Was Jack Hobbs amongst the very greatest of batsmen?

[Harsh Thakor]

Personally I find it ridiculous how some viewers on Pakpassion here rate Sir Jack Hobbs an amateur who could not be ranked with a Viv Richards,Tendulkar,Lara or Gavaskar.There is no justification to claim that the game had no professional standard in the era of Hobbs-both pre-world war and post.Not for nothing has Hobbs been rated by 3 great cricket writers amongst the top 5 cricketers of all like Cristopher Martin Jenkins,Geoff Armstrong and John Woodcock and amongst the top 3 batsmen.True the game was different in those days in terms of range of strokes,pitches ,equipment ,rules but by no standards was it morally less challenging.The modern greats t like Lara or Tendulkar have never encountered the sticky or wt pitches of those days that were uncovered.The pitches today are virtually designed or standardized.Batting for Hobbs was often like framing in a desert or running on the snow.Inspite of treacherous conditions it was such an outstanding achievement to amass a staggering 61237 runs with 197 centuries.Possibly those figures will never be surpassed in the history of 1st class cricket.In test matches Hobbs scored his best centuries in the most difficult of situations and by no standards were his hundreds at the Oval in1926 and Melbourne in 1929-30 scored against an inferior attack.Often first class pitches did not have grass cut.Hard to envisage even modern greats surpass Hobbs on those conditions and overcome a crisis on so many occassions.


If he was an amateur then Ted Dexter one of the great post-war players would not have rated Hobbs as his most perfect batsmen or Len Hutton.Never forget the great bowlers these 2 stalwarts faced.Boycott has rated Hobbs overall in all conditions as the best batsmen ever.

True there has been a great evolution in the game.However viewers must understand that a great player in one era will be one in any era.Would not Gary Sobers have arguably excelled even more in the 1980's or 90's.Did not many experts rank Lindwall the most complete batsmen of all?Why has an expert like David Frirth ranked Headley even above many later greats after 1970?Did not Frank Worrell's batting career overlap greats like Rohan Kanhai,Alan Davidson,Colin Cowdrey and Ken Barrington?In the end rejecting players like Hobbs because of era is like stating that Gary Sobers would not excell in the 1980's and Viv Richards would fail today.It is virtually a certainty even if he averaged less he would have had the ability to make the necessary adjustments to adapt to the demands of modern day cricket.With superior coaching methods,facility of studying video replays ,heavier bats .much better wickets and protective gear Hobbs may well have thrived.It is like an army fighting a war in different conditions with different machinery and a different kind of enemy.Can we say for certain that Gavaskar or Tendulkar in Hobbs place would have scored 200 first class centuries Would Greenidge Haynes opening partnership had more century partnerships in test cricket than Hobbs and Sutcliffe?Personally I would say no.Similarly hard to envisage Hobbs surpassing Gavaskar's 34 test hundreds ,Tendulkar's 100 international centuries and Lara's cavalier mammoth scores.Still on broken tracks I would back Hobbs to surpass any modern great just like Victor Trumper.On wet wicket Hobbs was a better batsmen than Bradman.The psychology was so different in the game in the era of Hobbs.

In terms of public impact and ascendancy over peers Hobbs would rate only behind Bradman,Grace and Sobers.In his test batting career Hobbs overshadowed his contemporaries more than Lara,Viv Richards,Gavaskar or Tendulkar.On bad wickets Lar,Viv or Scahin have never been as head or shoulder head of contemporary batsmen as Hobbs on his first tour in South Africa.Always remember the contribution of Hobbs to the evolution of batting after Grace was the pioneer.Similar to a contribution of a great scientist like Einstein even if later scientists gave his theory a different perspective by taking it to a higher plane.Rejecting Hobbs today is like stating that Jesse Owens was not a great Olympian or Australian racehorse Phar Lap is not a giant.The training methods were simply not on the same plane for atheletes and breeding levels not on the same pedestal for racehorses.Thus morally abusing the great history of the game.

With a gun on my head I would rank Hobbs overall at no 1 amongst great batsmen because of his diversity and longevity . I don't mind viewers rating Gavaskar,Tendulkar,Barry or Lara higher but it is gross injustice to exclude him from the best dozen batsmen of all or the club of all-time greats.It is like calling cricket a non -sport in it's Golden age.Infact morally today pure batting technique has gone through a major decline with advent of t-20 and earlier O.DI.version of the game.Today's batsmen do not negotiate the short ball as well as batsmen of 3-4 decades ago or the turning ball.


Quoting Geofff Boycott:

"In terms of figures and performances, making runs, and helping win matches, it has to be Don Bradman. The best. But the people in the era he played, think that on all types of pitches, and I repeat, on all types of pitches, John Berry Hobbs was the best player the world has ever seen.

Now, nobody can compete with Bradman on good batting pitches. His record is unbelievable. But you have to remember, right up to the 1970s, cricket was played on uncovered pitches in Test matches. In many of the hot countries, they didn't get much rain, so you hardly ever got a wet pitch - or a sticky dog, as they call it in Australia. But in places like New Zealand and England, where we get lots of rain, you never quite know what you are going to get. The pitches would be juicy. Even if they were not wet, the grass would make the ball move around.


I think this simple practice laid a wonderful foundation. As a boy Hobbs watched the older boys playing cricket at the college and tried to pick up things. He had no formal coaching; he became a natural batsman with hand-eye coordination and footwork, the neat, quick footwork you need to hit a tennis ball with a stump on a fives court.

This, to me, is what made him a great player on all sorts of pitches, where the ball turned alarmingly, where it jumped when it was wet. It was fascinating when I read that the greatest batsman ever, Bradman, born a few years later, used the same method as a child when he was growing up in Bowral on the other side of the world. When you think about it, Bradman hitting a golf ball with a cricket stump was making the same type of cricket match for himself as Hobbs was doing on the other side of the world.

Hobbs was more or less brought up on the principle laid down by the first great batsman, WG Grace, which was to get the left leg forward to the length of the ball and the right foot right back to the short ball. That's how Hobbs played, from Grace's way of playing and by watching his elders. He made his first-class debut for Surrey in 1905 and scored 197 hundreds.

He is known to have been the best player anybody has ever seen. Now how do I know this? I never saw him play, but I've read so much about him by the doyen writers of the day, who wrote about the way Hobbs played and what he did, and the batsmen of that era who talked about him.

Hobbs had never played on matting wickets when he went to South Africa for the first time to play. The ball turned alarmingly on matting pitches there, but in five Test matches in 1909-10, he worked it out and scored 539 runs at an average of 67. The key is not the 67. It's that it's double the average of the next four run-makers for England - George Thompson, Frank Woolley, Lucky Denton and Wilfred Rhodes. They averaged 33, 32, 26 and 25.He more than doubled their averages, which showed how good he was compared to everybody else, which is how we rate Bradman. We look at how many players average 50 in Test cricket and they are the iconic greats of our era. Yet Bradman averaged twice as much.

Hobbs' nickname was "The Master", because he played on all types of pitches. He had a great opening partnership with Herbert Sutcliffe of Yorkshire. They were fantastic players on sticky pitches, when it rained overnight and the ball jumped. At The Oval in 1926. In Melbourne two years later, they just played out of this world."


Quoting Gideon Heigh

"Hobbs was the only Englishman garlanded as one of Wisden's Five Cricketers of the Century. His status as the greatest first-class run scorer (61,237) and century-maker (197) clearly counted for something; his serene and sportsmanlike demeanour for something more. Yet 70 respondents to the survey did not figure him in their calculations, and the editor Matthew Engel's Almanack tribute seemed somewhat tepid: Hobbs was called "pragmatic", "businesslike" and "the supreme craftsman", though "not an artist".

But was Hobbs really like that? Study the images in that much-neglected 1926 primer The Perfect Batsman and one obtains a different impression. The book's "98 Cinema-Photographs of JB Hobbs at the wicket" were taken for author Archie MacLaren in 1914, when Hobbs felt himself at his peak. And they are anything but staid, or even conventional, and not a bit "pragmatic": the bat speed and brio are breathtaking. In Jack Hobbs, John Arlott remarks on his subject's tight bottom-hand grip - "contrary to the advice of most coaches" - and it is evident in the sequences that illustrate "Driving to the Right of Cover Point" and "A True Cover Drive Along the Ground". It is batting at its most spontaneous and original; "The Master" and "The Master Blaster" were not quite so distant as might be imagined. Hampshire's Alex Kennedy once recalled bowling the first ball of a match to Hobbs at The Oval. It was a late outswinger on off stump; Hobbs dispatched it through square leg for four. The anecdote's only un-Vivish aspect is that Hobbs smilingly apologised: "I shouldn't have done that, should I? I was a bit lucky."





STATISTICS COMPILED FROM CRICINFO BY S.RAJESH



JACK HOBBS' TEST CAREER
Period Runs Average 100s/ 50s
First 11 Tests 786 41.36 0/ 8
Next 44 Tests 4261 65.55 15/ 17
Last 6 Tests 363 33.00 0/ 3
Career 5410 56.94 15/ 28
With the conditions loaded in favour of batsmen over the last decade, several of them have joined the list of 50-plus averages: with a cut-off of 5000 runs, 77 are in this league today, while there were only 44 before the start of the 2000s. However, Hobbs' average of 56.94 remains among the top five. It's in fifth place, next only to Bradman, Barrington, Hammond and Sobers.

Obviously Hobbs is among the top openers in Test history as well. Only Herbert Sutcliffe and Len Hutton have a higher average, among openers who've scored at least 4000 runs. Among modern-day openers, India's Virender Sehwag comes closest to the legends, with an average of almost 55.

BEST OPENERS IN TESTS (QUAL: 4000 RUNS AS OPENERS)
Batsman Innings Runs Average 100s/ 50s
Herbert Sutcliffe 83 4522 61.10 16/ 23
Len Hutton 131 6721 56.47 19/ 31
Jack Hobbs 97 5130 56.37 14/ 27
Virender Sehwag 120 6312 54.88 18/ 19
Graeme Smith 136 6564 51.28 20/ 24
Matthew Hayden 184 8625 50.73 30/ 29
Sunil Gavaskar 203 9607 50.29 33/ 42
Justin Langer 115 5112 48.22 16/ 18
Geoff Boycott 191 8091 48.16 22/ 42
Herschelle Gibbs 116 5242 47.22 14/ 21
At the time of his retirement, Hobbs was also easily the highest run-scorer in Tests. His tally of 5410 was almost 2000 more than Clem Hill, who was the second-highest, on 3412. Only five players had scored more than 3000 runs in Tests at the time.

The small group of Test-playing nations at the time also meant Hobbs played most of his Tests against Australia - 41 out of 61 were against them, and he scored 12 centuries in those games, at an average of more than 54.

LEADING RUN-GETTERS IN TESTS TILL THE END OF HOBBS' CAREER
Batsman Tests Runs Average 100s/ 50s
Jack Hobbs 61 5410 56.94 15/ 28
Clem Hill 49 3412 39.21 7/ 19
Herbert Sutcliffe 36 3396 66.58 13/ 16
Victor Trumper 48 3163 39.04 8/ 13
Frank Woolley 61 3160 37.17 5/ 22
Warwick Armstrong 50 2863 38.68 6/ 8
With Herbert Sutcliffe, Hobbs formed an opening combination that remains the most prolific in Test cricket in terms of average opening stands. In 38 innings in which the two opened together, they managed an incredible 15 century stands, including a highest of 283 against Australia in Melbourne, a match England ultimately lost by 81 runs - it remains the third-highest partnership by a pair who ended up on the losing side. Twice the pair recorded century stands in three consecutive innings.

Not only does Hobbs top the list of leading opening pairs, he also comes in second: his 36 opening stands with Wilfred Rhodes were worth 2146 runs, at an average of 61.31.

Among the modern-day pairs, India's Sehwag and Gautam Gambhir have the highest average partnership (with a 2000-run cut-off) - they average 60.06, with seven century stands in 50 innings.

 

[Ab Fan]

Yes, He is England's greatest batsmen of all-time.

Top 5 England batsmen I would say are:-

Hobbs
Hutton
Hammond
Sutcliffe
Pietersen

 

[CricketAnalyst]

Personally I find it ridiculous how some viewers on Pakpassion here rate Sir Jack Hobbs an amateur who could not be ranked with a Viv Richards,Tendulkar,Lara or Gavaskar.There is no justification to claim that the game had no professional standard in the era of Hobbs-both pre-world war and post.Not for nothing has Hobbs been rated by 3 great cricket writers amongst the top 5 cricketers of all like Cristopher Martin Jenkins,Geoff Armstrong and John Woodcock and amongst the top 3 batsmen.True the game was different in those days in terms of range of strokes,pitches ,equipment ,rules but by no standards was it morally less challenging.The modern greats t like Lara or Tendulkar have never encountered the sticky or wt pitches of those days that were uncovered.The pitches today are virtually designed or standardized.Batting for Hobbs was often like framing in a desert or running on the snow.Inspite of treacherous conditions it was such an outstanding achievement to amass a staggering 61237 runs with 197 centuries.Possibly those figures will never be surpassed in the history of 1st class cricket.In test matches Hobbs scored his best centuries in the most difficult of situations and by no standards were his hundreds at the Oval in1926 and Melbourne in 1929-30 scored against an inferior attack.Often first class pitches did not have grass cut.Hard to envisage even modern greats surpass Hobbs on those conditions and overcome a crisis on so many occassions.


If he was an amateur then Ted Dexter one of the great post-war players would not have rated Hobbs as his most perfect batsmen or Len Hutton.Never forget the great bowlers these 2 stalwarts faced.Boycott has rated Hobbs overall in all conditions as the best batsmen ever.

