as being any good ) should be discarded from comparisons with modern players, because it was a different era.

For the 1000th time, whether you happen to like it or not, greatness in sport has always been about how sportsmen competing against the best competition in their era.

The reason Mohammad Ali is still universally considered the greatest boxer of all time, Babe Ruth the greatest baseballer & Bradman the greatest batsmen.

You wanting to somehow recreate things using a time machine & plonking Bradman in a 1990s Test match doesn't work.

But don't let me stop you from making your won rules and simply discounting past sportsmen as inferior because they played a long time ago & that you spot differences in their techniques.

My point is really simple ... you take honorary titles conferred on past players quite literally and worse use that to ridicule modern players. This is where I disagree and start asking some awkward questions ... for example why doesnt anybody try to copy Hobbs technique if he was such a Gun player and that technique lead him to be ranked amongst top 3 players of the entire 20th century ?

 

[Snatch]

I don't (and I never used the word "Expert" in that post you quoted ) its just that you would rather go by what the Herd says you to do. Whereas Iam very comfortable in dissecting Hobbs technique based on what I see and I am pretty sure you will keep dodging the topic never once directly addressing the issue.

So let me know if you want me to explain why he had poor technique. And I will do that using widely accepted cricketing conventions. Pretty sure you cant do the same which is why you try to nudge the discussion into different directions where your position is more defend-able.




Yes there is ... just recently Kohli explained all the minute adjustments he had to make in his game. All the top players still aspire to play with proper techniques. Yes there are those with un-conventional techniques but they get away with it due to their superior hand-eye co-ordination.



My point is really simple ... you take honorary titles conferred on past players quite literally and worse use that to ridicule modern players. This is where I disagree and start asking some awkward questions ... for example why doesnt anybody try to copy Hobbs technique if he was such a Gun player and that technique lead him to be ranked amongst top 3 players of the entire 20th century ?

I've heard it said so many times in the last 10 years, that almost every coach worth their salt agrees that the MCC batting textbook goes out the window these days, simply because a batsman should be encouraged to play in a manner that is natural and best works for them. Compare Steve Smith to Chanderpaul to Tendulkar, and you have 3 entirely different techniques.

I cited you 100 cricket experts from all over the world who made up the 100 voting for player of the century, I provided you their names and countries they're from & and 90% voted Sobers as the best allrounder & just 13% voted Imran for that side. So I do find it amusing that you want to ignore their opinion and tell me I'm following the herd, and then meanwhile you want to ask me what others think about Hobb's techniques.

If you can't see the irony there of discounting cricket 'experts' (a term I'll use) and a bunch of people on an asian website (who in a recent poll rated Younus khan the best current batsman in the world lol) then I don't think I can help any further.

I noticed you're still yet to address the point about your outlook logically suggesting that greats of other sports like Jesse Owens and great sprinter, Mohammad Ali, the greatest boxer & Bath Ruth the greatest baseballer should all be discounted because when looking back at old footage they don't look quite as athletic and there techniques look a little different.

I'll say it again, I thought that footage of Hutton from 1938 in particular showed a guy with a superb technique. I will concede one point though, and that is generally the players from the 1930s-40s (Bradmans era) definitely didn't look as athletic, but guess what, neither to players of the late 80s & 90s look athletic compared with those of today. This is obvious and the same across all sports, it doesn't follow that it makes past athletes any worse comparatively.

 

[Tusker]

I've heard it said so many times in the last 10 years, that almost every coach worth their salt agrees that the MCC batting textbook goes out the window these days, simply because a batsman should be encouraged to play in a manner that is natural and best works for them. Compare Steve Smith to Chanderpaul to Tendulkar, and you have 3 entirely different techniques.

Once again ... that is just natural progression ... yet such players are in a very small minority ... unless you think players like Sehwag are all over the world.

So lets get to the point ... are you trying to say that Hobbs technique is still a valid batting technique and will work today? If it doesnt work why? Please provide a clear answer.

