Was Jack Hobbs amongst the very greatest of batsmen?

[CricketAnalyst]

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.

The difference between Stuart Broad and 1920s trundlers is so stark that there's no words to describe it. I'm not exaggerating when I say Imran Farhat would be a legend in those times; forget Kohli.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

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.

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.

Brilliant points.Technique has deteriorated so much in the modern era although by here has been great improvisation,Just can't compare the different eras with such variance in conditions.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

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.

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.

Kohl is still a truly great player and will ultimately justify that tagNo batsmen places the ball better in the modern era or reveals so much determination to turn the course of s match.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

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.

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?

Most relevant point.I agree

 

[Harsh Thakor]

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.

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

Absolutely correct.You endorse my point.One just cannot accurately compare different eras.Hardly any video evidence.Did you like my post ?logical summary?

 

[atreus]

so.......what we are doing here is using some non competitive footage from 1932 , when Hobbs would be a retired 50 year old , clearly attempting to look stylish to extremely orthodox bowling , as evidence that he wasn't good? very interesting.

 

[Mamoon]

so.......what we are doing here is using some non competitive footage from 1932 , when Hobbs would be a retired 50 year old , clearly attempting to look stylish to extremely orthodox bowling , as evidence that he wasn't good? very interesting.

He was exceptional for his era. It was a level-playing field and he stood out among his peers which means he was very, very good and had certain qualities/traits that allowed him to stand out.

The same skill-set would not work today because the game has changed and evolved too much. He never faced proper 90 mph fast bowling. They didn’t exist until the rise of Thompson and Lillee in the 70s and then the West Indies quartet afterwards.

But if he was born today, it is quite likely that the qualities/traits that made him successful in his era would also make him successful today. I do believe that a great player in any area will be great in any era but it is one of those those debates that can never be truly settled because of the lack of evidence to support both sides of the argument.

 

[atreus]

He was exceptional for his era. It was a level-playing field and he stood out among his peers which means he was very, very good and had certain qualities/traits that allowed him to stand out.

The same skill-set would not work today because the game has changed and evolved too much. He never faced proper 90 mph fast bowling. They didn’t exist until the rise of Thompson and Lillee in the 70s and then the West Indies quartet afterwards.

But if he was born today, it is quite likely that the qualities/traits that made him successful in his era would also make him successful today. I do believe that a great player in any area will be great in any era but it is one of those those debates that can never be truly settled because of the lack of evidence to support both sides of the argument.

I don't disagree with the stance that Hobbs never faced 90 mph express pacers , who frankly weren't around consistently till 70s where multiple teams got one though before there were still exceptions such as Harold Larwood.

either way while I do believe if Hobbs is teleported to 2022 to bat as an English opener , he would struggle with 150 kmph bowlers/proper reverse swing/New LBW laws , but if say Joe root is transported to 1910 , then he is gonna struggle against the uncovered pitches/smaller bats/no protection against pacers who can physically harm him/unlimited bouncers e.t.c.

but they both would eventually adapt as thats what great players are all about , Batsmen adapted to Larwood and they adapted to Lillee, Great bowlers adapted to covered pitches and so on.

either way , my disagreement wasn't with the stance that he would struggle because obviously a player put 100 years after or before their time ( even though I think they would adapt ) , my disagreement was with the usage of a showman style non competitive footage from a 50 year old Hobbs after his retirement.

 

[Mamoon]

I don't disagree with the stance that Hobbs never faced 90 mph express pacers , who frankly weren't around consistently till 70s where multiple teams got one though before there were still exceptions such as Harold Larwood.

either way while I do believe if Hobbs is teleported to 2022 to bat as an English opener , he would struggle with 150 kmph bowlers/proper reverse swing/New LBW laws , but if say Joe root is transported to 1910 , then he is gonna struggle against the uncovered pitches/smaller bats/no protection against pacers who can physically harm him/unlimited bouncers e.t.c.

but they both would eventually adapt as thats what great players are all about , Batsmen adapted to Larwood and they adapted to Lillee, Great bowlers adapted to covered pitches and so on.

either way , my disagreement wasn't with the stance that he would struggle because obviously a player put 100 years after or before their time ( even though I think they would adapt ) , my disagreement was with the usage of a showman style non competitive footage from a 50 year old Hobbs after his retirement.

