England’s finest

Now that Tim has selected his World XI, which included Wally Hammond, it seemed the right time to publish this article I wrote a while back on the great man.

There are many great things that can be said about Wally Hammond, but perhaps the finest compliment he can be paid is that he was a truly modern player, whose Test career bears comparison with those of much more recent vintage. He played 85 Test matches, a staggering number for a Test cricketer of his era, and nearly half of them were away. This meant that Hammond experienced conditions in all the Test playing countries of the time, except India, having to adapt his technique to the numerous challenges this presented. That he succeeded so spectacularly is testament to his ability and strength of character. In fact, he registered the then world record Test score of 336 not out on a tour of New Zealand.

It is worth noting that the great Don Bradman only played Test cricket in his native Australia and in England, with 37 of his 52 Test matches being against the old enemy. It is a shame that he, and so many of his contemporaries, were unable to tour India, New Zealand, South Africa and West Indies, the other Test playing nations at the time. Of course, those nations were still establishing themselves as International cricket sides, but they included some wonderful players, including George Headley, the great West Indian batsman, who sadly only played 22 Test matches.

The term great is bandied about far too freely when discussing Test cricketers, but in Hammond’s case it is not only justified, but demands to be used. As Hammond excelled in all aspects of cricket I have broken his Test career into different areas. This means I can give each part of his game closer scrutiny and make a better attempt at doing justice to his cricketing legacy.

The batsman

From an early age Hammond had the rare combination of ability and temperament. He honed his technique in order to deal with all types of bowling, but also worked out how he would play in different conditions and against different attacks. On his first tour of Australia, in 1928-9, Hammond decided that he would profit best by aiming to score most of his runs in the V between extra cover and midwicket, largely abandoning the pull and cut shots he played so well. The policy paid huge dividends, with Hammond scoring an astonishing 905 runs in the five match series at an average of 113.12. Such astute thinking and forward planning was the sign of a master batsman, who understood his own game as well as the game as a whole. And he was only 25 at the time, with many more years to perfect his batting.

It is no surprise then that Hammond’s career average in Tests was an outstanding 58.42, that he compiled 7249 runs in his 85 matches and struck 22 centuries along the way. Six of his three figure scores were double hundreds and one was that magical 336 not out. In a career spanning 19 years Hammond rarely had any lean seasons, the exception being 1934, when he inexplicably failed against the Australians in England. In addition to numerous good years Hammond had two outstanding seasons – 1933, when he averaged 103.77 in 8 Tests, and 1936, when he averaged 161.25 in 4 matches.

Proof, if more were needed, of Hammond’s supreme ability is shown in his averages away from the familiar pitches in England. At home he averaged 50.06 in 44 matches, but away he managed 66.32 in 41 Tests, scoring 4245 of his 7249 Test runs. This says something for the variation in the quality of the pitches in England over Hammond’s time as a Test player, but says more about his talent for adapting to new conditions and bowlers. Only the West Indies, playing on their lively home pitches, evaded Hammond’s mastery. His low average of 25.00 in four matches in the Caribbean, without a 50 to his name, shows how well the West Indian bowlers must have bowled. Though he would not excuse himself, part of the reason for his lack of success on that tour must have been that it followed his loss of form at home in the preceding Ashes series. Even the greats have occasional lows. It is that they bounce back to even higher heights that makes them great.

The position which a batsman takes in the batting line-up is often crucial in determining their success or failure. Some batsmen are natural openers, others prefer to bat at 3, others at 4, etc. Hammond, it seems, could bat anywhere, but achieved his greatest success at 3, perhaps the most important position in any batting line-up. The number three batsman comes in when the opening stand is broken. This can, of course, happen after the very first ball of an innings or after hours with a big score already on the board. A number three must be prepared to face the new ball, the old ball, the spinners, in fact almost any circumstances.

At number three Hammond averaged 74.78 in 37 matches, scoring 14 of his 22 hundreds. This is an exceptional performance and one cannot help but wonder that even his brilliant career might have been better had he not moved down to 4, 5 and even 6 at times. It is also worth mentioning that he opened the innings in three Test matches and averaged 78.75, notching up a century and two fifties.

It is for all these various aspects of his prowess as a batsman that Hammond is often grouped with the elite of Test batsmen, a small group who not only scored runs, but changed the way others approached the task, innovating in both technique and temperament.

The bowler

Those who saw him play suggest that Hammond could have made much more of his bowling than he did. It has been said that on occasions Hammond was the fastest and most hostile of bowlers, who could tear through the opposition. That he did not do this more often is probably partly because of the responsibility of being the top batsman in the side (and captain for 20 Test matches) and partly because of the physical strain it would have taken to bowl more than he did. What we are left with is the intriguing prospect of Hammond the bowler. A few glimpses of what might have been and a very good return for a part-time bowler.

