What's new

W.G. Grace - Perhaps the Greatest ever?

Statsman

T20I Debutant
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Runs
7,676
Post of the Week
1
54,000+ runs, 124 centuries (at ~40 avg), 2809 wickets (at ~18 avg), surely WG Grace has to be the greatest all rounder ever, if not the Greatest Cricketer of All Time.


This man, for heaven's sake, opened for England at the age of 50 - and at the age of 18 he had scored 224 not out for England against Surrey, in a match which he left halfway through in order to win a quarter-mile hurdles championship at the Crystal Palace!

Controversies aside, do we tend to underestimate the greatness of WG?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Greatest of the nineteenth century, and the first sporting superstar - more people had heard of him than Queen-Empress Victoria!

The game was very different in his day - cow patch pitches, no swing bowling, leg spin only just invented.
 
WG Grace to us has been like one of the dieties that you are not sure even existed lol. His beard comes to mind more than whatever he did in cricket every time his name is mentioned. Perhaps that also contributes to him not being acknowledged as much.

At least with Don Bradman, you still have a few visuals and in photographs he looks a sharp sporty lad so you could almost believe he existed and was actually that damn good.
 
54,000+ runs, 124 centuries (at ~40 avg), 2809 wickets (at ~18 avg), surely WG Grace has to be the greatest all rounder ever, if not the Greatest Cricketer of All Time.




Controversies aside, do we tend to underestimate the greatness of WG?

True greatness - in any generation - is when a player transcends all his peers with a record absurdly superior to all others.

Bradman did it.

Sobers did it.

Marshall did it.

Grace did it.

Trueman did it.

But not many others have. And that's why we know that he is sitting right at the very top table of cricket, whereas others who couldn't rise above their peers (e.g. Lara and Tendulkar) will forever be stationed at a lower level.
 
At least with Don Bradman, you still have a few visuals and in photographs he looks a sharp sporty lad so you could almost believe he existed and was actually that damn good.

Australians blowing a fuse when you diss Bradman always gets me though. How can one be so attached to somebody they have never seen play?
 
Yeah but didn't he refuse to leave the field when he was given out? His records are worthless.
 
is it fair to consider him the second greatest after bradman? or sobers, hobbs etc should be held in higher esteem?
 
Australians blowing a fuse when you diss Bradman always gets me though. How can one be so attached to somebody they have never seen play?

A bit like young Pakistanis when you diss Wasim Akram, though they never saw him play either ;-)
 
Yeah but didn't he refuse to leave the field when he was given out? His records are worthless.

Wasn't that some exhibition game or something? Apparently some guy got him out in an exhibition game, and Grace simply said "go back and bowl, the crowd came to see me bat". :))
 
A bit like young Pakistanis when you diss Wasim Akram, though they never saw him play either ;-)

Sure, a fraction of the younger (Pakistani) lot may be taken in by patriotic fervor, but Bradman was more than three generations ago. All we have to go on him is Cricinfo Statsguru and little else.
 
Wasn't that some exhibition game or something? Apparently some guy got him out in an exhibition game, and Grace simply said "go back and bowl, the crowd came to see me bat". :))

I read somewhere that umpires were loathe to give him out lbw because they feared it would cause riots in the stands! I don't know exactly where I read that, but it does make sense when you consider that people paid top dollar for tickets whenever Grace was playing, and if you've given up a week's wages for a seat then you won't be happy if the guy who commanded the ticket price is out first ball.
 
Not sure about that, but he was definitely the greatest bully on the pitch, if the numerous accounts are to believed. Of course, that has everything to do with the fact that he was the original cricketing superstar, and with fame comes ego.
 
Here we go:

Charles Kortright had dismissed W.G. Grace four or five times in a county game - only for the umpires to keep turning down his appeals. Finally, he uprooted two of Grace's three stumps. Grace stalled, as though waiting for a no-ball call or something, before reluctantly walking off with Kortright's words in his ears: "Surely you're not going, doctor? There's still one stump standing."

Gloucestershire v Essex.

http://www.cricketcountry.com/artic...-one-of-the-fastest-bowlers-of-all-time-21882
 
True greatness - in any generation - is when a player transcends all his peers with a record absurdly superior to all others.

Bradman did it.

Sobers did it.

Marshall did it.

Grace did it.

Trueman did it.

But not many others have. And that's why we know that he is sitting right at the very top table of cricket, whereas others who couldn't rise above their peers (e.g. Lara and Tendulkar) will forever be stationed at a lower level.