True there has been a great evolution in the game.However viewers must understand that a great player in one era will be one in any era.Would not Gary Sobers have arguably excelled even more in the 1980's or 90's.Did not many experts rank Lindwall the most complete batsmen of all?Why has an expert like David Frirth ranked Headley even above many later greats after 1970?Did not Frank Worrell's batting career overlap greats like Rohan Kanhai,Alan Davidson,Colin Cowdrey and Ken Barrington?In the end rejecting players like Hobbs because of era is like stating that Gary Sobers would not excell in the 1980's and Viv Richards would fail today.It is virtually a certainty even if he averaged less he would have had the ability to make the necessary adjustments to adapt to the demands of modern day cricket.With superior coaching methods,facility of studying video replays ,heavier bats .much better wickets and protective gear Hobbs may well have thrived.It is like an army fighting a war in different conditions with different machinery and a different kind of enemy.Can we say for certain that Gavaskar or Tendulkar in Hobbs place would have scored 200 first class centuries Would Greenidge Haynes opening partnership had more century partnerships in test cricket than Hobbs and Sutcliffe?Personally I would say no.Similarly hard to envisage Hobbs surpassing Gavaskar's 34 test hundreds ,Tendulkar's 100 international centuries and Lara's cavalier mammoth scores.Still on broken tracks I would back Hobbs to surpass any modern great just like Victor Trumper.On wet wicket Hobbs was a better batsmen than Bradman.The psychology was so different in the game in the era of Hobbs.

In terms of public impact and ascendancy over peers Hobbs would rate only behind Bradman,Grace and Sobers.In his test batting career Hobbs overshadowed his contemporaries more than Lara,Viv Richards,Gavaskar or Tendulkar.On bad wickets Lar,Viv or Scahin have never been as head or shoulder head of contemporary batsmen as Hobbs on his first tour in South Africa.Always remember the contribution of Hobbs to the evolution of batting after Grace was the pioneer.Similar to a contribution of a great scientist like Einstein even if later scientists gave his theory a different perspective by taking it to a higher plane.Rejecting Hobbs today is like stating that Jesse Owens was not a great Olympian or Australian racehorse Phar Lap is not a giant.The training methods were simply not on the same plane for atheletes and breeding levels not on the same pedestal for racehorses.Thus morally abusing the great history of the game.

With a gun on my head I would rank Hobbs overall at no 1 amongst great batsmen because of his diversity and longevity . I don't mind viewers rating Gavaskar,Tendulkar,Barry or Lara higher but it is gross injustice to exclude him from the best dozen batsmen of all or the club of all-time greats.It is like calling cricket a non -sport in it's Golden age.Infact morally today pure batting technique has gone through a major decline with advent of t-20 and earlier O.DI.version of the game.Today's batsmen do not negotiate the short ball as well as batsmen of 3-4 decades ago or the turning ball.


Quoting Geofff Boycott:

"In terms of figures and performances, making runs, and helping win matches, it has to be Don Bradman. The best. But the people in the era he played, think that on all types of pitches, and I repeat, on all types of pitches, John Berry Hobbs was the best player the world has ever seen.

Now, nobody can compete with Bradman on good batting pitches. His record is unbelievable. But you have to remember, right up to the 1970s, cricket was played on uncovered pitches in Test matches. In many of the hot countries, they didn't get much rain, so you hardly ever got a wet pitch - or a sticky dog, as they call it in Australia. But in places like New Zealand and England, where we get lots of rain, you never quite know what you are going to get. The pitches would be juicy. Even if they were not wet, the grass would make the ball move around.


I think this simple practice laid a wonderful foundation. As a boy Hobbs watched the older boys playing cricket at the college and tried to pick up things. He had no formal coaching; he became a natural batsman with hand-eye coordination and footwork, the neat, quick footwork you need to hit a tennis ball with a stump on a fives court.

This, to me, is what made him a great player on all sorts of pitches, where the ball turned alarmingly, where it jumped when it was wet. It was fascinating when I read that the greatest batsman ever, Bradman, born a few years later, used the same method as a child when he was growing up in Bowral on the other side of the world. When you think about it, Bradman hitting a golf ball with a cricket stump was making the same type of cricket match for himself as Hobbs was doing on the other side of the world.

Hobbs was more or less brought up on the principle laid down by the first great batsman, WG Grace, which was to get the left leg forward to the length of the ball and the right foot right back to the short ball. That's how Hobbs played, from Grace's way of playing and by watching his elders. He made his first-class debut for Surrey in 1905 and scored 197 hundreds.

He is known to have been the best player anybody has ever seen. Now how do I know this? I never saw him play, but I've read so much about him by the doyen writers of the day, who wrote about the way Hobbs played and what he did, and the batsmen of that era who talked about him.

Hobbs had never played on matting wickets when he went to South Africa for the first time to play. The ball turned alarmingly on matting pitches there, but in five Test matches in 1909-10, he worked it out and scored 539 runs at an average of 67. The key is not the 67. It's that it's double the average of the next four run-makers for England - George Thompson, Frank Woolley, Lucky Denton and Wilfred Rhodes. They averaged 33, 32, 26 and 25.He more than doubled their averages, which showed how good he was compared to everybody else, which is how we rate Bradman. We look at how many players average 50 in Test cricket and they are the iconic greats of our era. Yet Bradman averaged twice as much.

Hobbs' nickname was "The Master", because he played on all types of pitches. He had a great opening partnership with Herbert Sutcliffe of Yorkshire. They were fantastic players on sticky pitches, when it rained overnight and the ball jumped. At The Oval in 1926. In Melbourne two years later, they just played out of this world."


Quoting Gideon Heigh

"Hobbs was the only Englishman garlanded as one of Wisden's Five Cricketers of the Century. His status as the greatest first-class run scorer (61,237) and century-maker (197) clearly counted for something; his serene and sportsmanlike demeanour for something more. Yet 70 respondents to the survey did not figure him in their calculations, and the editor Matthew Engel's Almanack tribute seemed somewhat tepid: Hobbs was called "pragmatic", "businesslike" and "the supreme craftsman", though "not an artist".

But was Hobbs really like that? Study the images in that much-neglected 1926 primer The Perfect Batsman and one obtains a different impression. The book's "98 Cinema-Photographs of JB Hobbs at the wicket" were taken for author Archie MacLaren in 1914, when Hobbs felt himself at his peak. And they are anything but staid, or even conventional, and not a bit "pragmatic": the bat speed and brio are breathtaking. In Jack Hobbs, John Arlott remarks on his subject's tight bottom-hand grip - "contrary to the advice of most coaches" - and it is evident in the sequences that illustrate "Driving to the Right of Cover Point" and "A True Cover Drive Along the Ground". It is batting at its most spontaneous and original; "The Master" and "The Master Blaster" were not quite so distant as might be imagined. Hampshire's Alex Kennedy once recalled bowling the first ball of a match to Hobbs at The Oval. It was a late outswinger on off stump; Hobbs dispatched it through square leg for four. The anecdote's only un-Vivish aspect is that Hobbs smilingly apologised: "I shouldn't have done that, should I? I was a bit lucky."





STATISTICS COMPILED FROM CRICINFO BY S.RAJESH



JACK HOBBS' TEST CAREER
Period Runs Average 100s/ 50s
First 11 Tests 786 41.36 0/ 8
Next 44 Tests 4261 65.55 15/ 17
Last 6 Tests 363 33.00 0/ 3
Career 5410 56.94 15/ 28
With the conditions loaded in favour of batsmen over the last decade, several of them have joined the list of 50-plus averages: with a cut-off of 5000 runs, 77 are in this league today, while there were only 44 before the start of the 2000s. However, Hobbs' average of 56.94 remains among the top five. It's in fifth place, next only to Bradman, Barrington, Hammond and Sobers.

Obviously Hobbs is among the top openers in Test history as well. Only Herbert Sutcliffe and Len Hutton have a higher average, among openers who've scored at least 4000 runs. Among modern-day openers, India's Virender Sehwag comes closest to the legends, with an average of almost 55.

BEST OPENERS IN TESTS (QUAL: 4000 RUNS AS OPENERS)
Batsman Innings Runs Average 100s/ 50s
Herbert Sutcliffe 83 4522 61.10 16/ 23
Len Hutton 131 6721 56.47 19/ 31
Jack Hobbs 97 5130 56.37 14/ 27
Virender Sehwag 120 6312 54.88 18/ 19
Graeme Smith 136 6564 51.28 20/ 24
Matthew Hayden 184 8625 50.73 30/ 29
Sunil Gavaskar 203 9607 50.29 33/ 42
Justin Langer 115 5112 48.22 16/ 18
Geoff Boycott 191 8091 48.16 22/ 42
Herschelle Gibbs 116 5242 47.22 14/ 21
At the time of his retirement, Hobbs was also easily the highest run-scorer in Tests. His tally of 5410 was almost 2000 more than Clem Hill, who was the second-highest, on 3412. Only five players had scored more than 3000 runs in Tests at the time.

The small group of Test-playing nations at the time also meant Hobbs played most of his Tests against Australia - 41 out of 61 were against them, and he scored 12 centuries in those games, at an average of more than 54.

LEADING RUN-GETTERS IN TESTS TILL THE END OF HOBBS' CAREER
Batsman Tests Runs Average 100s/ 50s
Jack Hobbs 61 5410 56.94 15/ 28
Clem Hill 49 3412 39.21 7/ 19
Herbert Sutcliffe 36 3396 66.58 13/ 16
Victor Trumper 48 3163 39.04 8/ 13
Frank Woolley 61 3160 37.17 5/ 22
Warwick Armstrong 50 2863 38.68 6/ 8
With Herbert Sutcliffe, Hobbs formed an opening combination that remains the most prolific in Test cricket in terms of average opening stands. In 38 innings in which the two opened together, they managed an incredible 15 century stands, including a highest of 283 against Australia in Melbourne, a match England ultimately lost by 81 runs - it remains the third-highest partnership by a pair who ended up on the losing side. Twice the pair recorded century stands in three consecutive innings.

Not only does Hobbs top the list of leading opening pairs, he also comes in second: his 36 opening stands with Wilfred Rhodes were worth 2146 runs, at an average of 61.31.

Among the modern-day pairs, India's Sehwag and Gautam Gambhir have the highest average partnership (with a 2000-run cut-off) - they average 60.06, with seven century stands in 50 innings.

Forget greatest of all time; this guy wouldn't make a club team now. It's one thing to say he would have learnt technique etc if he was born now; a totally speculative claim. It's quite another to assert that this guy who couldn't hold a bat and had technique worse than every single No. 11 you will see in professional cricket is an all time-great.

Kohli transplanted into 1920s would average more than 150 without breaking a sweat. Hobbs transplanted now, with or without modern equipment would be hit on the head multiple times by innings. A guy used to facing 120 kmph lollies would never be able to face the 145+ that every international team, domestic T20 side and even some club level sides have.

It's an insult to cricket to say that it's golden age was incompetent amateurs hurling lollipops at 120kmph, rather than now where bowlers can bowl faster and batsmen are light-years ahead of 1920 guys.

 

[Rahul1]

No way. Another product of English hype machine.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Forget greatest of all time; this guy wouldn't make a club team now. It's one thing to say he would have learnt technique etc if he was born now; a totally speculative claim. It's quite another to assert that this guy who couldn't hold a bat and had technique worse than every single No. 11 you will see in professional cricket is an all time-great.

Kohli transplanted into 1920s would average more than 150 without breaking a sweat. Hobbs transplanted now, with or without modern equipment would be hit on the head multiple times by innings. A guy used to facing 120 kmph lollies would never be able to face the 145+ that every international team, domestic T20 side and even some club level sides have.

It's an insult to cricket to say that it's golden age was incompetent amateurs hurling lollipops at 120kmph, rather than now where bowlers can bowl faster and batsmen are light-years ahead of 1920 guys.

Ridiculuos. Kohli would aggregate 61237 runs with 197 centuries?Kolhi will score double centuries at Oval in 1926 and Melbourne in 1928-29?Kohli would have overshadowed Hobb son the turners in South Africa in early 1900's.?Please re-think.Has Kolhi ever been head and shoulders above his great rivals as much as Hobbs?Could Virat or even Sachin overshadow Hobbs on the wettest of pitches ?Do you think Cricket writesr or even modern greats are fools?Boycott placing him as the greatest speaks for itself and modern writers placing him amongst the top 3 batsmen of all.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

Ridiculuos. Kohli would aggregate 61237 runs with 197 centuries?Kolhi will score double centuries at Oval in 1926 and Melbourne in 1928-29?Kohli would have overshadowed Hobb son the turners in South Africa in early 1900's.?Please re-think.Has Kolhi ever been head and shoulders above his great rivals as much as Hobbs?Could Virat or even Sachin overshadow Hobbs on the wettest of pitches ?Do you think Cricket writesr or even modern greats are fools?Boycott placing him as the greatest speaks for itself and modern writers placing him amongst the top 3 batsmen of all.

I've seen videos of him batting. And the bowling from that era. Believe me, I'm conservative when I say Kohli would average 150 there. These guys are trundlers bowling at 110 kmph. The best bowlers of that era were trundlers who would go for 25+ per over in the IPL irrespective of bowling conditions. No one had any speed, spinners were very very slow. Batsmen who have never faced even medium-pace would have no chance against modern bowlers.

Every single sport in history has jumped leaps and bounds and players now are better than in the past. That's simply a fact. Cricket is not an exception. Teleport any modern cricketer into the past and they would be considered freaks of nature.

 

[Robert]

Sir Jack was a giant, fundamental to the development of the game, like Newton was to physics or Beethoven was to music.

You’d have to say he was the best cricketer in the world between the time of Grace and the time of Bradman.


——————————

It’s interesting to see the attitude of some Indians toward cricket prior to their period of dominance. Almost like they wish it hadn’t happened. It’s like an historical master is a threat to their self-esteem, like they have to live for their Sachin or their Kohli.....

 

[Rahul1]

Ridiculuos. Kohli would aggregate 61237 runs with 197 centuries?Kolhi will score double centuries at Oval in 1926 and Melbourne in 1928-29?Kohli would have overshadowed Hobb son the turners in South Africa in early 1900's.?Please re-think.Has Kolhi ever been head and shoulders above his great rivals as much as Hobbs?Could Virat or even Sachin overshadow Hobbs on the wettest of pitches ?Do you think Cricket writesr or even modern greats are fools?Boycott placing him as the greatest speaks for itself and modern writers placing him amongst the top 3 batsmen of all.

What was so special about Oval 1926 and Melbourne 1928?