For the record Hammond took 83 wickets in his 85 Tests at the handy average of 37.80. To back up the suggestion that he could rip through a Test side he took five wickets in an innings twice, including the exceptional best bowling figures of 5 for 36. Add to this his economy rate of just 2.36 runs per over and a picture is formed of a great Test batsman, who probably bowled within himself, but who occasionally rose to the heights of a specialist bowler.

The fielder

Hammond was exceptionally athletic and said to be naturally gifted at any sport he chose to play. This was never clearer than in his incredible skill as a slip fielder, where his poise and superb reflexes saw him pouch 110 catches in his 85 Tests. I have read that he had no equal in the slips, taking most of the chances that came his way, whether they were sharp catches or thick edges that looped in the air. It seems Hammond was adept with both hands and capable of timing his movements to give himself the best opportunity to get to the ball. It must have been a great pleasure to see him diving around in the slips, especially for the bowlers, who knew those safe hands would make the most of their efforts.

The captain

Taking on the captaincy just before and just after the war, Hammond led England in 20 Test matches, spread over six series, though the last of these was a one-off Test in New Zealand. Although he only tasted defeat on three occasions, all against Australia, two of those losses were in losing the Ashes series in 1946/7 in Australia. The three series Hammond won as captain were all 1-0 against lesser opponents. It was a sign of the times that 13 of his 20 Tests in charge were drawn.

It is fair to say that Hammond was a good, if not spectacular, leader, who could not quite inspire England to beat their old rivals, the Australians. He was, however, captain in that most memorable of Test matches at the Oval in 1938, when England levelled the series with an incredible win by an innings and 579 runs. Two records were set by England in that match, which stood for many years – the highest individual Test score of 364 by Len Hutton and the highest team total of 903 by England in their first and only innings. It was Hammond’s first series as captain and one which I’m sure he was proud of.

The legacy

There is little doubt that Walter Reginald Hammond was one of the best Test cricketers ever to grace the sport. I would go as far as to say that he is England’s greatest ever Test player. A cricketer who excelled in all the disciplines of the game in a career that spanned nearly twenty years. That he achieved what he did in spite of losing six of his best years to the Second World War is amazing. There is little doubt that he would have been the first player to play a hundred Test matches and, perhaps, scored 10,000 Test runs in the process. As it is Hammond’s record remains one of the best in the highest form of the game and his legacy was to inspire those England players who had played with him and those who followed after him.

Greatest Test XI

To continue our Greatest Test XI of the last century we pick our number four.

Wally Hammond came to epitomise the ideal of elegant English batsmanship. Had it not been for Bradman, he would now be recognised as the finest middle-order player Test cricket has ever known, possessing supreme talent and aesthetic value, particularly in his cover-drive.

Physically, Hammond was a powerful and imposing sight; this, aided by his masterful timing, meant he could reach the boundary with apparent minimal effort, as he did during his incredible five hour 336* against New Zealand in 1933. His athleticism was such that he was amongst the finest slip fielders of all time; and as a quick bowler, he claimed 732 first-class wickets and could be devastating when conditions offered help. In truth though, he did not maximise his bowling potential because of the importance to the side of his batting.

In 77 Tests until 1940, Hammond averaged 61, with 22 hundreds, numbers that are testament to his quality. He temperament was such that he was exceptional at converting starts, making almost as many centuries as fifties in both his Test and first-class career and an astonishing 36 first-class double hundreds (second only to Bradman, who has 37). Though well capable of accelerating, he was happy to eschew risk and build marathon innings.

Of course, he had an excellent technique; but he also had the rare ability to adapt his game it to different conditions. On his first tour to Australia, in 1928/29, for instance, Hammond decided he would be best served scoring primarily in the ‘V’; and was stunningly vindicated with 905 runs at 113, still the second highest series run aggregate in the history of the game.

Hammond’s Wisden obituary referred to an ‘almost Olympian aloofness’, and he was a famously moody character. Yet nothing can detract from a man whose range of cricketing gifts make him perhaps England’s finest ever player.

The side so far: Sutcliffe, Hutton, Bradman, Hammond

Share your views on Hammond and the side by leaving a comment below.

Who will join Bradman?