Tendulkar is head and shoulders above not only his peers but half the players you mentioned from different eras.
 
Australians blowing a fuse when you diss Bradman always gets me though. How can one be so attached to somebody they have never seen play?

That's a weird construct.

Throughout history many of us followed the arrival of foreign cricketers in the newspapers and looked forward to when they first toured our country or played somewhere where we got TV pictures from.

I'll give you the example of late 1989, in my case. The reports from Sharjah's ODI series were that Pakistan's young quick bowler Waqar Younis was incredibly quick - faster than both Imran Khan and Wasim Akram, and quicker than the West Indians.

I had to wait a couple of weeks to be able to rent a VHS tape of the Sharjah matches from an Indian shop in Rusholme, the "Little Pakistan" of Manchester.

I'd already heard of Sachin Tendulkar, but hadn't seen him either - there was no coverage of any cricket anywhere apart from the local team at home and away. I had to wait for the end of the 4 Test series to get hold of a video with him on it!

Similarly, I'd heard a lot about Shane Warne before I first saw him play against the West Indies in 1992-93, but again, the first time I ever saw him in anything other than highlight reels was when he came to England seven months later. But I'd closely followed the reports on him against India, Sri Lanka, West Indies and finally his "breakthrough series" in New Zealand, so I knew already how good he was going to be when I saw him live.
 
That's a weird construct.

Throughout history many of us followed the arrival of foreign cricketers in the newspapers and looked forward to when they first toured our country or played somewhere where we got TV pictures from.

I'll give you the example of late 1989, in my case. The reports from Sharjah's ODI series were that Pakistan's young quick bowler Waqar Younis was incredibly quick - faster than both Imran Khan and Wasim Akram, and quicker than the West Indians.

I had to wait a couple of weeks to be able to rent a VHS tape of the Sharjah matches from an Indian shop in Rusholme, the "Little Pakistan" of Manchester.

I'd already heard of Sachin Tendulkar, but hadn't seen him either - there was no coverage of any cricket anywhere apart from the local team at home and away. I had to wait for the end of the 4 Test series to get hold of a video with him on it!

Similarly, I'd heard a lot about Shane Warne before I first saw him play against the West Indies in 1992-93, but again, the first time I ever saw him in anything other than highlight reels was when he came to England seven months later. But I'd closely followed the reports on him against India, Sri Lanka, West Indies and finally his "breakthrough series" in New Zealand, so I knew already how good he was going to be when I saw him live.

That's an irrelevant bunch of paragraphs, unless you mean you have VHS tapes of Bradman in action in the 1940s, which you don't.
 
e36be950c6d078eea7c2e42e5c89ba26.jpeg


bhai???

Jeremy-Renner.gif


I agree, he is most definitely the greatest ever :amla
 
That's an irrelevant bunch of paragraphs, unless you mean you have VHS tapes of Bradman in action in the 1940s, which you don't.

I still don't think you get it, at all.

Following cricket has always been like studying the form guide for horse-racing.

An intelligent and well-read person can analyse the data before him or her without having ever watched the horse race. Before Shane Warne landed in England in 1993 I was well aware that he had shown in New Zealand that he had nailed his art by:

1) Mastering a reliable stock delivery with total reliability, and
2) Developing a dependable line and length to make scoring off him difficult.

I didn't need to have seen him live. Reading the detailed newspaper reports by people like Johnny Woodcock and Qamar Ahmed - who basically attended every Test in every country between them - left me in no doubt as to what was happening and what each player's potential was.

The same applies to the past. If you make the effort to read about it, it comes to life.
 
Tendulkar wasn't a great physical specimen, if he could have more supportive body then forget batting, his spin bowling talent alone would have put him right up there among the finest spinners. He had some wicket gifts ranging from turning it square across people's legs, taking one handed catches, bowling wrong ones and hitting unconventional batting shots with absolute ease and grace. I wouldn't wanna check browsing history of anyone putting Viv Richards or Sobers above him just for sex appeal.
 
Yes.

And i'm sure that Junaids will say that <a href="http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/player/9223.html">This</a> guy is the greatest bowler ever.

:srt
 
He is the first cricketer to have 'played' God even if it's as a photograph.

Even Sir Don can't claim that.
 
True greatness - in any generation - is when a player transcends all his peers with a record absurdly superior to all others.

Bradman did it.

Sobers did it.

Marshall did it.

Grace did it.

Trueman did it.

But not many others have. And that's why we know that he is sitting right at the very top table of cricket, whereas others who couldn't rise above their peers (e.g. Lara and Tendulkar) will forever be stationed at a lower level.