 

[Tusker]

Ridiculuos. Kohli would aggregate 61237 runs with 197 centuries?Kolhi will score double centuries at Oval in 1926 and Melbourne in 1928-29?Kohli would have overshadowed Hobb son the turners in South Africa in early 1900's.?Please re-think.Has Kolhi ever been head and shoulders above his great rivals as much as Hobbs?Could Virat or even Sachin overshadow Hobbs on the wettest of pitches ?Do you think Cricket writesr or even modern greats are fools?Boycott placing him as the greatest speaks for itself and modern writers placing him amongst the top 3 batsmen of all.

Does this thread mean that you are actually interested in indulging in a discussion with those of us that don't believe in everything written in cricket history books ? If so let me know because I am one of the first posters on PP to analyze past players to get to the bottom of the incredulous hype surrounding past greats.

Let me know if you are interested in such a serious discussion and I will give you a proper fact based and logical explanation to all your questions.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

What was so special about Oval 1926 and Melbourne 1928?

The nature of wickets,pressure and strength of opposition.

 

[Rahul1]

The nature of wickets,pressure and strength of opposition.

Got any footage?

 

[TQ89]

Sir Jack was a giant, fundamental to the development of the game, like Newton was to physics or Beethoven was to music.

You’d have to say he was the best cricketer in the world between the time of Grace and the time of Bradman.


——————————

It’s interesting to see the attitude of some Indians toward cricket prior to their period of dominance. Almost like they wish it hadn’t happened. It’s like an historical master is a threat to their self-esteem, like they have to live for their Sachin or their Kohli.....

This i wont disagree with and for this Jack hobbs has all my respect. He was an innovative opener for his day and from what i have heard in interview by richie benaud, Jack hobbs was the one who specifically bought the tactic scoring in the V region rather than focus on the on side like many batsmen of that time.

But as usual I don't agree with the hyperbole that is always thrown around by Harsh & junaids with the agenda to diss the modern greats on the basis of just few ancient newspaper/magazine clippings.

 

[TQ89]

The nature of wickets,pressure and strength of opposition.

Any proof?

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Sir Jack was a giant, fundamental to the development of the game, like Newton was to physics or Beethoven was to music.

You’d have to say he was the best cricketer in the world between the time of Grace and the time of Bradman.


——————————

It’s interesting to see the attitude of some Indians toward cricket prior to their period of dominance. Almost like they wish it hadn’t happened. It’s like an historical master is a threat to their self-esteem, like they have to live for their Sachin or their Kohli.....

Could not agree more Robert.Pleased there are atleast still some who understand and respect the glory of the past greats like Hobbs.You have said exactly what I wished to say before but I wanted to confine to sport in my main post.Infact Beethoven had come to my mind.Hobbs was the equivalent of a Shakespeare to the game defining a new era more than later Gavaskar or Viv or arguably even Tendulkar.


How would you compare Hobbs with Bradman,Viv or Tendulkar?Appreciate your post again.

 

[TQ89]

Does this thread mean that you are actually interested in indulging in a discussion with those of us that don't believe in everything written in cricket history books ? If so let me know because I am one of the first posters on PP to analyze past players to get to the bottom of the incredulous hype surrounding past greats.

Let me know if you are interested in such a serious discussion and I will give you a proper fact based and logical explanation to all your questions.

Never mind. They never reply to your & napa's queries and try to deflect the thread by bringing in a random quote about Hobbs, Trueman etc from some 70's player who is probably dead by now.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Hobbs, Bradman, etc are giants of the game. Not interested in any conclusions based on black and white photos and videos. Game evolves with time. They were superb in their time and that's what matters the most. Usually, the culprits are Indian fans who bash these legends in every thread because for them Cricket started in the last 20 years when India started producing ATG material batsmen.

 

[Cric1234]

With Hobbs his technique looks awkward but the pitches he played on generally meant an orthodox technique wouldn't be as succesful.
If you look at Hammond in the nets he looks like a top class batsman again there is better bounce on these pitches which is one reason why.
Overall Hobbs is a great batsman of his era and a pioneer his era is more difficult to compare to the modern one than others pitches lack of video evidence bowlers can't be analysed properly and we should leave it at that.

 

[Tusker]

Hobbs, Bradman, etc are giants of the game. Not interested in any conclusions based on black and white photos and videos. .

Just curious as to why Black and white footage is insufficient to judge these players.

 

[Robert]

Yes, He is England's greatest batsmen of all-time.

Top 5 England batsmen I would say are:-

Hobbs
Hutton
Hammond
Sutcliffe
Pietersen

That seems about right to me. I’d be inclined to drop KP for Compton.

 

[Robert]

Could not agree more Robert.Pleased there are atleast still some who understand and respect the glory of the past greats like Hobbs.You have said exactly what I wished to say before but I wanted to confine to sport in my main post.Infact Beethoven had come to my mind.Hobbs was the equivalent of a Shakespeare to the game defining a new era more than later Gavaskar or Viv or arguably even Tendulkar.


How would you compare Hobbs with Bradman,Viv or Tendulkar?Appreciate your post again.

I’ll leave it to Boycott regarding the difference between Hobbs and Bradman.

The impression I got from reading about Sir Donald was that on good wickets he had the most perfectly organised batting brain. He would never hit it in the air because that meant a chance of being caught. His ability to hit it between fielders is probably unique. And he would do it all day so he must have had extraordinary concentration.

Sir Viv remain the best I ever saw. He was orthodox, so still at the crease. Never wore a helmet. He seemed to be able to hit it to places his contemporaries could not. The first time I saw him was against England in that ODI in 1984 where he got 180 not out. Prior to him I had seen the likes of Gower, Botham, Chappell and Border but Sir Viv was in another league, as though a god had come to bat with mere mortals.

Sachin - well I remember marvelling at the 17-year-old hitting Malcolm and Fraser about for his maiden test century and knew the kid was something right out of the ordinary. A hundred international hundreds may never be surpassed. Extraordinary ability to stay in the Zone for so long, day in, year in year out.

 

[MMHS]

In a time Zero world, JB Hobbs indeed one of the greatest batsman of all time, probably greatest. It’s not fair to judge him with contemporary batsmen after 100 years - he was several level above his contemporary batsmen. Many of modern batting defensive techniques, shot making were introduced by JBH, which over the year had been perfected.

The best English batsman in history for me without doubt. My top 10 Pom will be
Hobbs
Hammond
Compton
Hutton
Ranji
Sutcliffe
KP
GG
Gower
Boyce
(Not surprising that top 6 debuted before WW2)

Pioneer of modern batting - respect.

 

[LastManstanding]

——————————

It’s interesting to see the attitude of some Indians toward cricket prior to their period of dominance. Almost like they wish it hadn’t happened. It’s like an historical master is a threat to their self-esteem, like they have to live for their Sachin or their Kohli.....

Instead of bringing the nationality of the posters to discredit their opinion, why don't you counter the points made by them by presenting some arguments of your own?

 

[TQ89]

I’ll leave it to Boycott regarding the difference between Hobbs and Bradman.

The impression I got from reading about Sir Donald was that on good wickets he had the most perfectly organised batting brain. He would never hit it in the air because that meant a chance of being caught. His ability to hit it between fielders is probably unique. And he would do it all day so he must have had extraordinary concentration.

Sir Viv remain the best I ever saw. He was orthodox, so still at the crease. Never wore a helmet. He seemed to be able to hit it to places his contemporaries could not. The first time I saw him was against England in that ODI in 1984 where he got 180 not out. Prior to him I had seen the likes of Gower, Botham, Chappell and Border but Sir Viv was in another league, as though a god had come to bat with mere mortals.

Sachin - well I remember marvelling at the 17-year-old hitting Malcolm and Fraser about for his maiden test century and knew the kid was something right out of the ordinary. A hundred international hundreds may never be surpassed. Extraordinary ability to stay in the Zone for so long, day in, year in year out.

What are your impressions regarding Javed Miandad? How good or bad was he as batsman in both ODI/Test in your opinion.

I thought i should ask you this since you seemed to have watched lot of players playing live in the 80's and lot of us young ones didn't get to see them bat live.

 

[Junaids]

Forget greatest of all time; this guy wouldn't make a club team now. It's one thing to say he would have learnt technique etc if he was born now; a totally speculative claim. It's quite another to assert that this guy who couldn't hold a bat and had technique worse than every single No. 11 you will see in professional cricket is an all time-great.

Kohli transplanted into 1920s would average more than 150 without breaking a sweat. Hobbs transplanted now, with or without modern equipment would be hit on the head multiple times by innings. A guy used to facing 120 kmph lollies would never be able to face the 145+ that every international team, domestic T20 side and even some club level sides have.

It's an insult to cricket to say that it's golden age was incompetent amateurs hurling lollipops at 120kmph, rather than now where bowlers can bowl faster and batsmen are light-years ahead of 1920 guys.

My friend, you assume modern pitches, protection, bats and balls and covered wickets.

There is a reason why Harold Larwood was the first 140+ bowler (and yes, the University of NSW has analysed the footage using known triangulation points at Sydney and Adelaide and has estimated his mean speed at around 144K)

On today’s covered, grassless wickets pace is a key weapon. But in the days of uncovered wickets, it was more important for a pace bowler to be able to extract spin than speed. As the likes of Barnes and Lohmann showed.

Hobbs was a professional whose technique was optimised for the conditions and bowling types of his generation.

So too is Kohli: he’s terrific 90% of the time but just could not cope against Junaid Khan in India, let alone against Anderson and Broad in England.

 

[Robert]

Instead of bringing the nationality of the posters to discredit their opinion, why don't you counter the points made by them by presenting some arguments of your own?

That wasn’t what I did, if you read my post again.

Anyway, I did that for years. Countering the nonsense some spout about Lillee for example. They aren’t interested in anything except raw figures and being right. So now I just block them. Life is short and there are better ways to spend it.

 

[Robert]

What are your impressions regarding Javed Miandad? How good or bad was he as batsman in both ODI/Test in your opinion.

I thought i should ask you this since you seemed to have watched lot of players playing live in the 80's and lot of us young ones didn't get to see them bat live.

Probably the best pressure player I ever saw. He seemed to get better the more pressure that was on him.

 

[Tusker]

That wasn’t what I did, if you read my post again.

Making an adhominem attack is exactly what you did. While it is very easy for me to
Make a rasping response and shut you down but Me being an Indian fan has nothing to do with what I say because I also say that Joe Root is 10 times the player (skill wise) that Hobbs was.

It's very amusing to see old era supporters such as you get upset because you can't defend your cricketing views as there's no way in hell you can argue against evidence as can be seen from footage.

It is very obvious to see for all how you meticulously avoid responding to my posts asking you to explain based on footage. You know very well that that's one battle you cannot win. You know your best bet is to hide behind stories and references from past players. But it doesn't stop you from brazenly peddling your unsubstantiated opinions despite knowing that you are quite deliberately avoiding answering the most important points.

This is why I keep saying that you guys need to man up and start answering the difficult questions like a grown up instead of the dead beat passive aggressive
routine. After all it should be very easy to do given how you swear by these players. Surely there must be answers to the pointed questions in atleast one of those stories and references that you swear by.

 

[Tusker]

Never mind. They never reply to your & napa's queries and try to deflect the thread by bringing in a random quote about Hobbs, Trueman etc from some 70's player who is probably dead by now.

I know but gotta live in hope ... maybe one day these guys will develop enough backbone to stand up and argue like grown up men instead of cowering like pussycats.

 

[Chief Destroyer]

All these dinosaurs were the best from a very small talent pool. The game had hardly expanded back then. They wouldn't stand a chance against players from later eras simply because they had to break through greater odds to make it to the top. Watching them play confirms how ordinary they were.

 

[Chrish]

Instead of bringing the nationality of the posters to discredit their opinion, why don't you counter the points made by them by presenting some arguments of your own?

Lot of SRT fans do suffer from some sort of inferiority complex. They have no hesitation disrespecting other cricketers but as soon as their hero is put under scrutiny, they bring out “bias” or nationality or other nonsensical excuses into argument.

I was attacked with rabid Kohli fans for saying Smith is a league above Kohli in tests. Well ain’t it true?

 

[Cric1234]

Great English batsmen have dried up in the last 50 years while Australia have had 6 or 7 it's just one of those things Root might lead a 21st century revolution it depends on the talent and combination of skill mental discipline concentration etc.

 

[Cric1234]

All these dinosaurs were the best from a very small talent pool. The game had hardly expanded back then. They wouldn't stand a chance against players from later eras simply because they had to break through greater odds to make it to the top. Watching them play confirms how ordinary they were.

The thing is these dinosaurs played with players from a different era and didn't look out of place who then overlapped with future players until today the changes are smaller while conditions and pitches are different in some ways while the challenges were there in each era.

 

[Robert]

All these dinosaurs were the best from a very small talent pool. The game had hardly expanded back then. They wouldn't stand a chance against players from later eras simply because they had to break through greater odds to make it to the top. Watching them play confirms how ordinary they were.

There was much more competition for County places before WW2. These days nearly all England players are from well-to-do families. Back in 1930 miners and factory workers were desperate to get jobs playing cricket, so only the real hardcases got through.

 

[Tusker]

The thing is these dinosaurs played with players from a different era and didn't look out of place who then overlapped with future players until today the changes are smaller while conditions and pitches are different in some ways while the challenges were there in each era.

Quite amazing how you can brazenly pretend that this nonsense about pitches hasn't been addressed in the other thread to which your response was the predictable silence.

It's almost like you guys don't really want to come out of the parallel world that you live in.

 

[Cric1234]

Quite amazing how you can brazenly pretend that this nonsense about pitches hasn't been addressed in the other thread to which your response was the predictable silence.

It's almost like you guys don't really want to come out of the parallel world that you live in.

I'm not sure what to say you seem to think every pitch will be exactly the same which isn't the case in any era Hobbs mostly played on grassy wickets but sometimes they were different.

 

[Tusker]

I'm not sure what to say you seem to think every pitch will be exactly the same which isn't the case in any era Hobbs mostly played on grassy wickets but sometimes they were different.

Did you even read those articles ? Going by your post it doesnt seem like it. The thing is I could produce more evidence to back by my case but it really isnt going to matter isnt it ? You are just going to doggedly cling on to your age old nonsense.

If by any remote chance you are indeed interested in a honest discussion let me know and I will respond.

