Sir Jack Hobbs -2nd best to Don Bradman?

[Harsh Thakor]

No doubt on good batting pitches the Don was the best batsmen ever.Statistically he was like a creature from another planet.However it must be counted that on wet or broken pitches batsmen like Jack Hobbs,Victor Trumper or George Headley overshadowed Bradman.Against bodyline bowling Stan Mcabe performed better than Bradman,who never faced the hostility of the bowling the likes of Sunil Gavaskar or Viv Richards faced.In terms of pressure Bradman faced not even half the pressure borne by Sachin Tendulhar or Brian Lara.In terms of longevity Hobbs and Tendulkar overshadowed the Don if you critically analyze their careers.(Add first class and one day cricket) In my opinion the batsman more than anyone who deserves the title of the best batsman of all time in all types of conditions is Jack Hobbs.In terms of longevity he is the greatest batsmen ever dominating the game for 3 decades.Imagine amassing 98 centuries after the 1st world war and 11 after the age of 40.Above all Jack Hobbs never played for records.He virtually innovated a new art of batting in the golden age.Hobbs was the fist cricketer the imbibe the values of professionalism into the game of cricket.Personally I find it difficult envisaging Sachin Tendulkar or Viv Richards equal Jack Hobb's batting feats if he played in his era.Remember that Hobbs played on wet,uncovered tracks.If I had to vote for a batsman who was 2nd to Bradman counting all form sof cricket and arguably even tset cricket then I would vote for Jack Hobb s,ahead of Sachin Tendulkar or Viv Richards.True he did opt play as much test cricket but he scored 12 of his 15 centuries against Australia.He also has a superior match performance rating than Sachin Tendulkar,Gary Sobers,Ricky Ponting ,Sunil Gavaskar or Viv Richards.in the analysis of Anantha Narayana on cricinfo..His adjusted batting average is even above that of Gary Sobers.Unlike Tendulkar,Lara and Viv Richards Hobbs averaged more in games won than drawn.I still don't back Lara or Tendulkar to outclass Hobbs on the treacherous wet tracks. Below I am posting Geoff Boycott's article from cricinfo on the 2nd best to Bradman: 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. Hobbs played 61 Tests. Remember, only England, Australia and South Africa played then. He averaged 56.94. It doesn't even come close to Bradman's 99.94. He played his first Test in 1907-08 and his last one in 1930. He was the oldest of 12 children. He taught himself the game by actually using a cricket stump and a tennis ball in the fives court - which is very much like a squash court - at Jesus College, Cambridge, where his father was the groundsman and umpire for the college. With no formal coaching, Hobbs practised on his own through the long vacations, hitting the ball with a stump. He said in his autobiography, years later, that this was responsible for his ability to play predominantly off the back foot and to place the ball accurately. 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. Hobbs was just an outstanding player. Wilfred Rhodes, the great allrounder of the time for Yorkshire and England, said, "He was the greatest batsman of my time. I learnt a lot from him when we went in first together for England. He had a cricket brain, and the position of his feet as he met the ball was perfect. He could have scored thousands more runs, but often he was content to throw his wicket away when he had reached his hundred and give someone else a chance." Sutcliffe, who formed the greatest opening partnership ever for England with Hobbs, said: "I was his partner on many occasions on extremely bad wickets and I can say this without any doubt that he was the most brilliant exponent of all time and quite the best batsman of my generation on all types of pitches. On good wickets, I do believe that pride of place be given to Sir Donald Bradman." Jack Fingleton played with Bradman and became a great writer. He wrote, "Although figures indicate the greatness of Hobbs, they don't convey the grandeur of his batting, his faultless technique and the manner in which he could captivate those who could recognise and analyse style. Australians who played against him believe cricket never produced a more correct batsman but it is well to note Hobbs' claim that he never had an hour's coaching in his life. He was a self-taught cricketer, observing, thinking, and executing for himself." Very interesting, that. And the great doyen writer of the time, Neville Cardus, wrote: "Immediately the bowler begins his run, Hobbs seems to have some instinct of what manner of ball is on the way. Rarely does he move his feet to an incorrect position. His footwork is so quick that even from behind the nets it is not always possible to follow its movement in detail." Mouth-watering stuff, eh? What a player he must have been. Below I am posting the statistical analysis of Anantha Narayana from cricinfo cordon the best batsmen for 132 years and his later re-analysis in the same year and it's basis .Even in test match stats analysis Jack Hobbs is above the great Gary Sobers .Infact it is only his run aggregate which is about one third of Tendulkar's and half of Brian Lara's that prevents Hobbs from being rated the bets test match batsman after Bradman. 1. There has to be equal weight given toMatch performances and Career achievements. The match analysis should deal with the specific match-related measurable situations only. 2. The batsman's longevity related measure such as career runs scored has to be recognised, but at a lower weighting level, no more than 15-20% of the total. 3. There has to be a clear recognition of the quality of bowling faced by the batsman in every match. A hundred against Australia has to be valued at a much higher level than a hundred against Bangladesh or New Zealand in 1933. 4. The batting average should be considered the most significant of the career-related measures. However this has to be adjusted based on the par batting average(s) of the period(s) spanned by the batsman's career. A pre-WW1 batsman's average has to be adjusted upwards for the low batting averages prevalent during these period while a current batsman's average has to be adjusted downwards in view of the high batting averages prevalent. If a batsman's career spans multiple periods, there has to be proportionate adjustment. 