Before you tell all of us about Sangakkara's greatness , let me tell you that Sachin was the best batsman in the world in a decade by some distance when only 3 batsmen averaged more than 50.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Probably the most influential ever cricketer. However, being the most influential is different from being the greatest.
 
Before you tell all of us about Sangakkara's greatness , let me tell you that Sachin was the best batsman in the world in a decade by some distance when only 3 batsmen averaged more than 3.

Eh? Even Monty Pansar averages more than 3 !
 
I still don't think you get it, at all.

Following cricket has always been like studying the form guide for horse-racing.

An intelligent and well-read person can analyse the data before him or her without having ever watched the horse race. Before Shane Warne landed in England in 1993 I was well aware that he had shown in New Zealand that he had nailed his art by:

1) Mastering a reliable stock delivery with total reliability, and
2) Developing a dependable line and length to make scoring off him difficult.

I didn't need to have seen him live. Reading the detailed newspaper reports by people like Johnny Woodcock and Qamar Ahmed - who basically attended every Test in every country between them - left me in no doubt as to what was happening and what each player's potential was.

The same applies to the past. If you make the effort to read about it, it comes to life.


Well if you are so reverential towards their writing ... I think you need to make a U-Turn about your views on Tendulkar because Woodcock had pretty flowery praise for Tendulkar .

Unlikely you will but hey when did you go by facts :))


PS: Here we go again on the same old Ghisa pita topic :facepalm:
 
I remember Geoff Boycott was asked over Cricinfo few years back on the 3 most influential cricketers ever. It was an audio clip. He named the following (era wise) -


1. W.G. Grace - He said that one needs to compare his number among those players of time, and they were extraordinary.

2. Don Bradman

3. Garry Sobers - He said that Sobers is the best batsman he has ever seen, and that no cricketer since Grace and Bradman has ever captured the imagination of the cricket world more than Sobers.
 
Wth is with people's weird obsession with stats? They will worship Bradman sobers this guy and many others who they've never watched just by judging by stats.

Players like Ponting, Viv, Tendulkar are players that should be rated more.
 
True greatness - in any generation - is when a player transcends all his peers with a record absurdly superior to all others.

Bradman did it.

Sobers did it.

Marshall did it.

Grace did it.

Trueman did it.

But not many others have. And that's why we know that he is sitting right at the very top table of cricket, whereas others who couldn't rise above their peers (e.g. Lara and Tendulkar) will forever be stationed at a lower level.

As generations pass, it is a natural trend that the difference between great batsman and their contemporaries decreases. Just because some batsman from a century ago was more ahead of his peers than some batsman right now is doesn't necessarily mean one is better than the other.

For example, Steyn is better than other bowlers (with the exception of Harris) by a long distance. Maybe more than ATG bowlers in the past were from other bowlers in their generations. That is due to the decrease in quality of bowlers now, rather than Steyn being a much superior bowler than them. That doesn't necessarily make Steyn better than any of those past ATG bowlers
 
True greatness - in any generation - is when a player transcends all his peers with a record absurdly superior to all others.

Bradman did it.

Sobers did it.

Marshall did it.

Grace did it.

Trueman did it.

But not many others have. And that's why we know that he is sitting right at the very top table of cricket, whereas others who couldn't rise above their peers (e.g. Lara and Tendulkar) will forever be stationed at a lower level.

This is an excellent general assessment of what greatness is, but it's worth noting that doing this is easy in an amateurish era and nigh impossible in a professional era.

That's why Magnus Carlsen is the greatest chess player ever and Wilhelm Stienitz is not. There's a difference between battering elite professionals who've trained all their life and between being the guy who owned everything by discovering the basics. Dick Fosbury isn't the greatest high jumper ever, even though he beat superior athletes with the technique he invented. Grace was a great man and a pioneer, so was Bradman and so was Sobers but it's just orders of magnitude tougher to be ahead of everyone else in a professional environment in a mature game than it was in 1885 when being professional was an insult.
 
As generations pass, it is a natural trend that the difference between great batsman and their contemporaries decreases. Just because some batsman from a century ago was more ahead of his peers than some batsman right now is doesn't necessarily mean one is better than the other.

For example, Steyn is better than other bowlers (with the exception of Harris) by a long distance. Maybe more than ATG bowlers in the past were from other bowlers in their generations. That is due to the decrease in quality of bowlers now, rather than Steyn being a much superior bowler than them. That doesn't necessarily make Steyn better than any of those past ATG bowlers

superb post!
 