 

[Chrish]

Harsh,

What’s your opinion on Wally Hammond and his supposed weakness against pace bowling and around his leg stumps?

I have always considered him a rung below Hobbs and Hutton. Do share similar view?

 

[Tusker]

Ridiculuos. Kohli would aggregate 61237 runs with 197 centuries?Kolhi will score double centuries at Oval in 1926 and Melbourne in 1928-29?

Hobbs had ONE single double hundred ( 211 vs SA who were bonafide minnows back in 1924 ) in his entire career and that was at Lords and not at Oval or Melbourne. This is why few people take you seriously as all you do is mindlessly Parrot nonsense over and over until stupid gullible people (no shortage of such people even in the age of google ) think that these are all facts.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...re;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

Kohli would have overshadowed Hobb son the turners in South Africa in early 1900's.?Please re-think.Has Kolhi ever been head and shoulders above his great rivals as much as Hobbs?Could Virat or even Sachin overshadow Hobbs on the wettest of pitches ?Do you think Cricket writesr or even modern greats are fools?Boycott placing him as the greatest speaks for itself and modern writers placing him amongst the top 3 batsmen of all.

No they were not fools but not sure about mindless people who take something that was written 100 yrs ago to mean the exact same 100 yrs later oblivious to the fact that the game has moved on so far ahead that the standard at which Hobbs played is now relegated to un-organized amateur village cricket thereby making all the things said and written about Hobbs irrelevant.

For fudge sakes ... this guy played Test Cricket till age 48 while being a smoker and a drinker and ofcourse FC cricket till age 52 ... if you believe this guy was a professional (just like Kohli is a Professional) then there is a very good chance you might even believe that Iam the owner of the Taj Mahal ( the Real one ).

What amazes me is how people believe in ANYTHING and EVERYTHING about old era cricketers ... its like as if fairy-tale. Anything goes. No rhyme no reason no logic . Just a disgrace to human intelligence and common sense.

[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] [MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION] [MENTION=135134]CricketAnalyst[/MENTION]

 

[Joseph Gomes]

People call Hobbs an amateur brcause he WAS an amatur. He was the frog prince in a well. The talent pool in early 1900s was almost nonexistent. With due respect, Hobb was a legend but comparing him to modern day batsmen is borderline idiotic. Also the statement that a great of one era would be great in any era is very silly. Hobbs being best of his time is no different than a college kid being best batsman in his college. We have several tiers of competition even in junior cricket. Cricket is unimaginably more competitive now.

 

[Itachi]

Myths have some reality behind it. But it does get extrapolated to various degrees which makes it deviate from reality.

So unless anyone here actually saw him batting, none has any weights in their claim.

I didnt see, but my benefit of doubt will go into the side of him not being great than him being great. Because the reputation he has been given, it t needs serious factors to make it justifiable and sadly, there isn't any.

 

[Robert]

People call Hobbs an amateur brcause he WAS an amatur. He was the frog prince in a well. The talent pool in early 1900s was almost nonexistent.

Ok, now you are just ignoring reality because it doesn't fit your preconceived ideas.

 

[SL_Fan]

Obviously past legends of the game should be respected for the early contributions they made to the game. However it was a completely different game back then. Apart from Bradman who was just an absolute statistical freak and also proved his mettle during Bodyline, rest of the top Test batsmen from the bygones were hardly ever tested and neither are they miles ahead of top modern-day batsmen statistically to be rated ahead. This old is gold stuff is nothing but pure conjecture.

 

[Robert]

I'm not sure what to say you seem to think every pitch will be exactly the same which isn't the case in any era Hobbs mostly played on grassy wickets but sometimes they were different.

He played on a wide variety of English and Australian wickets - greentops, roads, fliers, cow patches, stickies, dustbowls, Bunsens, and all uncovered.

The variety continued into the eighties in the UK though they have all been covered since the sixties. Now they are nearly all slow and low seamers. That is why England batters in the seventies and eighties could cope with pace and bounce in Australia and turn in India, but their modern successors can’t so well.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

He played on a wide variety of English and Australian wickets - greentops, roads, fliers, cow patches, stickies, dustbowls, Bunsens, and all uncovered.

The variety continued into the eighties in the UK though they have all been covered since the sixties. Now they are nearly all slow and low seamers. That is why England batters in the seventies and eighties could cope with pace and bounce in Australia and turn in India, but their modern successors can’t so well.

But he played against bowlers who would be nowhere near club teams now.

 

[Toaster]

Jack Hobbs, I would say was a very good batsman of his time, and had a very good peer reputation. He was a product of his time and moulded his technique to suit the pitches and conditions in his era. But it's debatable whether he would have been able to succeed in the modern era, just because he was good in his era notwithstanding the argument that a champion in any era would be a champion in another era. This is because different batsman develop differently and have different ceilings. Who knows whether Hobbs would have been able to make it to the highest label in this era.

Despite all the arguments, one shouldn't disregard his achievements because he was a great of his time but a bit overrated by the oldies and the English hype media. The English media has had a documented evidence of hyping up their good players and comparing them with legitimate ATGs. It's no wonder that English Media has been deprived of a superstar and an unequivocal ATG since Boycott. They have stopped produced ATGs when other teams caught up and none of their batsman and bowlers has ATG stats, with none of any retired English batsman having an average of 50 in last 50 years and sub 25 averaging bowlers with more than 300 wickets. They have produced a generation of boring textbook players with zero flair and charisma barring a few exceptions and this has led them to find solace in their pre WW2 cricket heroes, who are often overrated by oldies.

 

[Junaids]

People call Hobbs an amateur brcause he WAS an amatur. He was the frog prince in a well. The talent pool in early 1900s was almost nonexistent. With due respect, Hobb was a legend but comparing him to modern day batsmen is borderline idiotic. Also the statement that a great of one era would be great in any era is very silly. Hobbs being best of his time is no different than a college kid being best batsman in his college. We have several tiers of competition even in junior cricket. Cricket is unimaginably more competitive now.

Until the 1960’s, English cricket was divided into Gentlemen - amateurs like Douglas Jardine, or Lord Hawke - and Players - professionals like Hobbs or Trueman.

The professionals were no less professional than today’s professionals. Hobbs was even a renowned cover fielder long before fielding was taken seriously.

Hobbs’s Career saw him play with and against SF Barnes - one of the GOAT candidate quick bowlers. And Larwood - then the fastest ever bowler, in the mid-140’s. And legendary spinners like Rhodes, Verity and Grimmett.

 

[SL_Fan]

Regarding Hobbs I think he's massively over rated. All this talk of batting being so difficult back then due to uncovered wickets and what not is just nonsense. Some food for thought.

However the game remained batting oriented. Too much of liberty given to the batsmen encouraged excessive pad play depriving the bowlers of countless wickets. The statistics reveal that in 1870 the LBW ratio was as remote as 1 in 40. It further dropped to 1 in 67 by 1882-84. It would be interesting to know that by 1980 the ratio rose to 1 in 6.

In 1932 the game was hit by the famous bodyline controversy. Harold Larwood the exponent of this alarming bodyline technique claimed justification of his method due to the frustration caused by the then LBW law. He suggested that the only practical move to neutralize his leg theory was to alter the LBW law to allow "Out" decision if the ball would have hit the wicket even if pitched off the wicket on the off side.

There was no doubt that in those days the bat was predominant and the bowlers had to toil hard to get the wickets. In English County Cricket in 1933 no less than 34 innings of 200 and above were played and there was wide spread dissatisfaction with the way batsmen abused the LBW law by covering up the wickets.

Hobbs kept it simple, playing straight and making sure he got his pads in the way too [the lbw law was less strict in his day]
- Steven Lynch

Hobbs combined classical play with effective defence—including protecting the wickets using his pads—against the ball unexpectedly moving towards the stumps.
- Swanton, E. W.

His pad-play was controversial: it removed any possibility of dismissal but was regarded by some cricket authorities as negative and unsporting.
- Leo McKinstry

It was just a completely different game back then.

 

[Junaids]

Regarding Hobbs I think he's massively over rated. All this talk of batting being so difficult back then due to uncovered wickets and what not is just nonsense. Some food for thought.




Hobbs kept it simple, playing straight and making sure he got his pads in the way too [the lbw law was less strict in his day]
- Steven Lynch

Hobbs combined classical play with effective defence—including protecting the wickets using his pads—against the ball unexpectedly moving towards the stumps.
- Swanton, E. W.

His pad-play was controversial: it removed any possibility of dismissal but was regarded by some cricket authorities as negative and unsporting.
- Leo McKinstry

It was just a completely different game back then.

So just like any non-DRS cricket - ask Andy Flower!

 

[SL_Fan]

Not really. Back then LBWs were disallowed anytime the ball pitched on the off side as well.

If you look at LBWs/match when Hobbs played for instance and compare that to even modern-day pre-DRS days there's a massive discrepancy (over 50%).

1910s - 2.81 LBWs/match
1920s - 3.83 LBWs/match

1980s - 4.68 LBWs/match
1990s - 5.25 LBWs/match

 

[SL_Fan]

Imagine what the top modern day batting averages would look like if LBWs were disallowed anytime the ball pitched on the off side. Would be absolute carnage.

 

[marlonbrowndo]

Every single thread or even mention of an old player being a great seems to give certain people shivers. How difficult is it for people to understand that in any field, a person is judged by how well he did relative to his peers.

[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] is right with his Isaac Newton analogy. Newton would probably get schooled by any great modern physicicist. But does that mean he isn’t one of the greatest physicists of all time? Arnold would easily get beaten by Ronnie Colman in a bodybuilding contest. Is he not one of the greatest bodybuilders of all time? Christian Bale could probably act circles around James Stewart. And so on.

Is it Jack Hobbs’ (or any other older player for that matter) fault that he played in an era when the game was not as advanced and developed. If Jack Hobbs in his prime played in the current era then of course he would get owned by most good batsmen. That’s because the great batsmen of today adapted to how the game is played today. You wouldn’t ask an Ancient Greek army general to lead soldiers in a war in current times.

Why is it so hard for certain people to judge the greatness of a player according to how well he did against and relative to the people that played the game in that era.

And on the other hand, people who are saying that the same Jack Hobbs who played in that era would have succeeded in this era are also wrong for the same reasons. Works both ways. Just give a player respect and admiration for what he’s done for the game and how well he did relative to his peers. Simple

 

[CricketAnalyst]

Every single thread or even mention of an old player being a great seems to give certain people shivers. How difficult is it for people to understand that in any field, a person is judged by how well he did relative to his peers.

[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] is right with his Isaac Newton analogy. Newton would probably get schooled by any great modern physicicist. But does that mean he isn’t one of the greatest physicists of all time? Arnold would easily get beaten by Ronnie Colman in a bodybuilding contest. Is he not one of the greatest bodybuilders of all time? Christian Bale could probably act circles around James Stewart. And so on.

Is it Jack Hobbs’ (or any other older player for that matter) fault that he played in an era when the game was not as advanced and developed. If Jack Hobbs in his prime played in the current era then of course he would get owned by most good batsmen. That’s because the great batsmen of today adapted to how the game is played today. You wouldn’t ask an Ancient Greek army general to lead soldiers in a war in current times.

Why is it so hard for certain people to judge the greatness of a player according to how well he did against and relative to the people that played the game in that era.

And on the other hand, people who are saying that the same Jack Hobbs who played in that era would have succeeded in this era are also wrong for the same reasons. Works both ways. Just give a player respect and admiration for what he’s done for the game and how well he did relative to his peers. Simple

It's not this sort of linear thing.

If you made Roman soldiers fight against USA Marines with both sides having similar equipment, the marines would get murdered. The reason is close-quarters combat was incredibly important then so soldiers were better during those times than now, and due to harsh conditions, soldiers were unbelievably fit and strong in those eras.

The point we are making is that cricket in the past was flat-out inferior, played by fewer people and just wasn't competitive.

When we say these guys were amateurs that's it. They were great in their time, but the reality was that they were abysmal cricketers. If you transported modern scientists to 1875, many would be lost without the hi-tech devices they are used to. If you transported modern batsmen to 1920 where no one bowls above 130, lbw is not a thing and fielders barely move, of course they would grind them to dust.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

Every single thread or even mention of an old player being a great seems to give certain people shivers. How difficult is it for people to understand that in any field, a person is judged by how well he did relative to his peers.

[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] is right with his Isaac Newton analogy. Newton would probably get schooled by any great modern physicicist. But does that mean he isn’t one of the greatest physicists of all time? Arnold would easily get beaten by Ronnie Colman in a bodybuilding contest. Is he not one of the greatest bodybuilders of all time? Christian Bale could probably act circles around James Stewart. And so on.

Is it Jack Hobbs’ (or any other older player for that matter) fault that he played in an era when the game was not as advanced and developed. If Jack Hobbs in his prime played in the current era then of course he would get owned by most good batsmen. That’s because the great batsmen of today adapted to how the game is played today. You wouldn’t ask an Ancient Greek army general to lead soldiers in a war in current times.

Why is it so hard for certain people to judge the greatness of a player according to how well he did against and relative to the people that played the game in that era.

And on the other hand, people who are saying that the same Jack Hobbs who played in that era would have succeeded in this era are also wrong for the same reasons. Works both ways. Just give a player respect and admiration for what he’s done for the game and how well he did relative to his peers. Simple

What is more, this is NOT what OP is saying.

OP claims that Kohli, or even forget him, Shreyas Iyer or Babar Azam or Shadab Khan or Tom Latham wouldn't be able to play as well as Hobbs in those old days. If any of these guys went back and played then, they would have out-performed everyone by an enormous margin.

And OP is claiming directly that Hobbs as is, was better than modern cricketers as is, not that he would have been better if he was born today.

 

[Tusker]

Ok, now you are just ignoring reality because it doesn't fit your preconceived ideas.

That is an apt description of what you , Junaids and Harsh Thakor do on these threads on a daily basis. Because not once do you guys comment on the footage despite being asked multiple times. Blatantly ignoring the Elephant in the room - The footage of Jack Hobbs Demonstrating batting technique.

 

[Chrish]

It was Sutcliffe who was infamous for nudging the delivery. As Cardus points out, Hobbs relied on footwork rather than pad-play and was always in a position to play the strokes.