5. The batsman's career strike rate has become an important measure. This should be recognized, if available. For those batsmen whose strike rate information is not available, this parameter will not be included. If the strike rate is available for part of the batsman's career, it will be considered for that part only. This is explained in detail later. There is a case for the innings strike rate to be incorporated in the Match Performance calculations. However this revised methodology necessarily requires the strike rate to be a career-based calculation rather than match innings based. 6. Non-measurable cricketing factors such as bouncers, helmets, uncovered pitches et al cannot be incorporated. Nice for healthy discussions, but not beyond. A lengthy introduction, however the weighty topic required this. Now let us look at the details. First a minimum criteria is to be established. I have decided to keep the minimum runs required at 2000 runs so that great batsmen such as George Headley, Greame Pollock, Ponsford, Macartney, Hazare, O'Neill, McCabe et al would come in for consideration. If I had raised the bar to 3000 runs, all these wonderful players would have missed out. It is also true that in a different era and political situation they would have played more Tests. Now for the Ratings methodology. The Match Performances would carry a weight of 50 points, based on the methodology explained below. Career Achievements will carry a weight of 50 points, based on methodology explained later. Match Performances: The following factors are considered. Base for calculation will be Runs scored. Other factors are explained below. Each of these is a multiplicative parameter, ranging either side of 1.00. For certain parameters such as result, home/away, runs added with late order et al, there would not be a below 1.00 value. 1. Pitch type. 2. Quality of bowling - weighted by actual balls bowled by each bowler. 3. Position at batsman entry (5 for 1, 100 for 2, 24 for 3, 325 for 4 et al). 4. Runs added with late order batsmen (no. 8 onwards). 5. Innings type (1/2/3/4, Score faced, Target et al). 6. Match result, taking into consideration relative team strengths. 7. Match location (Home/Away). 8. Match importance (Series status). The points for each innings are computed, summed and divided by the number of matches played to arrive at the Match Performance Ratings value. The highest Match Performance Ratings value is 40.03 achieved by Bradman. George Headley is the next best in this category with 28.48 points followed by Lara with 27.31 points. Thus the limit of 50 we set has worked out well. Career achievements: The points allocation, totalling to 50 points, is explained below. 1. Batting average: 20 points (for an adjusted average of 100.00). Adjusted by the years spanned by the batsman career and the average Batting Average during the period. The adjustment is done proportionately. Most of the adjustment has been downward, between 1% and 6% (for the 2000s batsmen). The highest adjustment has been 20%, for batsmen such as Hill, Trumper whose entire career has been before Pre-WW1. The highest adjusted average is that of Bradman, whose average of 99.96 has been adjusted down to 96.75. He gets 19.35 points and is followed by Hobbs (61.68) with 12.34 points and Weekes (61.06) with 12.21 points. 2. Runs scored: 15 points (for scoring 15,000 Test runs). Away runs are given a slightly higher weight as explained. Scoring 1050 home runs gets one point for the batsman while 950 away runs will be enough to get one point. The differential of 10% seems very reasonable. This is the only longevity-based measure and carries a weight of only 15%. This is a straight-forward calculation. Tendulkar is the highest and gets12.85 points followed by Lara with 11.93 and Border with 11.16 points. 3. Scoring rate: 10 points (for a scoring rate of 100). The full 10 points (and a total of 100 points) will be the base for batsmen like Sehwag, Hayden et al, whose career strike rate is available in complete. For batsmen such as Bradman, Hobbs et al, there will be no points taken, consequently the total points for consideration of the Ratings points % will be 90. For batsmen such as Lara, Tendulkar et al, proportionate points, out of 10, will be considered, consequently the total points for consideration of the Ratings points % will be between 90 and 100. This delicate tweak was suggested by Shyam (Ananthanarayan). Among those whose complete data is available, Gilchrist leads in this measure with 8.20 points followed by Sehwag with 7.87 points and Pieterson with 6.32 points. 4. % of Team runs scored: 5 points (for scoring 25% of team runs). Bradman is the leader in this measure, having scored 24.98% of the team runs. He gets 4.99 points, followed by Headley with 4.32 points and Lara with 3.79 points. Now for the Top-20 table. The best Test batsmen of all time No.Cty Batsman Mat Total Rating Match BatAvg Runs BatSR %-TS Max Pts Pts Perf Pts Pts Pts Pts Pts 1.Aus Bradman D.G 52 (71.27) 79.19 40.02 19.35 6.91 .... 4.99 90.00 2.Win Lara B.C 131 (58.44) 59.40 27.31 10.43 11.93 4.98 3.79 98.38 3.Ind Tendulkar S.R 159 (53.68) 54.59 22.43 10.69 12.85 4.60 3.11 98.33 4.Aus Ponting R.T 131 (54.46) 54.46 23.95 10.85 10.88 5.91 2.87 100.00 5.Eng Hobbs J.B 61 (48.53) 53.93 27.07 12.34 5.49 .... 3.64 90.00 6.Win Sobers G.St.A 93 (48.14) 53.49 25.48 11.48 8.03 .... 3.16 90.00 7.Eng Hutton L 79 (47.78) 53.09 25.85 11.35 6.93 .... 3.66 90.00 8.Ind Gavaskar S.M 125 (47.40) 52.51 23.81 10.02 10.12 0.11 3.35 90.28 9.Win Headley G.A 22 (46.98) 52.20 28.48 12.00 2.18 .... 4.32 90.00 10.Ind Dravid R 134 (51.80) 51.80 23.58 10.11 10.92 4.17 3.02 100.0 The best Test batsmen: 1877-1959(reaanlayzed in the same yaer in 2009) SNo. Cty Batsman Ratio Total Match Bat Runs Cons %-TS R-Factor Pts Perf Avge Pts Idx Pts 1. Aus Bradman D.G 1.97 69.08 (36.62 19.35 6.91 3.70 2.50) 2. Eng Hobbs J.B 1.36 47.57 (23.93 12.34 5.49 3.99 1.82) 3. Win Sobers G.St.A 1.29 45.03 (20.67 11.48 8.03 3.28 1.58) 4. Eng Hutton L 1.27 44.37 (20.72 11.35 6.93 3.55 1.83) 5. Eng Barrington K.F 1.26 44.27 (20.97 11.71 6.81 3.08 1.70) 6. Win Headley G.A 1.25 43.86 (24.07 12.00 2.18 3.45 2.16) 7. Eng Sutcliffe H 1.25 43.62 (21.88 11.61 4.52 3.88 1.72) 8. Eng Hammond W.R 1.24 43.49 (19.78 11.27 7.31 3.43 1.70) 9. Win EdeC Weekes 1.22 42.69 (21.16 12.21 4.44 3.11 1.77) 10. Win Walcott C.L 1.16 40.67 (20.29 11.75 3.73 3.30 1.61