This is an excellent general assessment of what greatness is, but it's worth noting that doing this is easy in an amateurish era and nigh impossible in a professional era.

That's why Magnus Carlsen is the greatest chess player ever and Wilhelm Stienitz is not. There's a difference between battering elite professionals who've trained all their life and between being the guy who owned everything by discovering the basics. Dick Fosbury isn't the greatest high jumper ever, even though he beat superior athletes with the technique he invented. Grace was a great man and a pioneer, so was Bradman and so was Sobers but it's just orders of magnitude tougher to be ahead of everyone else in a professional environment in a mature game than it was in 1885 when being professional was an insult.

I agree with you as far as you have gone in this post.

Where we disagree is on the period from the Golden Age (1890) onwards. The dawn of the Golden Age in 1890 being when players started to play 15+ First Class matches per season.

Because those cricketers were in my opinion MORE professional and better prepared for Test cricket than the players of today.

Let's look at David Warner. He is soon to be 29 years old. He has 12 centuries and a Test average of 47.29 after 37 Tests. So far, so good.

But he has only ever played 55 First Class matches in his entire life. He has only ever scored 5 First Class centuries outside the Test arena. At the age of almost 29, in other words, he has 17 First Class centuries in 55 First Class matches. And it is in First Class cricket that you learn to play against slip cordons and on deteriorating pitches against spin bowlers.

Which, of course, is why Dave Warner has lost 6 consecutive away Tests to India and Pakistan. He is not a hardened professional, superior to those of earlier generations. He is a gifted novice.

Compare with, for example, Gordon Greenidge of the West Indies. Every season apart from international cricket he played:

15 x First Class matches for Hampshire, against the world's best bowlers like Bishan Bedi, Richard Hadlee, Imran Khan, Joel Garner et al.

6 x First Class matches for Barbados against the likes of Andy Roberts, Colin Croft, Michael Holding et al.

3-6 x 60 over Gillette Cup matches for Hampshire

3-6 x 55 over Benson and Hedges Cup matches for Hampshire

15 x 40 over John Player League matches for Hampshire.

3-6 x 50 over Inter-island matches for Barbados.

It is absurd to say that Dave Warner is a more professional, more highly skilled batsman than Gordon Greenidge was. He basically plays a fraction of the top class cricket that Gordon Greenidge did, and at the age of almost 29 has less experience at First Class level than Greenidge would have had when he was 5 years his junior.
 
Just to build on my earlier post:

Gordon Greenidge retired with a record of:
523 First Class matches, 92 First Class centuries, First Class average of 45.88
440 List A matches
(This does not include the matches he played for Kerry Packer)

Dave Warner, whose career is roughly half-over, has a record of:
55 First Class matches, 17 First Class centuries, First Class average of 49.75
107 List A matches

You could make an argument that Warner has a comparable Test record - although he averages 23 in England, 24 in India and 27 in the West Indies and basically has compiled most of his runs in the familiar conditions of Australia and South Africa.

But [MENTION=135134]CricketAnalyst[/MENTION]'s theory is that modern cricketers are "more professional" than those of yesteryear. And I'm arguing that they are basically groomed to be Flat Track Bullies by their total lack of First Class experience.

And the reason why geriatrics like Mike Hussey, Misbah-ul-Haq, Younis Khan, Adam Voges, Adam Lyth and Chris Rogers thrive is because unlike Ahmed Shehzad or the much more gifted Dave Warner they have played enough First Class cricket to optimise their potential.
 
Just to build on my earlier post:

Gordon Greenidge retired with a record of:
523 First Class matches, 92 First Class centuries, First Class average of 45.88
440 List A matches
(This does not include the matches he played for Kerry Packer)

Dave Warner, whose career is roughly half-over, has a record of:
55 First Class matches, 17 First Class centuries, First Class average of 49.75
107 List A matches

You could make an argument that Warner has a comparable Test record - although he averages 23 in England, 24 in India and 27 in the West Indies and basically has compiled most of his runs in the familiar conditions of Australia and South Africa.

But [MENTION=135134]CricketAnalyst[/MENTION]'s theory is that modern cricketers are "more professional" than those of yesteryear. And I'm arguing that they are basically groomed to be Flat Track Bullies by their total lack of First Class experience.

And the reason why geriatrics like Mike Hussey, Misbah-ul-Haq, Younis Khan, Adam Voges, Adam Lyth and Chris Rogers thrive is because unlike Ahmed Shehzad or the much more gifted Dave Warner they have played enough First Class cricket to optimise their potential.