If all Hobbs did was blocking the ball with the pad, I would have read that lot more often in the old accounts like the case is with Sutcliffe. And Hobbs wouldn’t have gotten the title of undisputed master.

 

[Robert]

It was Sutcliffe who was infamous for nudging the delivery. As Cardus points out, Hobbs relied on footwork rather than pad-play and was always in a position to play the strokes.

If all Hobbs did was blocking the ball with the pad, I would have read that lot more often in the old accounts like the case is with Sutcliffe. And Hobbs wouldn’t have gotten the title of undisputed master.

That's fascinating about Sutcliffe, I didn't know that.

 

[Robert]

What is more, this is NOT what OP is saying.

OP claims that Kohli, or even forget him, Shreyas Iyer or Babar Azam or Shadab Khan or Tom Latham wouldn't be able to play as well as Hobbs in those old days. If any of these guys went back and played then, they would have out-performed everyone by an enormous margin.

I wonder. Or, spoiled as they are by modern flatties, would they have been found out by the spinners on the horror wickets of the day?

 

[CricketAnalyst]

I wonder. Or, spoiled as they are by modern flatties, would they have been found out by the spinners on the horror wickets of the day?

They'd definitely be found out by modern spinners.

Against guys bowling at 80kmph and giving it a ton of air, no. The standard of spinner back then would not have a chance against modern players.

 

[Tusker]

I wonder. Or, spoiled as they are by modern flatties, would they have been found out by the spinners on the horror wickets of the day?

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...e=200;template=results;type=team;view=innings

Thats a list of all inngs involving Jack Hobbs sorted by overs bowled. Tell us how it makes any sense to believe that these players played 100+ overs on supposedly "Horror" wkts as you so proudly claim.

Remember Hobbs is just one player - there are 21 other players involved here as the stat lists all inngs played by all teams that played against Eng home and away. The point is even if we assume that Hobbs was superhuman how is it possible for the other lesser players to survive so long on these "Horror" wkts ?

Just think !! (And also look at the scores !! )

 

[SL_Fan]

 

[Rahul1]

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...e=200;template=results;type=team;view=innings

Thats a list of all inngs involving Jack Hobbs sorted by overs bowled. Tell us how it makes any sense to believe that these players played 100+ overs on supposedly "Horror" wkts as you so proudly claim.

Remember Hobbs is just one player - there are 21 other players involved here as the stat lists all inngs played by all teams that played against Eng home and away. The point is even if we assume that Hobbs was superhuman how is it possible for the other lesser players to survive so long on these "Horror" wkts ?

Just think !! (And also look at the scores !! )

So teams used to bat for 250 overs on supposedly 'horror' wickets. )

 

[Tusker]

So teams used to bat for 250 overs on supposedly 'horror' wickets. )

You wont believe this but I have asked this question in the past and I got a response from one of these old era fanatics that went along the lines of ... "there was nothing surprising about it as the batting techniques of all players were far superior back in those days " ...

 

[Chrish]

Fascinating piece written on dinosaurs.

Six giants of the Wisden century

Neville Cardus

I have been asked by the Editor of Wisden to write appreciations of six great cricketers of the past hundred years. I am honoured by this invitation, but it puts me in an invidious position. Which ever player I choose for this representative little gallery I am bound to leave out an important name. My selection of immortal centenarians is as follows:-- W.G. Grace, Sir Jack Hobbs, Sir Donald Bradman, Tom Richardson, S.F. Barnes and Victor Trumper.

But where -- I can already hear in my imagination a thousand protesting voices (including my own)--where are Ranji, Spofforth, Rhodes, J.T. Tyldesley, who, in one rubber v. Australia, was the only professional batsman in England thought good enough to play for his country on the strength of his batting alone? Where are Macartney, Aubrey Faulkner, O'Reilly, Keith Miller, Woolley, Lindwall, Sir Leonard Hutton? And where are many other illustrious names, Australian and English?

I'll give reasons why my six have been picked. There have been, there still are, many cricketers who possess the gifts to bat brilliantly, skilfully and prosperously. There have been, there still are, many bowlers capable of wonderful and destructive arts. But there have been a few who have not only contributed handsome runs and taken worthy wickets by the hundred, but also have given to the technique and style of cricket a new twist, a new direction.

These creative players have enriched the game by expanding in a fresh way some already established method. One or two of them have actually invented a technical trick of their own.

Sadly for their posterity, they have often been the experimental unfulfilled pioneers, such as B.J.T. Bosanquet, who was the first bowler to baffle great batsmen in Test cricket by means of the googly. J.B. King, a Philadelphian, demonstrated the potentialities of a swerving ball. My immortal six were at one and the same time masters of the old and initiators of the new.

W.G. GRACE

In recent years his great bulk has seemed to recede. Others following long after him have left his performances statistically behind. In his career he scored 54,896 runs, average 39.55 He also took 2,876 wickets, average 17.92 He scored 126 hundreds in first-class matches, a number exceeded by Sir Jack Hobbs, Hendren, Hammond, Mead, Sutcliffe, Woolley and Sir Leonard Hutton.

None of these, not even Sir Jack, dominated for decades all other players, none of them lasted so long, or wore a beard of his commanding growth. In the summer of 1871 his aggregate of runs was 2,739, average 78.25. The next best batsman that year was Richard Daft, average 37.

A Hobbs, a Bradman, a Hutton, a Compton might easily any year amass more than 2,000 runs, averaging round about the 70's. But some other batsmen will be running them close, as far as figures go, averaging 50, 60 and so on.

Grace, in 1871, achieved an average which was proof that he stood alone in consistent skill, twice as skilful as the next best! His career ranged from the age of 17, in 1865, until 1908, when he was nearing sixty years. He had turned the fiftieth year of his life when for the Gentlemen v. the Players at Kennington Oval he scored 82 and one of the attack he coped with magisterially was none other than S.F. Barnes, approaching his best.

All these facts and figures tell us no more of the essential W.G. than we are told of Johann Sebastian Bach if all his fugues, cantatas, suites, and even the B Minor Mass, are added up.

In a way he invented what we now call modern cricket. His national renown packed cricket grounds everywhere. He laid the foundations of county cricket economy. The sweep of his energy, his authority, and prowess, his personal presence, caused cricket to expand beyond a game. His bulk and stride carried cricket into the highways of our national life.

He became a representative Victorian, a father figure. People not particularly interested in cricket found the fact of W.G.'s eminence looming into their social consciousness. The Royal family (in those days too) inquired from time to time about his health -- a formal request, because W.G. was seldom, if ever, unwell.

We must not remember him as the Grand Old Man of his closing years. He was an athlete, a champion thrower of the cricket ball, a jumper of hurdles. Yet, though I have seen portraits of him taken in early manhood, in his late teens in fact, I have never seen a portrait of a beardless W.G. Is such a one in existence anywhere?

Ranjitsinhji wrote in his Jubilee book (or C.B. Fry wrote it for him) that "'W.G.' transformed the single stringed instrument into the many chorded lyre" which, translated, means that W.G. elaborated batsmanship, combined back-and-forward play for the first time, and perfected the technique of placing the ball.

When he began to play cricket, round-arm bowling had been the fashion for some thirty years. He inherited a technique formed from an obsolete attack and soon he was belabouring over-arm fast bowling at ease--often on rough wickets. He murdered the fastest stuff right and left.

He kept his left leg so close to the ball when he played forward that an old professional of the late 1900's told me (long after his retirement) that W.G. never let me see daylight between pads and bat. "Ah used to try mi best to get'im out on a good wicket, then suddenly summat 'give' in me, and we all knew it were hopeless." If W.G. kept religiously to a rigid right foot in his batting, we must take it for granted, from the greatness he carved out of the game, that this principle suited all the needs and circumstances of cricket as he had to meet them.

It is stupid to argue that he couldn't have scored heavily against bowlers of 1963. He mastered the bowling problems presented in his period. Logically, then, we can demonstrate that he would have mastered those of today.

W.G.'s mastery over speed compelled bowlers to think again. Thus, ironically, he was the cause of the first extensive developments of spin. A.C.M. Croome played with Grace (later he became cricket correspondent of The Times, one of the most learned). "The first season I saw Grace play," he wrote, "was 1876. In August he scored 318 v. Yorkshire. Earlier in the week he had made 177 v. Nottinghamshire, and on the previous Friday and Saturday 344 at Canterbury v. Kent. He scored 1200 runs in first-class cricket during that month of August, yet he found time before September came to run up to Grimsby and score 400 not out for United South against twenty-two of the district. That would be a normal month for him if he could begin again today, knowing that even bowlers and wicket-keepers know now all about the 'second line of defence,' and enjoy the advantages of true wickets, longer overs and shorter boundaries.

He conquered the entire world and range of the game -- 15 centuries v. the Players, so that in 18 years of his reign the Players won only seven times. He scored 1,000 runs in May 1895, within two months of his 47th birthday, scored two hundreds in one match v. Kent; took 17 wickets in one and the same match v. Notts; and took all ten wickets in an innings v. Oxford University.

He was cricket of his period personified; he was one of the eminent Victorians; he had the large girth and humanity of the foremost Englishmen of his epoch. Nobody before him, nobody following greatly in his train, has loomed to his stature or so much stood for cricket, or done as richly for it.

SIR J. B. HOBBS

Sir Jack is the only cricketer of whom we might fairly say that he directly descended from W.G. fully-armed, like Jove. It was Hobbs who first challenged the Old Master's primacy as Centurion, passing his record of 126 hundreds, and going as far as 197 in first-class cricket.

He commanded in his earliest years a technique inherited from W.G. and his period, adding to it the strokes and protective method evolved from having to cope with the more or less modern swinging and googly attack.

It is not generally realised that Hobbs learned to bat in an environment of technique and procedure very much like those in which W.G. came to his high noon. The attack which Hobbs as a young man had to face day-by-day was more or less concentrated on the off-stump or just outside it. Bowlers were allowed to use only one ball through a team's innings; as a consequence they were obliged to make the best possible use of an old one by means of spin, variations of length, pace and direction, or by sheer pace. Only a few were developing back of the hand trickery in the early 1900's -- Bosanquet, Vine of Sussex and Braund were three of these.

Yet in 1907 when South Africa sent a team to England containing at least four back-of-the-hand spinners -- Vogler, Faulkner, Gordon White and Schwarz -- Hobbs, then aged 24 and half, was able to find the answer to the new witchery (as the old cricketers called it then) and teach the remedy to others.

Hobbs was, of course, not the only batsman to demonstrate how the googly should be played. Johnny Tyldesley, Jessop, R.H. Spooner, Braund and George Gunn mastered it up to a point. But Hobbs gathered together in his method all the logical counters for the ball that turned the other way. Moreover, on all sorts of pitches, fast, slow, sticky or matting, here or in Australia or in South Africa, even on the horrible spitting and kicking pitches of Melbourne after rain and hot sun, he asserted his mastery.

Confronted by every manner of attack so far conceived and rendered practical by the mortal skill of bowlers in every kind of circumstance, in fine weather or foul, Hobbs reigned supreme. He must be named the Complete Batsman, the Master of all, a later W.G. in fact.

His cricket extended from 1905 to 1934. He opened an innings for England when he was within four months of his 48th birthday. In his career he scored 61,237 runs, average 50.65. Like W.G. he added to the batsman's armour and so, by forcing the attack to resort to fresh ideas, he gave cricket a new twist.

Pad play among the Victorians was not done. It was a caddish professional, don't you know, from Nottinghamshire, named Arthur Shrewsbury, who began to exploit pads as a second line of defence. Hobbs seldom, until towards the end, used pads merely obstructively. He perfected footwork which brought the batsman not only to the line of the ball, spin or swerve, but behind it.

We can divide the reign of Hobbs into two periods, each different in general method from the other. Before the war of 1914 he was quick on the attack on swift feet, strokes all over the field, killing but never brutal, with no strength wasted or strained, most of the strokes governed by the wrists, after the body's balance had provided the motive power.

After the resumption of cricket in 1919, when he was moving towards his 37th birthday, he entered his second period, and cut out some of his most daring strokes. He ripened to a classic. His style became as serenely poised as any ever witnessed on a cricket field, approached only by Hammond (another great player I have been obliged to omit from my Six!).

The astonishing fact about Hobbs is that of the 130 centuries to his name in county cricket, 85 were scored after the war of 1914-18; that is, after he had entered middle-age. From 1919 to 1928 his seasons' yields were as follows--the more his years increased, the more he harvested:
1919 2,594 runs, average 60.32
1920 2,827 " " 58.89
1921 321 " " 78.00
(a season of illness)
1922 2,552 " " 62.24
1923 2,087 " " 37.78
1924 2,098 " " 58.16
1925 3,024 " " 70.32
1926 2,949 " " 77.60
1927 1,641 " " 52.93
1928 2,542 " " 82.00

From his 43rd to his 48th birthday Hobbs scored some 11,000 runs, averaging round about the sixties. Yet he once said that he would wish to be remembered for the way he batted before 1914. "But, Jack," his friends protested, "you got bags of runs after 1919." "Maybe," replied Hobbs, most modest of cricketers, "but they were nearly all made off the back foot."

His baptism to first-class cricket happened under the eye of and in the actual presence of W.G. -- on Easter Monday, 1905, at Kennington Oval in a match between Surrey and the Gentlemen of England. He made 18 in his first innings, tieing with Ernest Hayes for top-score.

Next innings, his genius announced itself plainly: 88 in two hours. Next morning The Times ventured a prophecy: Hobbs had done well enough to justify the belief that he will prove a useful addition to the Surrey XI.

The truth about his career cannot be emphasised too often. In every changing circumstance of the game, on every sort of pitch, against every form of bowling as it developed during the quarter of a century of his mastery, he went his way, calmly in control, never arrogant, full of the spring and pride of early manhood, then quietly enjoying the ripeness that is all.

Twice he asserted his command on difficult turf, with the Australians hungry for a victory close at hand. Twice, with Herbert Sutcliffe, he frustrated them -- at The Oval in 1926, and at Melbourne in 1928.

