|
|
Post by davemorton on Sept 2, 2024 12:32:58 GMT
Great player, Joe Root - but the English GOAT batsman? No.
It's hard (impossible) to compare eras. Different conditions, pitches, laws, balls; even the wicket is bigger than, say, Jack Hobbs' early days. Above all, the number of Test matches. But you can make one comparison for England players - their stats v Australia, against whom the number of matches is fairly similar, over the years.
Jack Hobbs, for example, played 41 of his 61 Tests against Australia.
Here's a list, column headings: Name / matches v Oz (overall) / RUNS / AVERAGE / 100s / highest
Hobbs....... 41 (of 61) 3636 54.26 12 187
Sutcliffe.. ..27 (of 54) 2741 66.85 8 194
Hammond.. 33 (of 85) 2852 51.85 9 251
Hutton... ....27 (of 79) 2428 56.46 5 364
Barrington ..23 (of 82) 2111 63.96 5 256
Boycott.. ....38 (of 108) 2949 47.50 7 191
Cook........ 35 (of 161) 2493 40.20 5 244*
Root........ 34 (of 180) 2428 40.46 4 180
Make of that what you will. I think it's a fairer comparison (and the only possible one for England players) than the sloppy assertion that because Joe has scored more runs than anyone, therefore he is the best player. Some on the list were said to be stylists: Hobbs, Hutton, Root. Some were more pragmatic and single minded: Sutcliffe, Barrington, Cook. Perhaps Hammond and Boycott were a bit of both, slow scorers who were nevertheless attractive to watch. Sometimes.
I am aware that Australia is the one unticked box in Joe's glittering career, but - as I said - it is the only comparison possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by davemorton on Sept 2, 2024 13:27:11 GMT
A few more averages against Australia:
Gooch 33, Gower 45, Gatting 38, Thorpe 46, Hussain 39, Vaughan 48, Atherton 30, Stewart 31, Pietersen 45, Bell 35.
And WG Grace 22 matches, 1098 runs, ave 32.29, with 2 big centuries, but that really is a different era, 1880-1899.
|
|
|
|
Post by newby on Sept 2, 2024 13:39:20 GMT
It would only work if you were able to make the case that the Australian bowling attack had been of a similar strength throughout all those Tests. Quite a number of other variables too to muddy the waters.
Perhaps we should leave history out of it and narrow it down to the GOOT, greatest of our time. I remember as far back as Ken Barrington and I think Root would get my vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by davemorton on Sept 2, 2024 15:51:30 GMT
The Australian attack has been generally strong, but not uniformly so, and the recent make-up of three (or four) tall and very quick + one top spinner, is a modern phenomenon - though combinations like Lindwall, Miller, Davidson, Benaud + a couple of chuckers chucked in (Meckiff and Rourke replacing the retired Miller) would have been frightening even today. (No helmets, and the ball being thrown at your head from about 19 yards, in Rourke's case.)
It is probably true that Australian bowling waned a little from 1928 to 1939, when Hammond enjoyed himself; for a few years during the Packer revolt; and again in 2011, post-Warne & McGrath, when Cook matched Hammond's scoring. Most of the time, their attacks have been scary good.
Sutcliffe and Barrington would have been the guys who got the really tough runs; Hobbs, Hutton and Root the complete players of pace and spin, on pitches of all types. But there isn't a poor player anywhere on the list!
|
|
|
|
Post by slowleftarmer on Sept 3, 2024 8:51:16 GMT
Its hard enough deciding the greatest Yorkshire batsman of all time when the debate centred around Hutton Sutcliffe and Boycott but i think Root might just top the lot, when you think the modern players today play most of their first class cricket on the international circuit in a variety of different overseas conditions.
I dont buy the versus Australia only argument. You dont know how a Hobbs or a Hammond would have performed in the modern era with greater variety of opposition, not playing as much county cricket etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by slowleftarmer on Sept 3, 2024 9:45:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by newby on Sept 4, 2024 8:08:10 GMT
Perhaps, like Anderson before him, not being selected for T20I's and now ODI's, despite clearly being good enough, will turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to Joe Root's career and his legacy.
Stick to red ball Joe and keep those numbers rising and records tumbling. The rest is all froth at the end of the day.
|
|
|
|
Post by davemorton on Sept 4, 2024 9:33:44 GMT
Perhaps, like Anderson before him, not being selected for T20I's and now ODI's, despite clearly being good enough, will turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to Joe Root's career and his legacy. Stick to red ball Joe and keep those numbers rising and records tumbling. The rest is all froth at the end of the day. Froth at the start of the day, too, another forgotten episode of Eastenders. Overkill of International cricket, high on hype, low on quality or relevance. Yet, people have the cheek to question the relevance of a bi-lateral Test series! It needs context, they say. To which I say...well, there are six of them in an over. |
|
|
|
Post by newby on Sept 4, 2024 14:31:03 GMT
Josh Hull to replace Mathew Potts in the XI for the third test at the Oval on Friday. All part of the Ashes build up apparently, as all cricket seems to be these days.
All the other bowlers in the Country will be using the Kookaburra ball next week except those likely to feature in the real thing.
Dukes ball for those playing Sri Lanka and no balls at all for those resting between engagements on their Central contracts.
|
|
|
|
Post by byased on Sept 4, 2024 17:22:08 GMT
Australia are a good benchmark, but what about those who had to face the West Indies during their heyday. Not many achieved a high average against them. To a lesser extent not many batsmen thrived in India when they had all the spinners. Would Root have scored runs against Holding, Roberts, Garner etc?
|
|
|
|
Post by davemorton on Sept 7, 2024 10:28:10 GMT
Absolutely true, but the current Windies team (like Sri Lanka) would not stand out in the County Championship, not even in the 2nd Division, I would suggest. Who did score runs against Lloyd's Windies? Robin Smith? And he was poor against spin! Name anyone who made runs against England in the middle/late 1950s. There may have been some, but not many!
Current Test players have stats augmented by playing these lesser teams, while Australia (and now India) are consistently good.
|
|
|
|
Post by newby on Sept 8, 2024 7:43:23 GMT
A very bitty couple of days with the poor weather in London makes it difficult to enjoy. Pope got a big hundred, which he needed and only he and Duckett really got going for England. It looks to be a good wicket hiding amongst the gloom of poor batting conditions and Sri Lanka will probably end up not far from where England got to on first innings.
Josh Hull got a wicket, which won't mean much unless he can back it up. Pleased for Olly Stone who seems to be standing up well so far.
Another rain/bad light kind of day forecast for today.
|
|
|
|
Post by newby on Sept 8, 2024 15:55:47 GMT
Vishwa Fernando cleaned up his Yorkshire team mates and now Sri Lanka have a chance. Not sure they will manage to take it but England don't deserve to win this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by slowleftarmer on Sept 9, 2024 6:59:00 GMT
but even if England deservedly lose this game, they will shrug it off as one of those things that happens because of the way they roll. Test cricket isnt about playing one way and only one way. Its a 5 day "test" to give you time to adapt and adjust and know when to go hard, when to defend and when to dig in. We only seem to care about the first one as if the more important thing is to get it over and done with inside 3 days ideally (4 if the rain intervenes)
|
|
|
|
Post by karma on Sept 9, 2024 9:02:17 GMT
I'm not absolutely certain about thus one.
Part of me has finished with test cricket and I believe I don't actually care.
Part of me though loves the underdog to come back and take the game. On balance I'd prefer the latter but the momentum has been lost and it seems a bit like p*s*i*g in the wind.
I've warmed to Sri Lanka 🇱🇰 . It's a long way to travel and go home with nothing.
|
|