The defination of professional is -

professional
prəˈfɛʃ(ə)n(ə)l/Submit
adjective
1.
relating to or belonging to a profession.
"young professional people"
synonyms: white-collar, executive, non-manual
"people in professional occupations"
2.
engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation rather than as an amateur.
"a professional boxer"
synonyms: paid, salaried, non-amateur, full-time
"a professional tennis player"

https://www.google.co.in/search?newwindow=1&q=professional+meaning&oq=professional+meaning&gs_l=serp.3..0i7i30l3j0j0i7i30l6.686679.689489.0.690819.12.10.0.0.0.2.443.1782.2-1j3j1.5.0.ckpsrh...0...1.1.64.serp..9.3.961.R2iXkcpe3tQ

According to defination, yes warner is professional. There is nowhere written that if you play a lot of FC matches, you are more professional.

Again it is comical how you left the stats of warner against southAfrica, who agruably have the greatest bowling attack at the moment. warner helped australia to win series in SouthAfrica. warner also scored a hundred against Pakistan in Dubai. Now how many centuries sir micheal clarke scored in that series against pakistan, being the captain,as well as having more FC experience.

How many english batsman scored centuries against pakistan in 2013 test series in UAE, despite having much more fast class experience than warner?

unfortunately, what you are stating here is just plethora of rubbish!
 
The defination of professional is -



https://www.google.co.in/search?newwindow=1&q=professional+meaning&oq=professional+meaning&gs_l=serp.3..0i7i30l3j0j0i7i30l6.686679.689489.0.690819.12.10.0.0.0.2.443.1782.2-1j3j1.5.0.ckpsrh...0...1.1.64.serp..9.3.961.R2iXkcpe3tQ

According to defination, yes warner is professional. There is nowhere written that if you play a lot of FC matches, you are more professional.

Again it is comical how you left the stats of warner against southAfrica, who agruably have the greatest bowling attack at the moment. warner helped australia to win series in SouthAfrica. warner also scored a hundred against Pakistan in Dubai. Now how many centuries sir micheal clarke scored in that series against pakistan, being the captain,as well as having more FC experience.

How many english batsman scored centuries against pakistan in 2013 test series in UAE, despite having much more fast class experience than warner?

unfortunately, what you are stating here is just plethora of rubbish!
With respect, you are missing my point.

I am rebutting [MENTION=135134]CricketAnalyst[/MENTION]'s comments that modern cricketers are more professional than their predecessors.

If you take a narrow definition of "professional" then the argument is already over, because until the early 1960's English cricket was actual defined by its "gentlemen (amateurs) versus players (professionals) divide.

I applaud Dave Warner as a super little batsman, probably with more God-given talent than any other in the world. But my point is that he has such a tiny range of First Class experience that he thrives in Australia and in the identical conditions in South Africa, but that he averages less than 30 away to England, India and the West Indies.

And that is precisely because he hasn't played enough cricket yet in those conditions to master them. Compared with the openers of 20, 30, 40 and 50 years ago, he has minimal actual experience of First Class cricket in unfamiliar conditions. And he will probably improve in those alien conditions as he becomes more experienced in them.

I don't dispute Warner's talent - that is not being debated here.

What I dispute is that having played 55 First Class matches by the age of 29 in some way makes somebody "more professional" than his predecessors of yesteryear who had typically played around 150.

If anything, it is the modern players who are less professional, given that

1) they play much less First Class cricket - which has that title for a reason, because it's where you need to master protecting your wicket - and

2) they jump into Test series after 0 First Class side matches instead of 2-6 like their predecessors.
 
Fallacious arguments

This is an excellent general assessment of what greatness...

That's why Magnus Carlsen is the greatest chess player ever and Wilhelm Stienitz is not.

1. Greatness is determined by one's accomplishments, not whether someone nearly as great was alive at the same time or not.

2. Don't crown Carlsen as the greatest player ever, he still has a way to go before being in the same league as Kasparov who was rated #1 for 225 out of 228 months. And Kasparov's greatness is not invalidated by the fact that his record with Karpov is nearly equal +28-21=129 and with Kramnik is negative +4−5=40.
 
The defination of professional is -



https://www.google.co.in/search?newwindow=1&q=professional+meaning&oq=professional+meaning&gs_l=serp.3..0i7i30l3j0j0i7i30l6.686679.689489.0.690819.12.10.0.0.0.2.443.1782.2-1j3j1.5.0.ckpsrh...0...1.1.64.serp..9.3.961.R2iXkcpe3tQ

According to defination, yes warner is professional. There is nowhere written that if you play a lot of FC matches, you are more professional.