At Melbourne, England needing 332 to win, were trapped on a Melbourne gluepot. The general idea in the crowd and amongst cricketers was that England would do well to scrape or flash 80 or so all out. The score was 105 for one when Hobbs was leg-before. The match was won by England, Sutcliffe 135. And Hobbs was the architect.

We nearly lost him in 1921. He was attacked by acute appendicitis during the Test match v. Australia at Leeds. He was rushed to the operating table. The celebrated surgeon, Sir Berkeley (later Lord) Moynihan, told Hobbs afterwards, "You couldn't have lived five hours."

I never saw him make an uneducated stroke. When he misjudged the nature of a ball he could, naturally enough, make the wrong right stroke. He not only enlarged and subtilised the art of batsmanship; he, like W.G. widened and strengthened cricket's appeal and history.

He was in his 44th year, let us remember, when he passed W.G.'s roll of 126 centuries. The game will retain the image of him in its Hall of Fame -- the twiddle of his bat before he bent slightly, to face and look at the attack; the gentle accurate to-an-inch push for a single to get off the mark, the stroke so nicely timed that he could, had he wished, have walked it. The Trumperesque Hobbs of the pre-1914-19 days, lithe, but his slender physique, concentrated and yet graceful! Then the vintage Hobbs, the Master of our time, biding his own, and often getting himself out as he reached his hundred.

Every honour that the game -- and the nation -- could bestow came to him, not the least of all, in lasting value, the pride and affection of cricketers the world over.

TOM RICHARDSON

I choose Richardson as one of my Six, not on the supposition that he was the greatest fast bowler of the century, though certainly he was in the running.

I take him as the fully realised personification of the fast bowler as every schoolboy dreams and hopes he might one day be himself. Richardson was, in his heyday, a handsome, swarthy giant, lithe, muscular, broad of shoulder, and of apparently inexhaustible energy.

He bowled fast, with a breakback obtained by body action and the swing of the upper part over the left leg at the moment of release, the right hand sweeping away nearly at a right angle to the line of flight. He could bring the ball back inches on Sam Apted's most heavily rolled grassless stretch of turf.

Herbert Strudwick loves to tell how when he first kept wicket for Surrey, Richardson pitched a very fast one rather outside the off-stump. Strudwick moved, naturally enough, towards the off, in anticipation. But the ball, beating the bat, just missed the leg-stump and went for four byes to Strudwick's excusable amazement.

Richardson didn't go in for swing or seam refinements. In his period it wasn't possible for any fast bowler to do so. Only one and the same ball was at his service during the batting side's longest innings.

Moreover, the seam of a cricket ball wasn't as pronounced in Richardson's day as it is in ours. We need to bear in mind this fact -- that Richardson had to get through most of his thousand overs a season using an old ball.

In the four summers of 1894-7 he bowled some five thousand eight hundred overs and -- take your breath -- took 1,005 wickets:--
Overs Runs Wickets Average
1894 936.3 2,024 196 10.32
1895 1690.1 4,170 290 14.37
1896 1656.2 4,015 246 16.32
1897 1603.4 3,945 273 14.45

Between the English seasons of 1894 and 1895 he bowled, in Australia, 3,554 balls, taking 69 wickets at 23.42 each; and after his haul of 273 wickets at home in 1897 (and his 1,600 overs), he went to Australia again and, bowled at last to his knees, took only 54 wickets, average 29.51.

Yet on his return to England the great giant achieved an herculean revival, his season's plunder amounting to 161 wickets, average 19.54, in more than twelve hundred overs. All done, remember, or nearly all, with a seamless ball.

In his career, extending from 1892 to 1905, his performances, in statistics, work out at 2,105 wickets, average 18.42, from nearly 16,000 overs.

He, like most fast bowlers of the 1890's, was expected in dry weather to bowl all day, or the better part of it. Fast bowlers of the 1890's shared the White Man's burden in hot weather, and were given rest (now and again) when the rain swamped the ground so much that they couldn't stand up.

Wickets were not covered in the 1900's. At Old Trafford, in 1902, when Victor Trumper scored a century before lunch, Lockwood was unable to bowl or get a foothold until mid-afternoon. He then came on and took six for 48.

Lockwood, of course, opened the Surrey county attack with Richardson. Ranjitsinhji maintained that Lockwood was the more dangerous fast bowler of the two. "On a good wicket Tom's speed and breakback needed watching, but I knew what was coming. With Lockwood I had to keep awake for his slower ball. Lockwood was temperamental, an artist, moody. One day his fires were sullen and slow. Batsmen played him with impunity--poor innocents, cultivating their gardens on the slopes of a Vesuvius, which next day erupted."

In Australia, Lockwood was a dead failure -- his Test figures for his only rubber in Australia were 124.5 overs, 31 maidens, 340 runs, five wickets. But in Australia, under the hottest suns experienced there during the century, Richardson's labours were heroic, unparalleled.

Today they would probably be considered servile. In the service of Stoddart's team of 1894-95, in five Test matches he bowled more than 300 five-ball overs for 849 runs and 26 wickets. At Sydney, December 1894, when Australia scored 586, Richardson sweated and toiled for 53 overs for five wickets and 181 runs.

The greatest of his lion-hearted endeavours was at Manchester in the Test Match there of 1896. He bowled 68 five-ball overs in Australia's first innings of 412. On the third and last day, Australia needed 125 to win -- England having followed on.

Richardson nearly won the match. For three hours he attacked without an over's rest, taking six of the seven wickets which fell before Australia scraped home. A missed catch frustrated Richardson at the pinch. His devotion -- and his will-power and stamina -- is faintly indicated by his figures for the match:--

110 overs 3 balls, 39 maidens, 244 runs, 13 wickets.

The one favour granted to Richardson, but hardly a compensation for bondage to an old ball -- was the pace of the wickets he bowled on; they usually had a certain hardness and resilience.

Strudwick, again, is witness; he tells that often he had to take Richardson standing back to him, of course, and standing pretty well high up, near his middle. Richardson seldom, if ever, bounced a ball deliberately. He was a good-natured soul,loving a pint of ale and a good laugh at the long day's end.

In Richardson's period, bowlers exploited off theory on hard, dry pitches, hardly a fieldsman on the other side of the wicket excepting mid-on. When I was a small boy I saw J.T. Tyldesley pull square a short ball from Richardson, the only loose one on a scorching sun-streamed afternoon. The stroke dropped short of the boundary, was retrieved an inch or two from the edge and thrown back to the middle by -- believe it or not -- Richardson.

The Surrey mid-on had seen the ball pass him and was content to let it go. Richardson who had been attacking with his long striding run for hours and thought differently.

He was indeed the ideal fast bowler, aiming at the stumps, always on the attack. His leap before the right arm wheeled over was superb in poise. Never did he send down a defensive ball. He would have been too proud.

"He tried," A.C. MacLaren told me, "to get a wicket every ball. Honest Tom!" Let us remember him by those two words of MacLaren's tribute -- Honest Tom.

VICTOR TRUMPER

It is futile to ask who was the greatest batsman? There are different orders of greatness. Talent, even genius, is conditioned by the material circumstances in which it is developed.

Victor Trumper was the embodiment of gallantry as he made his runs. He was a chivalrous batsman, nothing mean or discourteous in any of his movements or intentions at the wicket. "He had no style," wrote C.B. Fry of him, "but he was all style." But the most handsome compliment ever made to him, or to any other cricketer, was A.C. MacLaren's: "I was supposed to be a batsman of the Grand Manner. Compared to Victor I was a cab-horse to a Derby winner."

His stance was relaxed, but watchful, a panther ready to spring. Yet this panther simile suggests a certain cruelty and hungriness. Trumper scored his runs generously, as though out of an abundance of them in his possession. He, so to say, donated runs over the field, bestowing them like precious jewels to us, to the crowd, to the bowlers even. He wasn't, as Bradman was, a killer. His strokes didn't stun or insult a bowler.

I have seen bowlers applaud the glory of Trumper's strokes; he put them, with the rest of us, under an enchantment. Do I exaggerate? I confess that whenever I write about Trumper I am in danger of exhausting a store of superlatives. So I'll be content for the moment to quote from the formal restrained prose of the M.C.C.'s Cricket Scores and Biographies:--

"For Trumper the English season of 1902 was a triumphal progress, and those who were fortunate to witness his amazing brilliance will never be able to forget the unrivalled skill and resource he displayed. On 'sticky' wickets he hit with freedom, whilst everybody else were puddling about the crease, unable to make headway and content if they could keep up their wickets."

The season of 1902 was the spin-bowler's dream of heaven. Rain and hot sun day by day. Wickets uncovered. When the pitch dried the ball whipped in, whipped away, reared and kept low, changing direction and pace, sometimes startling the bowlers themselves. And in 1902 Trumper had to cope with the greatest spinners the game had so far evolved -- Rhodes, Blythe, Haigh, Wass (fast from leg stump to the off), Walter Mead, J.T. Hearne, S.F. Barnes, to name a few. In this year of 1902 Trumper scored 2,570 runs, average 48.49, with eleven centuries. His rate of scoring was round about 40 an hour, and 1902 was his first experience of vicious English wickets, for in 1899, his first visit to this country, the summer had been dry.

In the upstairs tea-room at Kennington Oval hangs a photo of Victor showing him jumping out to drive, yards from the crease, bat aloft behind him, the left leg prancing like a charger's in the Bayeux tapestry.

A certain England batsman, vintage 1950, looked at this picture in my company and said, "Was he really any good?" "Why do you ask?" was my natural question. "Well," said this International, "just look where he is -- stumped by yards if he misses."

This sceptical England batsman had never in his life been so far out of his crease. But Trumper was stumped only once in all the 89 Test innings of his career. And only five times was he lbw.

Like Hobbs, he led the way to the counter-attack of the googly bowling, a new problem to harass batsmen of his period. In Australia, 1910-11, against the superb South African back-of-the-hand bowlers, such as Vogler, Schwarz, Pegler and Faulkner, his Test scores in the rubber were 27 (run out), 34, 159, 214 (not out), 28, 7, 87, 31 and 74 not out -- 661 runs, average 94.42. Let me quote Jack Fingleton: "He teased Percy Sherwell, the South African captain. When a fieldsman was shifted, Trumper deliberately hit the next ball where the man had been... Later, somebody commiserated with Sherwell at having his captaincy and his fieldsmen torn to tatters while Trumper made 214. Whereupon Sherwell said, 'Ah, don't talk about it. We have seen batting today.'"

For six balls apparently alike in pitch, or pace or spin, Trumper could produce six different strokes. His footwork was quick, graceful and effortless. With the easiest swing of the bat he could drive an extraordinary distance. His cutting and his leg glancing were performed by wrists of rare flexibility. "He played a defensive stroke," wrote C.B. Fry, "as a last resort."

At Old Trafford, in 1902, A.C. MacLaren lost the toss for England on a slow wicket which, he knew, would turn difficult by mid-afternoon. Lockwood was unable to get a sure foothold until shortly before lunch. So MacLaren's plan was, as he himself put it, to keep Victor quiet for an hour or two. Then, with the pitch developing tantrums, Australia could be disposed of at ease. MacLaren's reserve bowlers were Rhodes, F.S. Jackson, Tate and Braund, and they were ordered to operate defensively. "I set my field with the inner and outer ring," said MacLaren. Some of the best cricket brains and skill in England concentrated to keep Victor quiet. At lunch Australia's score was 173 for one, Trumper a century.

So easily did Trumper bat, though his rate of scoring frequently equalled Jessop's, never for a moment did he make an impression of violence or hurry. His every movement was lovely to see.

Against Victoria for New South Wales at Sydney, in 1905, on a bowler's wicket, he scored 101 out of 139 in fifty-seven minutes. On a Melbourne gluepot, in 1904, he scored 74 out of Australia's all out total of 122 v. England -- England's bowlers being Rhodes (who took 15 wickets in the match for 124), Hirst, Relf and Braund.

In 1913, playing in a match at Goulburn for the benefit of J.A. O'Connor, Australian Test cricketer, Victor scored 231 in ninety minutes. In 1899 he scored 300 not out v. Sussex in five hours. In 1902 he scored 62 out of 80 in fifty minutes v. England at Sheffield.

His achievements in high-class Grade cricket in Sydney have become historic. For his team, Paddington, in 1897 and 1898, he averaged 204, with 1,021 runs, when he was only twenty years old.

These statistics, chosen at random, tell their tale. But not by counting Victor's runs, not by looking at any records, will you get the slightest idea of Trumper's glorious cricket. You might as well count the notes of the music of Mozart.

He was sadly on his way to a fatal illness when he came to England in 1909, for the last time, but a flash of the dauntless Victor came out at The Oval in an innings for Australia of 73, scored against D.W. Carr (googly), Barnes, Woolley, Rhodes, and Sharp. And, as we have noted, his genius burnt in wonderful flame and colour against South Africa in Australia in 1910-11.

But it was burning itself out. He died, only 37 years old, in June 1915; and the Sydney streets were packed with sorrowing crowds as the funeral passed by.

He was good-looking, clean-shaven (a rare and boyish thing in those days), weighing 12 stones, and 5 feet 10 inches of height. He was, as everybody vowed who came his way, even the bowlers, a quiet but delightful companion. The gods of cricket loved him, so he died young.

S.F. BARNES

Most cricketers and students of the game belonging to the period in which S.F. Barnes played were agreed that he was the bowler of the century. Australians as well as English voted him unanimously the greatest.

Clem Hill, the famous Australian left-handed batsman, who in successive Test innings scored 99, 98, 97 v. A.C. MacLaren's England team of 1901-2, told me that on a perfect wicket Barnes could swing the new ball in and out very late, could spin from the ground, pitch on the leg stump and miss the off.

At Melbourne, in December 1911, Barnes in five overs overwhelmed Kellaway, Bardsley, Hill and Armstrong for a single. Hill was cleaned bowled by him. The ball pitched outside my leg-stump, safe to the push of my pads, I thought. Before I could 'pick up' my bat, my off-stump was knocked silly.

Barnes was creative, one of the first bowlers really to use the seam of a new ball and combine swing so subtly with spin that few batsmen could distinguish one from the other. He made a name before a new ball was available to an attack every so many runs or overs. He entered first-class cricket at a time when one ball had to suffice for the whole duration of the batting side's innings.

