Yesterday while pouring over data on espncricinfo, the idea
of a cricket blog struck me. Recently I started blogging about economics and
business and it is an enjoyable experience. I have spent countless hours on
espncricinfo in past the few years, pouring over statistics and hence I think
it would be nice to write my inferences. Although I love reading about
cricketing incidents and anecdotes, especially by English authors, I lack the
skill to pen down such eloquent pieces. So, for now I will concentrate on
cricketing statistics and see how it goes.
Recently I read a blog on Tumblr
(http://clwalcott.tumblr.com/) about selecting an all time Test 11 and the
author made an interesting point. He argued that Jack Hobbs played in an era
when wickets were notoriously difficult to bat on and hence his average of 56
equates to 80 in current era. It was a nice argument and I set about to check
the veracity of his claims. Cricket fans love comparing players across
generations and it is common to hear young Indian fans claiming Sachin
Tendulkar to be better than Don Bradman because Tendulkar has played across
countries, formats, oppositions while Bradman just played in 2 countries and 1
format. Another widely used argument in favour of Tendulkar is that Bradman
played in an era when the standards were quite low and he would not have
averaged more than 60 in modern era. But the question is if during Bradman's
era (1928 -1948), pitches were easier to bat on and bowling abysmal, why is his
average so much better than that of all his contemporaries? The nearest rivals
of Bradman were Herbert Sutcliffe and George Headley and both averaged around
60. So easier pitches or not, Bradman was miles ahead of his contemporaries.
But what about the batsmen who played in different periods than Bradman?
Pitches in late 19th and early 20th centuries were notoriously difficult to bat
on and that is reflected in both low bowling averages and batting averages of
players who played before WW I. Great players like WG Grace and Victor Trumper
averaged less than 40 and I find it difficult to accept that they would have
averaged less than 40 had they played in the modern era or during Bradman’s
time.
I chose to compare Jack Hobbs to Don Bradman because Hobbs
played test cricket both before and after WW I and is considered one of the
greats. I used statsguru on espncricinfo for numbers in this post because it is
amazing software for cricket fans who are interested in statistical analysis.
So what are the results and does Hobbs's average of 57 is actually worth 80 in
modern times? Sir Jack Hobbs was by any standards a great cricketer and the
first professional cricketer to be knighted. But how good was he? He embarked
upon his Test career in 1908 when he was 26 and played for more than 22 years
till 1930 when he was 48. His longevity in Test cricket is matched by Sachin
Tendulkar but Tendulkar started much younger at 16 and played for almost 24
years till he was 40. In a Test career of 22 years, Hobbs played 61 games and
averaged almost 57. These are impressive numbers and on top of that, Hobbs lost
his best batting years (age 32 to 38) due to WW I. There was no test cricket
during WW I and when it resumed in 1920, Hobbs was 38, a bit old for an
international sportsman by any standards. The team batting average in the 61
tests that Jack Hobbs played was 29.82. Herbert Sutcliffe averaged 77 in 25
tests he played alongside Hobbs, Don Bradman 103 in 9 tests he played against
Hobbs and Walter Walter Hammond 70 in 13 tests when he was part of the same
team as Hobbs. So evidently there were players who were statistically much
better than Jack Hobbs in the later part of Hobbs's career. But all these
players were much younger to Hobbs and their early career coincided with fag
end of Hobbs's career. Also it is unfair to categorise the entire career of
Jack Hobbs as one era because pitches became easier to bat on after WW I which
was evident in rise of batting superstars like Bradman, Sutcliffe and Hammond.
Assuming Hobbs's entire career as one era, how does his average of 57 compare
with Bradman’s astronomical average of almost 100? Don Bradman played 52 tests
from 1928 to 1948, interspersed by WW II and team batting average was 32.45 in
those 52 tests. Just for comparison, Tendulkar test batting average is
around 54 and the team batting averages were 34.17 in 200 tests he played
in. Hence, Hobbs’s average of 57 translates to 62 accounting for easier batting
conditions or weaker bowling attacks or both during Bradman’s era. It is
obviously impressive and a slight improvement but still nothing compared to
Bradman’s average. If we use the same extrapolation technique, we can infer
that Hobbs's average is worth 65 in Tendulkar's era.
Now if we divide Jack Hobbs’s career in 2 parts i.e. before
and after WW I, a very different picture emerges. From his test debut in 1908
till 1914 when WW I put a stop to international cricket, Hobbs played 28 tests
and averaged 57.32, slightly higher than his career average. Other batting
superstars in this era were Aubrey Faulkner (average 51 in 16 tests between
1910 - 1912), Warren Bardsley (average 45 in 20 tests between 1909 - 1912) and
Victor Trumper (average 45 in 19 tests between 1908 - 1912). A total of 38
tests were played in this period with a team batting average of 25.62. Lower
team batting averages make it is clear that batting was far more difficult
business in those times. Only 3 teams, England, Australia and South Africa,
played test cricket with England playing a maximum of 30 tests and Hobbs played
in 28 of them. Now if we consider the 28 tests Hobbs played, team batting
average drops down to 23.99. Assuming a team batting average of 32.45 (Team
batting average in 52 tests that Don Bradman played in), Hobbs’s career average
translates to 78. Now this compares much more favourably to Bradman’s average
although is still a fair bit shy of Bradman’s near 100 average. So in pre WW I
era, we can safely say that Hobbs was the best batsman in the world with only
Faulkner in proximity.
The second part of Hobbs’s career presents a contrasting
picture. Although he was 38 when test cricket resumed, he still averaged a fair
56.63 in 33 tests albeit in a much easier batting era. Bradman played 9 tests
alongside Hobbs and averaged 103 while Sutcliffe averaged 67 in 36 tests while
Hammond averaged 59 in 22 tests in years after WW I till Hobbs’s
retirement. CG Macrtney (Test Career: 1907 – 1926), who played more
or less in the same era as Hobbs is an interesting case study. He averaged
almost 70 in 14 tests he played after WW I till his retirement in 1926 against
a partly 27 in 21 tests before WW I. Team batting average ballooned up to 32.63
in 64 tests in these 10 years (1920 – 1930) while it reached a stratospheric
35.40 in the 33 tests that featured Hobbs. This increase can partly be
explained by a batting phenomenon called Don Bradman who averaged 103 in 9
tests he played against Hobbs while Sutcliffe had his most productive period, averaging
77 in 25 tests, when he partnered Hobbs at the top of the order. Messrs
Macrtney, Armstrong, Hammond and Woodfull all bettered their career average
while playing alongside Sir Jack.
So the question remains how good was Jack Hobbs and how does
he compare to Don Bradman? The answer is not straightforward and we must look
beyond statistics in search of it. Cricket historians unanimously agree that
Jack Hobbs invented modern batting. Numbers show us that Jack Hobbs was in an
altogether different league before WW I but was overshadowed by many in easier
batting conditions after WW I. His long time batting partner Herbert Sutcliffe
considered Don Bradman a better overall batsman but thought Jack Hobbs was
better on bad wickets. A lot of cricket writers from that era say that Jack
Hobbs lacked the killer instinct of Don Bradman and often gave away his wicket
after scoring a century. This argument has some merit since only once Hobbs
crossed 200 in his 15 test centuries while Bradman did it 12 times in 29 times
he made 100. So was Jack Hobbs overall a better batsman than Don Bradman? Maybe
not but he was easily the premier batsman in the world since his debut till WW
I intervened and probably the best bad wicket player the world has ever seen.
On top of that Sir Jack Hobbs played first class career till he was 52 and scored a small
matter of 61,000 runs and 199 centuries!