Again it is comical how you left the stats of warner against southAfrica, who agruably have the greatest bowling attack at the moment. warner helped australia to win series in SouthAfrica. warner also scored a hundred against Pakistan in Dubai. Now how many centuries sir micheal clarke scored in that series against pakistan, being the captain,as well as having more FC experience.

How many english batsman scored centuries against pakistan in 2013 test series in UAE, despite having much more fast class experience than warner?

unfortunately, what you are stating here is just plethora of rubbish!

Completely agree with you. Dont understand why FC experience and records has to count above everything else a guy has achieved in his international career. Playing FC is good, but consistently playing and excelling in foreign conditions is far more important than playing in any domestic games.

Cricket has greatly evolved over the years. IMO, we cannot compare old-world players like WG Grace who played in only two countries (England and Australia) and without facing the complexities of cricket in the subcontinent, with modern day greats like Richards, Tendulkar, Sobers, Lara etc who have consistently performed all over the world against masters of different kinds of bowling. By the same standards, it is also wrong to compare players like modern players to Bradman and his ilk who thrived in different kind of environment (no helmets, et all).

Hate these 'greatest ever' threads!!!
 
With respect, you are missing my point.

I am rebutting [MENTION=135134]CricketAnalyst[/MENTION]'s comments that modern cricketers are more professional than their predecessors.

If you take a narrow definition of "professional" then the argument is already over, because until the early 1960's English cricket was actual defined by its "gentlemen (amateurs) versus players (professionals) divide.

I applaud Dave Warner as a super little batsman, probably with more God-given talent than any other in the world. But my point is that he has such a tiny range of First Class experience that he thrives in Australia and in the identical conditions in South Africa, but that he averages less than 30 away to England, India and the West Indies.

And that is precisely because he hasn't played enough cricket yet in those conditions to master them. Compared with the openers of 20, 30, 40 and 50 years ago, he has minimal actual experience of First Class cricket in unfamiliar conditions. And he will probably improve in those alien conditions as he becomes more experienced in them.

I don't dispute Warner's talent - that is not being debated here.

What I dispute is that having played 55 First Class matches by the age of 29 in some way makes somebody "more professional" than his predecessors of yesteryear who had typically played around 150.

If anything, it is the modern players who are less professional, given that

1) they play much less First Class cricket - which has that title for a reason, because it's where you need to master protecting your wicket - and

2) they jump into Test series after 0 First Class side matches instead of 2-6 like their predecessors.

With due respect to what you have said, you must acknowledge the fact the quality of FC matches has degraded a lot than what they use to be two to three decades ago.

And you are generalizing every FC matches as county championships. You dont see variety of bowlers coming from all part of the world to play a FC championship as it is in the case county. so not all FC championship hold the same quality. What warner will gain extra by playing FC matches in Australia? since he has problems against spinners and not pacers. And you normally dont see turners, in shield matches in Australia.

Even county championship had lost his lustre, since most players are now busy playing IPL. So what warner will gain playing in county, a tournament which is bereft of ace cricketers, and hence every good performance there will be considered as 'facile'
 
With due respect to what you have said, you must acknowledge the fact the quality of FC matches has degraded a lot than what they use to be two to three decades ago.

And you are generalizing every FC matches as county championships. You dont see variety of bowlers coming from all part of the world to play a FC championship as it is in the case county. so not all FC championship hold the same quality. What warner will gain extra by playing FC matches in Australia? since he has problems against spinners and not pacers. And you normally dont see turners, in shield matches in Australia.

Even county championship had lost his lustre, since most players are now busy playing IPL. So what warner will gain playing in county, a tournament which is bereft of ace cricketers, and hence every good performance there will be considered as 'facile'

Good point, but I think that the County Championship is a much broader (not higher quality) finishing school than domestic Australian cricket because of the range of surfaces and because a batsman has to play against players like Saeed Ajmal, Monty Panesar, Jeetan Patel et al.

Dave Warner goes to India for the EPL every Easter, but really never learns how to build an innings in Asian conditions. I don't think that Australia should have lost to Pakistan's fourth string attack of the-then novice Yasir Shah and the geriatric no-spin-at-all Zulfiqar Babar but they did, because Warner could not stay at the crease long enough to score the massive centuries that Younis Khan and Azhar Ali could and did score.