[Temujin Khaghan]

you are the nerd, who knew all stuff... but never got first rank due to bad presentation... no?

[rkt.india]

I am the best fast bowler to never have played test cricket.

[Junyfan]

No doubt about that :agree:

[RoyWilson]

second best is anyone except Tendulkar

[Mornantau]

second best is anyone except Tendulkar

Theres an article where he says Tendulkar is the only one that comes closest to Jack Hobbs.

[Tapioca]

We need to show this guy the Sehwag v Bradman thread.

[Mornantau]

I meant that Geoffrey rates Jack Hobbs as the best ever n says Sachin is the only guy that ever came close so thats credit to Sachin. Its not my opinion... I doubt that anyone cud have been better than Sach ever.

[Mornantau]

what the ...... is this poll a joke ... I mean it doesnt ask who was bradman the 2nd best to followed by ....

[jf1gp_1]

I am willing to bet no a single member on this forum has seen atleast 6 batsmans listed on poll bat live

[RoyWilson]

Tendulkar is fat

[Mornantau]

I am willing to bet no a single member on this forum has seen atleast 6 batsmans listed on poll bat live

Agreed n for those who claim Bradman's indisputable place in batting due to just one statistic, should take a lesson from two these things ....coz many people come close to tendlya or Jack Hobbs on avg but if u've watched them bat then its a totally different story. Also as for statistical superiority of Bradman there's been a research conducted at Australia's Griffith University (link at bottom) that prooves statistically ... that Tendlya is marginally ahead of Bradman but both are miles ahead of the anyone else..seems to make sense. I never saw Bradman or Jack Hobbs bat but most greats who have played against or watched Tendulkar concede he's the best they'd ever seen and some even say they dont think Bradman cud be better. Perhaps a player of Tendlya's class was born in an era when sides werrn't all that competitive, there was no reverse swing, no leg spinner like warne or off spinner like Murali, or quick bowlers like Shoiab, Waqar etc thats how he averaged so much. The long list of Tendu - admireres Wasim, Zaheer Abbas, Hanif Mohammed, Geoffrey Boycott (said Jack hobbs is best closely followed by Tendu), Warne, Nasir Hussain, Allan Donald, Ian Bishop.. Griffiths uni research : http://theconversation.com/is-don-is-good-how-tendulkar-eclipses-bradman-4875 Aussie sports writer on Tnedu : http://betting.betfair.com/cricket/cricket/tendulkar-is-a-better-batsman-041207.html