The battle for a middle-order spot is exceptionally fierce, with the likes of Tendulkar, Chappell, Compton, Border, Waugh and Walcott not having reached the final 28-man shortlist. Essentially, the question is effectively which two middle-order players will join Don Bradman (at three) and Garfield Sobers (probably at six) who are fundamentally must-picks; their places in the pantheon was illustrated by them receiving 100 and 90 of the 100 votes for Wisden’s Five Cricketers of The Century. No one else received more than 30 votes.

George Headley was often referred to as the ‘Black Bradman’, having played in the same era as The Don, but, crucially, in a much weaker side. He scored 10 Tests in just 22 Tests for his country; during this time, there were just five other 100s scored by Caribbean players. Renowned for playing the ball extremely late, technical excellence and astonishing on-side play, Headley’s pre-war statistics mark him out as perhaps the second best batsman in the game: 9,532 runs in first-class cricket with an average of 72.21; and an average of 67 from his first 19 Test matches. Though he played relatively few Tests, because of the era he played in, these figures were sustained over a decade, proof of his enduring excellence. Out of desperation as much as anything, critics often point to his average of 37 in Australia as evidence of his limitations; but, after failing in his first four innings, Headley, aged just 21, scored two hundreds in the last three Tests and over 1000 runs on tour in all.

Two other modern West Indian batting giants made the shortlist. Viv Richards was as terrifying for the opposition as their plethora of brilliant fast bowlers; with his swagger, arrogance and contempt for ‘playing every ball on its merits’ he could drive bowlers to despair. The Antiguan scored 24 Test hundreds, the most memorable perhaps a superlative 291 at The Oval in 1976, and came to embody the Windies’ relentless dominance of the world game with his sheer power. However, it is worth noting that, out of five nations, he only averaged over 50 against England.

Brian Lara, more or less, followed Richards in the side, which gradually became weaker. Like Headley, he should gain credit for bearing an extra burden, though his average of 53, with 34 hundreds, more than speaks for itself. An enigma until the end, Lara thrilled millions with his flashing blade and ability to take on the world’s best bowlers; yet he also had a Bradmanesque ability to amass gargantuan scores, as his 375, 400* and 501* (the latter for Warwickshire) illustrate. Two series, above all, stand as testament to his greatness: the ‘98/99 one against Australia, when Lara scored three hundreds, including Wisden's second greatest Test innings of all time (see below), 153*, to secure a one-wicket win chasing over 300; and, in ‘01/02, when he scored 688 runs at 114 in Murali’s backyard. Oddly, though, he averaged only 35 against India, though 14 of his 17 Tests against them were at home.

Ricky Ponting was a slightly controversial selection on the shortlist but his 33 hundreds and, especially, an average of 72 in his last 58 Tests, made him impossible to ignore. At only 32, Ponting could yet become an automatic selection in a side such as this; but, his meagre average of 12 in eight Tests in India means there is a slight question mark over his ability against top-class spin in testing conditions. Nonetheless, no one can doubt his relentless scoring of runs, his qualities all round the wicket and his single-minded determination. An innings of 156 at Old Trafford in 2005, made against top-class fast-bowling when Australia were entirely dependent on him, perhaps stands as his finest.

Graeme Pollock, owing to South Africa’s ban from Test cricket, only played 23 Tests, but still accomplished enough to be a true great of the game. Moreover, his average of 61 is even more impressive when it is considered that his Test career ended when, barely in his 27th year, he was not yet in his prime. Elegant, classical and seemingly unstoppable, Pollock was considered by Bradman to be the best left-hander in cricketing history – above even Sobers – and scored seven Test tons, including a phenomenal 274 against Australia; but, alas, he only played in two more Tests.

Wally Hammond is the sole Englishman in the list. In 77 Tests until 1940, Hammond averaged 61, with 22 hundreds. Of course, he had an excellent technique; but he also had the rare ability to adapt his game it to different conditions. On his first tour to Australia, in 1928/29, for instance, Hammond decided he would be best served scoring primarily in the ‘V’; and was stunningly vindicated with 905 runs at 113. He also had a temperament well-suited to scoring long innings, as his astonishing haul of 36 first-class doublehundreds, six in Tests, is testament to. Hammond was a tremendously powerful player, to supplement his other qualities, a brilliant fielder and an under-rated bowler. The only slight caveat is an average of 35 against the West Indies.

Additional information
The Wisden 100 greatest innings of all time
Regarding the point of playing in weaker sides, it is interesting to note that, as a percentage of team runs, the leading batsmen are Don Bradman (23%), George Headley (21%) and Brian Lara (20%)

Sobers will be analysed amongst the other all-rounders on the shortlist.

Who do you think should join Bradman in the middle-order for the Greatest Test XI of the last century? Leave a comment below.