I don't blindly say that "yesteryear's cricketers were better than modern ones". From the last 20 years I'd place Tendulkar, Dravid, Lara, Ponting, Kallis, Sangakkara, Gilchrist, Warne, Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Ambrose, Steyn, McGrath and probably others in the ATG list, which is a massive haul of modern greats.

But I don't blindly say that today's players are more professional or better prepared. Because compared with the greats of the era of West Indian dominance, they have a fraction of the preparation and grounding and experience at First Class level. They are less well prepared, not better prepared.
 
This is an excellent general assessment of what greatness is, but it's worth noting that doing this is easy in an amateurish era and nigh impossible in a professional era.

That's why Magnus Carlsen is the greatest chess player ever and Wilhelm Stienitz is not. There's a difference between battering elite professionals who've trained all their life and between being the guy who owned everything by discovering the basics. Dick Fosbury isn't the greatest high jumper ever, even though he beat superior athletes with the technique he invented. Grace was a great man and a pioneer, so was Bradman and so was Sobers but it's just orders of magnitude tougher to be ahead of everyone else in a professional environment in a mature game than it was in 1885 when being professional was an insult.

Interesting point but even Bradman faced professional bowlers. Larwood, Voce and Bowes were professionals, though Allen was not (which is why he could refuse to bowl Bodyline and get away with it).
 
1. Greatness is determined by one's accomplishments, not whether someone nearly as great was alive at the same time or not.

2. Don't crown Carlsen as the greatest player ever, he still has a way to go before being in the same league as Kasparov who was rated #1 for 225 out of 228 months. And Kasparov's greatness is not invalidated by the fact that his record with Karpov is nearly equal +28-21=129 and with Kramnik is negative +4−5=40.

Carlsen is playing in an age which is as tough if not tougher than Kasparov's age and nobody is even close to him; his ratings are stratospheric and he has no difficulty whatsoever against elite opposition. The only metric provided me is an age-based metric (been #1 for x amount of months) which by definition a young man can't have achieved yet. Carlsen is the real deal. He was strong enough to tell Kasparov to take a hike when the latter was training him and didn't agree with his approach. He is the only guy who has a radically different approach to chess than his peers and that approach is based on superior understanding in a highly computerized era where the trend is opposite.
 
Should I be embarrassed that I've never heard of this Carlsen fellow?
 
Should I be embarrassed that I've never heard of this Carlsen fellow?

Of course not. He's the World Champion at Chess, but there's no shame in not following that. He is quite an incredible individual and an object lesson in excellence, but nope, no shame in not knowing him.
 
Carlsen is playing in an age which is as tough if not tougher than Kasparov's age and nobody is even close to him; his ratings are stratospheric and he has no difficulty whatsoever against elite opposition. The only metric provided me is an age-based metric (been #1 for x amount of months) which by definition a young man can't have achieved yet. Carlsen is the real deal. He was strong enough to tell Kasparov to take a hike when the latter was training him and didn't agree with his approach. He is the only guy who has a radically different approach to chess than his peers and that approach is based on superior understanding in a highly computerized era where the trend is opposite.

Actually the strongest tournament performance in the last couple of years isn't even Carlsen's, it is Caruana at the Sinquefield.

There is not enough evidence to say that "an age which is as tough if not tougher than Kasparov's age". Kasparov had to deal with Anand, Karpov, Kramnik and Topalov at their peaks, not the past their prime versions you see now. It is quite likely that any of these players would have beaten Carlsen in a match. Even a 45 year old Anand was losing only 2-1 to Carlsen before he took risks in the last game.

Look up "ratings inflation".

Carlsen may one day be justifiably be regarded as the greatest ever, but he hasn't done enough yet to be called that.
 
Actually the strongest tournament performance in the last couple of years isn't even Carlsen's, it is Caruana at the Sinquefield.

There is not enough evidence to say that "an age which is as tough if not tougher than Kasparov's age". Kasparov had to deal with Anand, Karpov, Kramnik and Topalov at their peaks, not the past their prime versions you see now. It is quite likely that any of these players would have beaten Carlsen in a match. Even a 45 year old Anand was losing only 2-1 to Carlsen before he took risks in the last game.

Look up "ratings inflation".

Carlsen may one day be justifiably be regarded as the greatest ever, but he hasn't done enough yet to be called that.