I disagree with the premise that Joe Root or any modern great player would struggle in old era (circa 1930s-1940s). When I say modern era, I am basically referring to players from 1970s and later because that is when cricket sort of took off as an athletic sport and we saw a rise in genuine fast bowlers and improved fielding standards.

So Joe Root, Kohli, Tendulkar, Sir Viv Richards, Greg Chappell etc. would not struggle on those sticky uncovered wickets because the vast majority of the bowlers bowled medium pace and fielding standards were low. A lot of boundaries that Bradman and Hobbs hit would be cut off today.

There is a such a big gulf in overall quality and competitiveness of modern cricket (post 1970s) compared what it was pre-WWII that modern great players will neutralize factors like uncovered pitches, small bats etc.

This is not a critique of the players who played in that era because they were a product of their time. As the cricket economy grew, more teams got involved, the level of competition increased and the paychecks got bigger. It changed the dynamics of how the sport was played.

A lot of players in the pre-WWII era had full-time jobs and their skills cannot be compared to full-time cricketers.

These cross-era comparisons are pointless anyway because it inevitably results in downplaying the achievements and success of the players of the old era who deserve a lot of respect and recognition for what they achieved in their time and helped the game evolve.

Ultimately, the best way to judge a player is to compare him to the other players of his time. It is the most reliable measure.

 

[atreus]

I disagree with the premise that Joe Root or any modern great player would struggle in old era (circa 1930s-1940s). When I say modern era, I am basically referring to players from 1970s and later because that is when cricket sort of took off as an athletic sport and we saw a rise in genuine fast bowlers and improved fielding standards.

So Joe Root, Kohli, Tendulkar, Sir Viv Richards, Greg Chappell etc. would not struggle on those sticky uncovered wickets because the vast majority of the bowlers bowled medium pace and fielding standards were low. A lot of boundaries that Bradman and Hobbs hit would be cut off today.

There is a such a big gulf in overall quality and competitiveness of modern cricket (post 1970s) compared what it was pre-WWII that modern great players will neutralize factors like uncovered pitches, small bats etc.

This is not a critique of the players who played in that era because they were a product of their time. As the cricket economy grew, more teams got involved, the level of competition increased and the paychecks got bigger. It changed the dynamics of how the sport was played.

A lot of players in the pre-WWII era had full-time jobs and their skills cannot be compared to full-time cricketers.

These cross-era comparisons are pointless anyway because it inevitably results in downplaying the achievements and success of the players of the old era who deserve a lot of respect and recognition for what they achieved in their time and helped the game evolve.

Ultimately, the best way to judge a player is to compare him to the other players of his time. It is the most reliable measure.

first of all why use 1970 as a cut off point for cricket? that makes zero sense , many crickets who debuted in 60s in the supposed Amateus era not only played on the international level post 1970 but succeded too

Geoffrey Boycott was born in 1940 , so assuming he was atleast playing and fully trained by 18-19 , literally all his training and technique and style comes under mid-late 50s English cricket but that did not stop him from averaging 55.97 in the 70s , heck a 40+ Boycott played 14 tests in 80s and still had 4 hundreds with a 41 average and was even considered to return at 44 year old after his ban.

thats not the only example , the great Clive Lloyd even , who was 22 when he debuted in 1966 , so he was also produced via amateus era cricket , and he was averaging 45.72 with 3475 runs in the 1970s and 2881 runs at 52.38 in the 80s , which again shows cricket standard didn't change much from early 60s , straight to 80s.

heck you can even take Sir Garfield sobers , debuted in 1954 but averaged 50+ in early 70s with 1000+ runs , also had a legendary 254 against Dennis Lillee aka the best bowler of 70s.

either way , I absolutely disagree with your stance on them being able to nullify sticky pitches and wet dogs simply because they are accustomed to playing faster bowling , a person who can move a ball a lot at 120s-130s is equally as dangerous as someone operating in 150s , Ollie Robinson is threatning with 75-80 mph pace for a reason , if you can move it then you can be threatning and considering there won't be any protective gear would even be more dangerous.