He was professional in the Lancashire league when A.C. MacLaren, hearing of his skill, invited him to the nets at Old Trafford. "He thumped me on the left thigh. He hit my gloves from a length. He actually said, 'Sorry, sir!' and I said, 'Don't be sorry, Barnes. You're coming to Australia with me.'"

MacLaren on the strength of a net practice with Barnes chose him for his England team in Australia of 1901-2. In the first Test of that rubber, Barnes took five for 65 in 35 overs, 1 ball, and one for 74 in 16 overs. In the second Test he took six for 42 and seven for 121 and he bowled 80 six-ball overs in this game. He broke down, leg strain, in the third Test and could bowl no more for MacLaren, who winning the first Test, lost the next four of the rubber.

Barnes bowled regularly for Lancashire in 1902, taking more than a hundred wickets in the season, averaging around 20. Wisden actually found fault with his attack this year, stating that he needed to cultivate an off break. In the late nineties he had appeared almost anonymously in the Warwickshire XI.

Throughout his career he remained mysteriously aloof, appearing in the full sky of first-class cricket like a meteor -- declaring the death of the most princely of batsmen! He preferred the reward and comparative indolence of Saturday league matches to the daily toil of the county tourney.

Here is one of the reasons of his absence from the England XI between 1902 and 1907. He didn't go to Australia as one of P. F. Warner's team of 1903-4 and took no part of the 1905 England v. Australia rubber. The future historian of cricket may well gape and wonder why, in the crucial Test of 1902, Barnes didn't play for England at Manchester, where the rubber went to Australia by three runs only.

Barnes had bowled for England at Sheffield in the third and previous Test, taking six for 49 and one for 50. It is as likely as conjecture about cricket ever can be likely that had Barnes taken part in the famous Manchester Test of 1902 England wouldn't have lost the rubber by a hair's breadth.

He was in those days not an easy man to handle on the field of play. There was a Mephistophelian aspect about him. He didn't play cricket out of any green field starry-eyed realism. He rightly considered that his talents were worth estimating in cash values.

In his old age he mellowed, yet remained humorously cynical. Sir Donald Bradman argued that W.J. O'Reilly must have been a greater bowler than Barnes because he commanded every ball developed in Barnes's day -- plus the googly. I told Barnes of Bradman's remark. "It's quite true," he said, "I never bowled the 'googly.'" Then with a glint in his eye, he added, "I never needed it."

Against Australia he took 106 wickets, average 21.58. Only Trumble and Peel have improved on these figures in Tests between England and Australia (I won't count Turner's 101 wickets at 16.53 because he bowled in conditions not known to Barnes and Trumble).

Barnes had no opportunities to pick up easy victims. He played only against Australia and South Africa and, in all Test matches, his haul was 189 at 16.43 each. On matting in South Africa when South Africa's batsmanship, at its greatest, was represented by H.W. Taylor, A.D. Nourse, L.J. Tancred, J.W. Zulch, in 1913-14, he was unplayable, with 49 wickets in Tests at 10.93 each.

Yet against this fantastically swinging, bouncing, late-turning attack, Herbie Taylor scored 508 runs, average 50.80, perhaps the most skilful of all Test performances by a batsman. He was a man of character (and still is). At Sydney on the 1911-12 tour, J.W.H.T. Douglas opened the England attack using the new ball with Frank Foster. Barnes was furious. He sulked as he sent down 35 overs for three wickets and 107 runs (in the match he took only four for 179). England lost by 146 runs.

At Melbourne, Australia batted first and Barnes this time had the new ball. We all know with what results. Australia suffered defeat -- and also in the ensuing three games. The destruction wreaked by Barnes, and all his great days, was mostly done by the ball which, bowled from a splendid height, seemed to swing in to the leg stump then spin away from the pitch, threatening the off-stump. Barnes has assured me that he actually turned the ball by finger twist.

The wonder of his career is that he took 77 of his 106 Australian Test wickets on the wickets of Australia when they were flawless and the scourge of all ordinarily good bowlers. He clean bowled Victor Trumper for 0 at Sydney in the 1907-8 rubber, then Fielder and J. N. Crawford in the following Test, dismissed Trumper for a pair, so Trumper was out for 0 in three successive Test innings.

Barnes remained a deadly bowler long after he went out of first-class cricket. So shrewdly did he conserve his energy that in 1928 when he was in his mid-fifties, the West Indies team of that year faced him in a club match and unanimously agreed he was the best they had encountered in the season.

For Staffordshire, in his fifty-sixth year, he took 76 wickets at 8.21 each. Round about this period a young player, later to become famous in International company, was one of the Lancashire Second XI playing against Staffordshire. His captain won the toss and the Lancashire lads went forth to open the innings against Barnes.

As this colt was No. 6 in the batting order he put on his blazer and was about to leave the pavilion to watch Barnes from behind. But his captain told him to go back to the dressing room and get on his pads. "But," said the colt, "I'm not in until number six and I'd like to look at Barnes." His captain insisted. The young colt returned to the dressing room. "And there," he said "there were four of us all padded up waiting. And we were all out in the middle and back again in half an hour."

Barnes had a splendid upright action, right arm straight over. He ran on easy strides, not a penn'orth of energy wasted. He fingered a cricket ball sensitively, like a violinist his fiddle. He always attacked.

"Why do these bowlers today send down so many balls the batsman needn't play?" he asked while watching a Test match a few years ago. "I didn't. I never gave'em any rest." His hatchet face and his suggestion of physical and mental leanness and keenness were part of Barnes's cricket and outlook on the game. He was relentless, a chill wind of antagonism blew from him on the sunniest day. As I say, he mellowed in full age and retirement. He came to Lord's for Test matches heading for his ninetieth year, leading blind Wilfred Rhodes about.

As we think of the unsmiling destroyer of all the batsmen that came his way, let us also remember Barnes immortalised in that lovely verse of Alan Ross:

Then, elbows linked, but straight as sailors

On a tilting deck, they move. One, square-shouldered as a tailor's

Model, leans over whispering in the other's ear;

'Go easy, Steps here. This end bowling'

Turning, I watch Barnes guide Rhodes into fresher air,

As if to continue an innings, though Rhodes may only play by ear.

SIR DONALD BRADMAN

Sir Donald Bradman (hereinafter to be named Bradman or The Don), must be called the most masterful and prolific maker of runs the game has so far known. He was, in short, a great batsman. Critics have argued that he was mechanical. So is a majestically flying aeroplane.

The difference between Bradman and, say, Victor Trumper as batsmen, was in fact the difference between an aeroplane and a swallow in flight. But it is nonsense to say that Bradman's batsmanship was without personality or character, or nature, or that it was in the slightest anonymous. He had a terrifically dynamic style. It was thrilling to see him gathering together his energy at the last second to hook, a stroke somehow reminding me of a boxer's swinging stunning right.

Like all great players, he made his strokes very late. He didn't move at all until the ball was on him; then the brilliant technique shot forth concentrated energy -- and the axe fell. All the strokes were at his command. After he had appeared almost for the first time in an Australian State match, J.V. Ryder, Australian captain, was asked, "How does this young Bradman bat?" And Ryder, a man of few but eloquent words, replied: "He belts the hell out of everything he can reach."

Bradman's achievements stagger the imagination. No writer of boys' fiction would dare to invent a hero who performed with Bradman's continual consistency. Nobody would even suspend disbelief as he read such fiction. Between 1927 and 1948 he scored 28,067 runs. (The war interrupted his genius at its high noon.)

In his career as cricketer he scored these 28,067 runs with an average of 95.14, an average for life twice as high as that of most other master batsmen. He made 117 centuries in 338 innings, forty-three times not out -- a century every third time he walked to the wicket. He scored 6,996 runs in Test matches, average 99.94.

He scored 1,000 runs between April 30 and May 31 in an English season. He scored 1,000 runs in a season sixteen times. He scored 974 runs in one and the same rubber v. England. He scored a triple Test match century -- 309 -- in a day. He scored 13 centuries in the English season of 1938. He scored six centuries in consecutive innings. He hit thirty runs in one over. He scored two centuries in the same Test match, v. India.

Moreover, I think he knew at the time that he was about to do these extraordinary things; for he planned everything. No cricketer has had a quicker, shrewder brain than Bradman's.

At Leeds in 1934, Australia bowled England out on a beautiful turf for 200. Then, at the afternoon's fall, Australia lost three wickets for 39. That evening Bradman cancelled dinner with me, saying he was going to bed early as, next day, it would be necessary for him to score 200 at least! I reminded him that on his previous Test appearance at Leeds, in 1930, he had scored 334. The law of averages is against you pulling-off another big score here tomorrow in a Test, I said. He replied: "I don't believe in the law of averages." Next day he set about scoring 304.

The extraordinary point of this innings is that until this Leeds Test, Bradman had battled in the rubber with a certain lack of concentration, as though the effects of the Jardine-Larwood bodyline assaults on him of 1932-33 were still shaking him.

At Nottingham and Lord's, he played fast bowling with a rhetorical slash, a quite wild impetuosity. Now, at Leeds, in a serious hour for Australia, he could summon back at one call the old cool, premeditated craft and foresight.

I asked him once, in Melbourne, to give me some idea of how he did it all. "Every ball for me is the first ball," then, he added, taking away my breath, "and I never think there's a possibility of anybody getting me out."

The critics say he couldn't bat on a turning pitch. Hedley Verity held the opposite opinion -- from experience. It is a fact, though, that The Don seemed occasionally not to face up to a sticky pitch, on principle. He argued that wickets should be covered from rain, especially in his own country. It wasn't fair that a side should bat in perfect run-getting conditions one day. Then next day, the other side could be trapped on a spitting pitch.

Bradman had all the attributes needed to cope with the spinning, kicking ball --swift feet, and an eye rapid and comprehensive. Against Larwood's devastating body-line attack, dangerous to breastbone and skull, Bradman in the Tests scored 396 runs, average 56.57. Jardine reduced his powers temporarily by half; but no other mortal batsman could have coped with Larwood as Bradman coped with him.

In spite of Larwood's velocity and menace -- seven fieldsmen on the leg-or on-side -- Bradman was driving or punching to the vacant off-side bowling coming like lightning from a spot on or outside the leg stump, often rising shoulder high.

He first came to England in 1930, twenty-one years old. He began at Worcester with 236 in four and a half hours, twenty-eight boundaries. To Leicester he proceeded, to score 185 not out. Then, on the soft wicket v. Yorkshire, he scored 78. And a newspaper placard announced, 'Bradman fails'.

It was in 1930 that he exhibited, I think, the most wonderful batsmanship of his life, when during the Lord's Test match he came to the wicket after Ponsford had got out. In two hours and forty minutes before half-past six, he cut, drove and hooked the England attack, to the tune of 155.

J.C. White, the untouchable, was brought on immediately to keep The Don quiet. White's first ball, a good length, was slapped to the on-boundary, near the clock at the Nursery. Bradman leaped yards out of his crease; and the crack of his bat sent the Lord's pigeons flying in affrighted circles.

It was at Lord's, in 1938, during the M.C.C. v. Australians match that the effervescent J.W.A. Stephenson, a splendid opening bowler, appealed for lbw against Bradman, and Bradman had not yet got into double figures. Stephenson leapt skywards as he appealed. The near thing was negatived.

If the reply had been in the affirmative, I imagine Stephenson would have been the first into and beyond the barrier. Bradman went on to amass 278. He was ruthless. None the less, he didn't ever fail to respond to a bowler's challenge.

Nobody ever saw Bradman show mercy to a loose ball. If he went on the defensive, there was good reason. At Trent Bridge, in 1938, Australia followed-on after they had scored 411 in response to England's 658 for eight (declared). McCabe made history with a marvellous and gallant 232. But the pitch grew dusty and the closing day had a severe ordeal waiting for Bradman.

Early that day Bradman wrote home to the young lady he was later to marry, telling her that a job of work had to be done, but, he guessed, all would have turned out well for Australia long before his letter reached her. Bradman then set forth to Trent Bridge and saved the day by batting nearly six hours.

Never, as I say, did he play with sterile negation. He was a Test cricketer of our contemporary temper, realistic and without cant. He reacted to the environment in which he found himself.

He hadn't to play, as Trumper was obliged to play, in this country, in games limited to three days. If he didn't throw his wicket away as Trumper frequently did on reaching his hundred, the reason was that he played in a different economy of the game than Trumper ever knew.

If and when Bradman stayed at the wicket all day he not only put his team in a position pretty secure from defeat but into a position from which the Australian bowlers could attack, with time to bring in victory; also he was holding the crowd in thrall.

He was a born batsman, out of a remote part of his beloved Australia, never coached academically; consequently he was free to give rein to his innate and rare gifts. He was born, too, with a good brain. Nobody has excelled Bradman's cricket sense, his intuitions and understanding. He must be counted among Australia's cleverest, most closely calculating cricket captains.

After he had scored a triple century on a warm day at Leeds in 1930, he came from the field apparently cool, no sign of perspiration, not a buckle out of place, flannels immaculate, and, as the crowd roared him home, he seemed withdrawn and impersonal. People said that he lacked emotion. Maybe he was content to be the cause of emotion in others -- in bowlers, for example.

"Stripped to the truth," wrote Robertson- Glasgow, in a brilliant appreciation of Bradman in Wisden, "he was a solitary man with a solitary aim." Personally I have found in Sir Donald plenty of friendliness and humour. But, then, I was never called on to bowl or play cricket against him!

Discussing him entirely from the point of view of a writer on the game, I am happy to say that he was for me a constant spur to ideas. A newspaper column couldn't contain him. He was, as far as a cricketer can be, a genius.

 

[Chrish]

Here is what Sutcliffe, Hobbs' famous batting partner has to say about Hobbs vs Bradman debate. He was undoubtedly biased in favor of Hobbs, however his opinion certainly reflects the sentiment of that period.

HOBBS BETTER THAN BRADMAN

But Don's World's No. 1 Batsman To-day Despite Wet Wicket Failures

4 August 1936

Is Don Bradman the greatest batsman in the history of the game? Most Australians will answer 'Yes,' but Sutcliffe, while paying a fervent tribute to Don's superlative skill, declares that Hobbs, at his best, and on all wickets, was greater than the Australian. He considers that a sticky wicket reveals a weakness in Bradman's defence. He, however ranks him as world's No. 1 batsman to-day, and refers to one innings by him as the greatest since the war.

