Ian Chappell says Hammond “obviously” scored his runs quickly. They’ve now got the number of balls faced in Tests he played and it’s not pretty. His two double centuries in 1928-29 were 251 in 602 balls and 200 in 472 balls. No surprises that these “timeless” tests went for 6 or 7 days. Can take with a pinch of salt what some of these so-called experts say- a lot of it is just Chinese whispers, like internet memes that get repeated once and become gospel as there is so little actual footage. But I’d trust what David Frith says.
@@lonestar6709 As the man said, you cannot be serious. Against NZ in 1933? They were so weak that Australia wouldn’t play Tests against them until 1946 when a Bradman-less Australia rolled them in two days, NZ scoring 42 and 54. In the Bodyline series immediately before that Hammond innings Hammond scored at 41/100 balls while Bradman went at 75 and McCabe at 59. The following year in England Hammond scored at only 35/100 while Bradman went at 73 and McCabe at 55. In 1936-37 it was the same pattern - Bradman 65, McCabe 52 and Hammond 38. So not even close. He was slow. Better in 1938, on par with Bradman, but this time way behind McCabe (82) and Hassett. (see Cricinfo averages for those series.)
@@shaktisaini8064Sehwag’s 319 was off 304 balls and against a proper Test side (South Africa in 2008). But NZ in 1933 were so weak that Australia wouldn’t play Tests against them until 1946 when a Bradman-less Australia rolled them in two days, NZ scoring 42 and 54. In the Bodyline series immediately before that 1933 innings Hammond scored at 41/100 balls on a winning team while Bradman went at 75 and McCabe at 59. The following year in England Hammond scored at only 35/100 while Bradman went at 73 and McCabe at 55. In 1936-37 it was the same pattern - Bradman 65, McCabe 52 and Hammond 38. So not even close. Way behind McCabe in 1938. He was slow.
Hammond was a truly great player
Goat
5:14 - chappell says: "He must have been a very good slip catcher."
Hammond *WAS* a very good slip fielder.
Englands greatest cricketer
Ian Chappell says Hammond “obviously” scored his runs quickly. They’ve now got the number of balls faced in Tests he played and it’s not pretty. His two double centuries in 1928-29 were 251 in 602 balls and 200 in 472 balls. No surprises that these “timeless” tests went for 6 or 7 days. Can take with a pinch of salt what some of these so-called experts say- a lot of it is just Chinese whispers, like internet memes that get repeated once and become gospel as there is so little actual footage. But I’d trust what David Frith says.
His 336 not out vs NZL was scored in 355 balls.
Hammond's 300 score was done in 6 hours. Official.
Fastest triple century ever. He was by far, the quickest batter of his day.
Great allrounder
@@lonestar6709 As the man said, you cannot be serious. Against NZ in 1933? They were so weak that Australia wouldn’t play Tests against them until 1946 when a Bradman-less Australia rolled them in two days, NZ scoring 42 and 54. In the Bodyline series immediately before that Hammond innings Hammond scored at 41/100 balls while Bradman went at 75 and McCabe at 59. The following year in England Hammond scored at only 35/100 while Bradman went at 73 and McCabe at 55. In 1936-37 it was the same pattern - Bradman 65, McCabe 52 and Hammond 38. So not even close. He was slow. Better in 1938, on par with Bradman, but this time way behind McCabe (82) and Hassett. (see Cricinfo averages for those series.)
@@shaktisaini8064Sehwag’s 319 was off 304 balls and against a proper Test side (South Africa in 2008). But NZ in 1933 were so weak that Australia wouldn’t play Tests against them until 1946 when a Bradman-less Australia rolled them in two days, NZ scoring 42 and 54. In the Bodyline series immediately before that 1933 innings Hammond scored at 41/100 balls on a winning team while Bradman went at 75 and McCabe at 59. The following year in England Hammond scored at only 35/100 while Bradman went at 73 and McCabe at 55. In 1936-37 it was the same pattern - Bradman 65, McCabe 52 and Hammond 38. So not even close. Way behind McCabe in 1938. He was slow.