I don't agree that things have changed much for a lot of sports , Tyson Fury as a boxer is in a era where there is a lot more medical knowledge and investment into boxing but would anyone argue Fury can stomp on Mohammad Ali though? ofcourse not.

Like I went against the idea of 70s being a cut off point , even World War II being one of the cutt off points is quite hard , as crickets came back from world war II and still showed success , look at Len Hutton whose career spanned 30s , 40s and the 50s , he averaged 67 with 1000+ runs in 30s , then came back and averaged 51+ in 40s with 2443 runs and then 56.8 in the 50s with 3183 runs , so by that we can conclude that the game didn't suddently jump levels in 80s either , so what is the cut off point then?

either way , I could respect your stance that the older game was less quality and see where you are coming from but I completely disagree with the job point , Cricket wasn't played as frequently back then , there was one format , few teams e.t.c. and thus having a source lf income on the side does not effect their ability in the sport

either way , I do agree that comparasion threads accross generations are pointless as in the end the favour is gonna go to the one that was seen more frequently rather then the one whose watchers are mostly dead and thus it would lead to inevitable underestimation of pre colorized TV Cricket.

in the regard of being ahead of their contomprary , Hobbs averaged 58 compared to the next highest scorer at 42 from his debut until sutcliffe's debut who was able to somewhat challenge Hobbs but then fell after Hobbs's retirement showing everyone how much of his success he owed to Hobbs.

I see your stance , but I just can't agree with it for plethora of reasons , some I mentioned and some you can guess.

 

[Robert]

[MENTION=156982]atreus[/MENTION],

People who think modern batters would profit on the old sticky dogs don’t understand what a sticky dog was.

It was a wet wicket. You simply don’t see these any more. The last one was probably that Windies match in the 1970s where torrential rain got under the covers and half the Indian team ended up injured. Gavaskar, Vishwanath and Engineer were there and nobody can tell me *they* couldn’t play.

If the batsman could somehow get through the steepling bounce without getting injured or gloved out, then the wicket would rapidly dry out and spinners became unplayable.

There’s a reason wickets started getting covered in the ‘sixties - to prevent sticky dogs.

 

[wrongun]

[MENTION=156982]atreus[/MENTION],

People who think modern batters would profit on the old sticky dogs don’t understand what a sticky dog was.

It was a wet wicket. You simply don’t see these any more. The last one was probably that Windies match in the 1970s where torrential rain got under the covers and half the Indian team ended up injured. Gavaskar, Vishwanath and Engineer were there and nobody can tell me *they* couldn’t play.

If the batsman could somehow get through the steepling bounce without getting injured or gloved out, then the wicket would rapidly dry out and spinners became unplayable.

There’s a reason wickets started getting covered in the ‘sixties - to prevent sticky dogs.

Yep. The tracks were so unplayable that completely reversing the batting order was a legitimate tactic, just to hopefully buy time until stumps and the wicket might dry a bit overnight , or even during the course of a sunny day.

 

[Robert]

Yep. The tracks were so unplayable that completely reversing the batting order was a legitimate tactic, just to hopefully buy time until stumps and the wicket might dry a bit overnight , or even during the course of a sunny day.

Bradman did it once, and I think both teams did it in the same match on the Hutton tour of Australia.

 

[atreus]

in that Windies vs India match , were the indian batsmen wearing helmet and had proper equipment , if yes them getting injured is borderline inssne , even a 130 kmph trundler could be exceptionally dangerous with no helmet and uneven bounce