(By Herbert Sutcliffe.)

During my cricket career I have had the great pleasure of associating with scores of stars in the cricket world. Being a post-war cricketer in so far as first-class cricket is concerned I am unable to boast of having played against the famous W. G. Grace, who has been lauded by all old cricketers as the best ever. But I am really proud to have played with and against such world renowned players as Hirst, Rhodes, Tyldesley, J. T. Ranji, Fry, Spooner, and Sharpe — wonderful players all, whose deeds on the cricket field will live for ever.

It is not my intention to deal with the merits and performances of the players of past generations. With all due respect to the many great performances by the players of other days I am of the opinion they are only fully appreciated by those old cricket enthusiasts who actually saw their performances. The deeds of a sportsman like the deeds of a politician are quickly forgotten. It is undoubtedly the 'present' which counts.

New Times — New Idol.

Why! Hobb's miraculous performances are thought little of by the young schoolboy of today. He has probably read and heard of Hobbs having been the best batsman in the would for many years. He may have adopted Hobbs as his unseen hero just as I did as a youth, but it is the deeds of Bradman, Verity, Mitchell, Hammond, Grimmett, O'Reilly, and Larwood which interest the young enthusiast of today. It is always exceptionally difficult to compare cricketers of one generation with cricketers of another generation.

The Science of batting and bowling has changed considerably since the war, and whenever I hear those foolish old diehards express the opinion that present-day cricket is of a much lower standard than in their day, and that no current cricketer is to be compared with the old stars I turn away in disgust, for I realise how futile it is to compare players of different generations.

It will be gathered that Hobbs has been my 'ideal batsman' and although Hobbs is now unfortunately no longer playing I feel justified in mentioning his name before that of any other. It is but two years since the Surrey idol ceased taking part in first-class cricket, and even at the age of 54 I would say that if he were given the chance of playing in another dozen games in an effort to complete 200 centuries. It would be a fine gesture on the part of the Surrey Club — a gesture which would be hailed with delight by cricket enthusiasts throughout the Empire, and particularly by the Surrey supporters. Hobbs has been responsible, in a large degree, for filling the coffers of the Surrey Club for many years, and a dozen further appearances would ensure a profit for 1936.

Classical Hobbs.

Why do I think Hobbs at his best superior to Bradman? It is a question, easy to answer. He has proved himself times without number the complete master batsman on every type of wicket, and against every type of bowling — particularly on 'glue pots' and against fast bowling.

He has also proved since his very early days that he has always enjoyed the ideal temperament so necessary for outstanding success. It might be argued that Hobbs took exception to the short bowling of McDonald in 1930, and did not relish bouncers of big Bill Bowes in 1932, both in the Champion County v Rest games, but as Hobbs declared during the former 'spot of bother' - "you know, at the age of 48 I am unable to spot the fast short 'uns quick enough to permit the placing of the feet in the right position for the correct execution of the pull or hook stroke."

Hobbs certainly would not have minded that type of bowling a few years earlier. I can see the picture of Hobbs now — facing those two demon bowlers, Gregory and MacDonald. A most graceful and comfortable stance, displaying the utmost confidence and determination to succeed, radiating exactness of his 'calling' for runs, and above all, his glorious batsmanship, a perfect stroke for every ball, each a technical masterpiece, every part of his body working in perfect unison, the whole controlled by a perfect cricket brain. A great player on a 'sticky day' and an equally great player on any wicket. Hobbs is undoubtedly the best batsman I have ever seen.

BRADMAN A CLASS TO HIMSELF.

Of the batsmen playing first-class cricket today, Bradman must surely be hailed as No. 1. His phenomenal performances during the last few seasons place him in a class to himself. Bradman is undoubtdely the outstanding figure in outside sport, a truly scientific wonder. I have witnessed three innings of Don which must be placed by that player as his three best. I refer to his 334 in the third Test at Leeds in 1930, his 304 in the fourth Test at Leeds in 1934, and a festival century at Scarborough. His relentless aggressive, and scintillating form in both Tests at Leeds amazed everyone who attended the game.

His ruthless treatment of all bowlers, his lightning-like footwork and his magnificent strokeplay — strokes which are Bradman's alone — was a sheer delight to watch.

As brilliant as those two mammoth scores were, there was an even greater effort in the Scarborough game referred to earlier. Many who read this have heard of a very brilliant century scored by the 'd'Artagnan of the crease' — Charlie MacCartney— in the third Test at Headingley in 1926. Before Bradman arrived, I considered this performance the best ever on that type of wicket, but, although Bradman's two big scores were not quite so brilliant as MacCartney's quick 100, they were, nevertheless taken over such a long period, even greater innings. But Bradman's super-century at the Scarborough Festival in 1934 was a thrilling affair. From the first ball to the last he made a shot at practically every ball, and what a shot it was— prefect wrist-work and perfect timing saw ball after ball travel as fast as a cannon ball to thud with terrific force against the boundary pickets.

'Sticky' Failures.

The rapturous applause and enthusiasm accorded Bradman, both during his knock and on his return to the pavilion was ample testimony to a hreat innings which is talked of today as the best innings played since the war, and I will go so far as to say that no pre-war cricketer could have produced a finer effort. With all due respect to Don's greatness on a perfect wicket and against ordinary good length bowling of all types, I must confess that he, like the majority of the leading batsmen of the day, does not extactly relish a fast rising ball. One would have expected the famous Don, with his ultra quick eye and footwork, would have had much more time than any other batsman to place the short ball in safety and with profit.

The Australian batsmen so seldom play on a sticky wicket that it is only to be expected that they should fall below the standard attained by English batsmen. I have seen Bradman play on a bad wicket on four occasions. On each occasion he has failsd to score more than a dozen runs. I trust that on an occasion in the near future I shall be given the opportunity of seeing Don in action on a vile wicket for at least a couple of hours, so that I might be able to iudge his capabilities.

 

[Tusker]

He has also proved since his very early days that he has always enjoyed the ideal temperament so necessary for outstanding success. It might be argued that Hobbs took exception to the short bowling of McDonald in 1930, and did not relish bouncers of big Bill Bowes in 1932, both in the Champion County v Rest games, but as Hobbs declared during the former 'spot of bother' - "you know, at the age of 48 I am unable to spot the fast short 'uns quick enough to permit the placing of the feet in the right position for the correct execution of the pull or hook stroke."

One must actually take a look at the "fast" bowler Bill Bowes in action to understand how disconnected one would be with reality if we take these words written 80+ years ago at face value.


https://youtu.be/k0Ztiy68sPc?t=2m11s


Words cannot describe what I think of that sort of bowling. All I will say is that it adds new meaning , dimension and hilarity to the concept of Buffet bowling.

BTW Bill Bowes bowling avg is under 23. Same as Alan Donald, Waqar, Wasim , Steyn etc.

 

[Rahul1]

One must actually take a look at the "fast" bowler Bill Bowes in action to understand how disconnected one would be with reality if we take these words written 80+ years ago at face value.


https://youtu.be/k0Ztiy68sPc?t=2m11s


Words cannot describe what I think of that sort of bowling. All I will say is that it adds new meaning , dimension and hilarity to the concept of Buffet bowling.

BTW Bill Bowes bowling avg is under 23. Same as Alan Donald, Waqar, Wasim , Steyn etc.

Is that Bill Bowes at 2:11 mark?

 

[Chrish]

Actually, Bill Bowes' bowling style was considered extremely unusual even during that time; it wasn't the norm:

"The duration of Bowes career, and his lack of long and frequent absences through injury, was doubtless a result of his economical action, described light-heartedly by Neville Cardus as a somnambulistic gait bowled as though sleep was still drowsily soothing his limbs. In similar vein, albeit rather more fully, “Crusoe” Robertson-Glasgow echoed the point when he wrote Bill’s run up when bowling is a leisurely business. I sometimes wonder whether he is going to get there at all. His whole approach to the supreme task in cricket suggests, quite falsely, indolence, negligence, almost reluctance. But he is just keeping it all in for the right moment. If you watch closely you will see the full use of great height, strong shoulder and pliant wrist. His direction is unusually accurate; he varies his pace to suit the pitch; he can swing even a worn ball very late from leg, and often with an awkward kick."

From whatever I have read about Bowes suggest that he was very accurate, was able to generate the awkward bounce due to his height and was also able to move the ball both ways without any visible change in action. To give the analogy, how Mcgrath owned Tendulkar with his awkward bounce despite lack of express pace.

 

[Tusker]

Is that Bill Bowes at 2:11 mark?

Yes thats the same Bill Bowes thats being talked about by Sutcliffe. But dont worry pretty soon you will see him being compared to McGrath

 

[Rahul1]

Yes thats the same Bill Bowes thats being talked about by Sutcliffe. But dont worry pretty soon you will see him being compared to McGrath

Damn. I used to bowl faster than him in my gali cricket tournament.

 

[Tusker]

Damn. I used to bowl faster than him in my gali cricket tournament.

Exactly. Therefore why I chase down these old era fanatics who are hell bent on insulting our intelligence by comparing Old with New. Height on insanity !

 

[Robert]

From whatever I have read about Bowes suggest that he was very accurate, was able to generate the awkward bounce due to his height and was also able to move the ball both ways without any visible change in action. To give the analogy, how Mcgrath owned Tendulkar with his awkward bounce despite lack of express pace.

Supposedly the first bowler to push the envelope of intimidation. Bouncers were considered ungentlemanly but Bowes bowled a lot of them. "You must show them your bumper" he said. He was a bright guy who I believe became a teacher after cricket.

 

[Robert]

They'd definitely be found out by modern spinners.

Against guys bowling at 80kmph and giving it a ton of air, no. The standard of spinner back then would not have a chance against modern players.

Again, I wonder. Defensive techniques are weak these days because the emphasis is on hitting for power. Yes, the thirties bowlers would go for sixes, but I bet a lot of the modern batters would be bowled through the gate or nick off due to the lavish movement and shooters off the cow patches. There was the genius of Hobbs - he developed the defensive technique and concentration to keep going all day in the face of lavish turn and the newly developed skill of swing bowling.

 

[Tusker]

Again, I wonder. Defensive techniques are weak these days because the emphasis is on hitting for power. Yes, the thirties bowlers would go for sixes, but I bet a lot of the modern batters would be bowled through the gate or nick off due to the lavish movement and shooters off the cow patches. There was the genius of Hobbs - he developed the defensive technique and concentration to keep going all day in the face of lavish turn and the newly developed skill of swing bowling.

Right on cue ... just brazenly proclaim whatever your mind wants. So why does the footage of Hobbs batting show cringeworthy Technique ? Are you ever going to answer that question or you going to pretend that the footage never exists ?

And then you have the cheek to accuse others of Preconceived notions. Have some shame.

 

[Bilal7]

I've seen videos of him batting. And the bowling from that era. Believe me, I'm conservative when I say Kohli would average 150 there. These guys are trundlers bowling at 110 kmph. The best bowlers of that era were trundlers who would go for 25+ per over in the IPL irrespective of bowling conditions. No one had any speed, spinners were very very slow. Batsmen who have never faced even medium-pace would have no chance against modern bowlers.

Every single sport in history has jumped leaps and bounds and players now are better than in the past. That's simply a fact. Cricket is not an exception. Teleport any modern cricketer into the past and they would be considered freaks of nature.

Kohli averaged 13 in the 10 innings he's played in England. Your assumptions are laughable. Yes, the bowlers might have been slower but the pitches, conditions and equipment meant that the ball would move around a lot more.

I can see a prime Amla, de Villiers and Sanga do really well in the 1920s but unless you're an excellent player of swing and seam and spin, don't expect to succeed in the age.

 

[Tusker]

Kohli averaged 13 in the 10 innings he's played in England. Your assumptions are laughable. Yes, the bowlers might have been slower but the pitches, conditions and equipment meant that the ball would move around a lot more.

I can see a prime Amla, de Villiers and Sanga do really well in the 1920s but unless you're an excellent player of swing and seam and spin, don't expect to succeed in the age.

And the names of the bowlers from the 1920s ERA who were of the class and speed as Jimmy Anderson and Broad are ........... ?

But that said you finally got something right about Amla ... thats a good start.

 

[Chrish]

Sanga wasn’t a great player of swing/ seam. Iirc he has a mediocre record in SA and/ or England.

 

[Bilal7]

Sanga wasn’t a great player of swing/ seam. Iirc he has a mediocre record in SA and/ or England.

He was quite good, had a monstrous county stint last year.

And the names of the bowlers from the 1920s ERA who were of the class and speed as Jimmy Anderson and Broad are ........... ?

But that said you finally got something right about Amla ... thats a good start.

You don't need to be an Anderson to go through a poor player of swing and seam on a moist, unprepared pitch, under cloud cover with the batsman holding a stick and probably no helmet or arm-guards.

I agree with you that the olden days are grossly overrated but let's not pretend like cricket did not have its own challenges back then.

 

[Chrish]

He was quite good, had a monstrous county stint last year.



You don't need to be an Anderson to go through a poor player of swing and seam on a moist, unprepared pitch, under cloud cover with the batsman holding a stick and probably no helmet or arm-guards.

I agree with you that the olden days are grossly overrated but let's not pretend like cricket did not have its own challenges back then.

Actually he was fine in England but struggled in SA. Wouldn't put him in Amla/ ABDV league when it comes to succeeding in all conditions.

 

[Tusker]

He was quite good, had a monstrous county stint last year.



You don't need to be an Anderson to go through a poor player of swing and seam on a moist, unprepared pitch, under cloud cover with the batsman holding a stick and probably no helmet or arm-guards.

Over the top exaggeration of playing conditions of the past ERA's leads to such conclusions ... see post # 59

I agree with you that the olden days are grossly overrated but let's not pretend like cricket did not have its own challenges back then.

Shock horror

 

[Cric1234]

I don't think the old era is overrated recently most people don't rate Hobbs ahead of modern greats neither are other 50+ averaging batsmen from the pre 50s era rated as highly as modern day greats.