I cited you 100 cricket experts from all over the world who made up the 100 voting for player of the century, I provided you their names and countries they're from & and 90% voted Sobers as the best allrounder & just 13% voted Imran for that side. So I do find it amusing that you want to ignore their opinion and tell me I'm following the herd, and then meanwhile you want to ask me what others think about Hobb's techniques.

And Iam telling you the big flaw in relying on 'Expert' opinion. None of them ever saw Hobbs batting and pretty sure most of them did not have access to that footage back in 2001 when that voting took place. And most importantly the difficulty you are finding in answering all the difficult questions Iam asking. If all these experts had analyzed these players to the extent that we are doing here then you would have had all the answers to my questions. In other words these rating exercises by these experts are a bit like honorary degrees that are awarded. They are not worth the paper that they are printed on as they merely follow tradition and protocol.

If you can't see the irony there of discounting cricket 'experts' (a term I'll use) and a bunch of people on an asian website (who in a recent poll rated Younus khan the best current batsman in the world lol) then I don't think I can help any further.

when did I use the ratings on this site to backup my opinions ?

I noticed you're still yet to address the point about your outlook logically suggesting that greats of other sports like Jesse Owens and great sprinter, Mohammad Ali, the greatest boxer & Bath Ruth the greatest baseballer should all be discounted because when looking back at old footage they don't look quite as athletic and there techniques look a little different.

I have addressed this many times ... I will try one more time in a very different way and I really don't like to discuss other sports. Absolutely Don't care about them. So will stick to cricket. The answer to it depends on the question/context. If you are really interested in knowing who possesses the best Batting skills in absolute terms then it has to be Tendulkar. To me that is the definition of an ATG. Someone who could handle most challenges that can come about while batting and most importantly be relevant in the future when he is being discussed. So in a future ERA if Tendulkars batting technique looks as outdated as Hobbs batting technique does today then it is only fair that people arent brow beaten and laughed at citing all those 'expert' certificates. It is called progress. Time never stops for anyone.

You think it is Bradman and your primary explanation is 99.94(= 2x). My response to that is ... well if you reset the standards to what they were in 1930 then most modern batsmen would avg much higher than 99.94. You only have to look at what many modern batsmen did to BD and Zim over the last 15 years. But you will only accept someone as a better batsman if he satisfies that 2x equation. And on top of that you like to pretend that competitiveness in cricket is just as it was in 1930 and that there exist level playing field.

I'll say it again, I thought that footage of Hutton from 1938 in particular showed a guy with a superb technique. I will concede one point though, and that is generally the players from the 1930s-40s (Bradmans era) definitely didn't look as athletic, but guess what, neither to players of the late 80s & 90s look athletic compared with those of today. This is obvious and the same across all sports, it doesn't follow that it makes past athletes any worse comparatively.

Huttons Technique is slightly better than Hobbs but really if a guy could play testmatch cricket for yrs even after his left hand was shortened by good 3 inches .... it tells us how friendly the standards were. more on this after you answer my question above in 1st para.

 

[street cricketer]

Honestly I don't see why people find it difficult to see that the standards of the pre world war era were different to what's prevailing now. It's absolutely idiotic to compare across an era where few were professional players and many went for fighting wars in between matches (and quite a few succumbed in them as well unfortunately).

For me, cricket became professional only during the 70s. That is not to say that the pre world war II era players were overrated. They were merely a product of their generation and it's daft to hold that against them. This is not because I think Tendulkar is the best ever batsman or anything like that. I just find the notion of comparing across two drastically different eras with contrasting team pool, conditions and even equipments very stupid. Heck I recently saw a poll where WG Grace won the poll as the greatest ever cricket player ahead of Bradman, Sobers, Richards, Marshall, McGrath, Warne, Tendulkar, Lara, etc. A lot of these cricket "experts" have a natural bias towards their sporting icons (just like the asian ones) and it isn't surprising to see Grace winning polls like that.

Personally, I think players should be compared in different eras and not across them.