Please bro. I know what ratings inflation is. I also know Computer analysis definitively proves that modern chess players are stronger than guys from the past (starting the analysis of games from after the opening phase). It's not all ratings inflation; instruction techniques, practices, general industry understanding of standard positions have all improved massively. When Anand started out, Indian players (including him) did not know basics. I am not exaggerating; players outside Soviet Union just did not have full chess education and trainers weren't aware of hundreds of principles and ideas that were very well known there. All that has changed and standards are better.

I don't think single tournament performances are a good metric for great players. One of the greatest tournament performances of all time was Zsofia Polgar (NOT Judit, her more famous sister who actually was an elite player). This girl quit chess after a while and was never in the top 50 of the world. She had a 2735 performance rating IN 1990 at Rome at the age of 14 scoring 8.5/9. That performance was way beyond Tendulkar in Pakistan at age 15 without any exaggeration. Outlier performances are not how you measure playing strength.

Carlsen is +3 against Caruana over their careers with around 10 draws I think, so that's a pretty clear dominance over his nearest rival.
 
One of my favourite things to point out about WG Grace.

WG Grace in 1871. It's a true oldie, but hear me out here if you have some patience.

In the whole 1871 season, there were a total of 17 centuries scored by all players of all teams. Grace alone scored 10 of them. No other batsman scored more than one hundred in the whole season.

He averaged 78 and scored 2739 runs. The second best average was 37. And the second highest scorer had 1068; less than half of Grace's run tally.

DXJi8RJ.png


If all this wasn't enough, Grace was the 5th highest wicket taker. He took 79 wickets at an average of 17.02

lnEkBBN.png
 
Wth is with people's weird obsession with stats? They will worship Bradman sobers this guy and many others who they've never watched just by judging by stats.

Players like Ponting, Viv, Tendulkar are players that should be rated more.

The thing is these two are head and shoulder above their peers.. Do I think Bradman would average the same if he was playing today? Heck no! I don't think he would average in 90s or 80s or even 70s for that matter. Same thing with Sobers.. Besides Barrington, none of his peers who played that many matches were close to him average wise.. However no one rates Barrington due to his tedious batting.. Sobers was an entertainer who introduced aggression to the modern game..

You can only compare players with their contemporaries and that's why these two are rated so highly..
 
Last edited:
The thing is these two are head and shoulder above their peers.. Do I think Bradman would average the same if he was playing today? Heck no! I don't think he would average in 90s or 80s or even 70s for that matter. Same thing with Sobers.. Besides Barrington, none of his peers who played that many matches were close to him average wise.. However no one rates Barrington due to his tedious batting.. Sobers was an entertainer who introduced aggression to the modern game..

You can only compare players with their contemporaries and that's why these two are rated so highly..
I'm no fan of Bradman, but given that we now have flat covered wickets, helmets, leg side fielding restrictions and the weakest bowling standards since the 1920's I suppose that he would average well over 150 in modern Test cricket.
 
I'm no fan of Bradman, but given that we now have flat covered wickets, helmets, leg side fielding restrictions and the weakest bowling standards since the 1920's I suppose that he would average well over 150 in modern Test cricket.
I think he'd struggle against the modern legal spinner.
 
Bill O'Reilly and Clarrie Grimmett just might have been a teenie weenie bit better as spinners than Duminy, Moeen, Lyon and Craig......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I think he'd struggle against the modern legal spinner.

On today's flat decks? I doubt it. He played on a lot of bunsens. As [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] said he faced Grimmett and O'Reilly who were in the same class as Warne, I believe. They could spin it on glass. Then guys like Verity who were not far short.
 
On today's flat decks? I doubt it. He played on a lot of bunsens. As [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] said he faced Grimmett and O'Reilly who were in the same class as Warne, I believe. They could spin it on glass. Then guys like Verity who were not far short.
True, i see.
 
When Sachin and Warne met Don, they asked him, how much he think he would have averaged in modern day game.

He said in 70's.

They were surprised and asked if he is serious.

He said yes, 70 is not a bad average for a 90 year old. :yk
 
When Sachin and Warne met Don, they asked him, how much he think he would have averaged in modern day game.

He said in 70's.

They were surprised and asked if he is serious.

He said yes, 70 is not a bad average for a 90 year old. :yk

Haha yeah I love that story.
 
One area is that the outfielding is far better than in Sir Donald's day. They would let the ball run for four, rather than haring around the boundary and diving to turn a four into a three.
 
One area is that the outfielding is far better than in Sir Donald's day. They would let the ball run for four, rather than haring around the boundary and diving to turn a four into a three.

All of it balances out across eras though. For all the advantages an era brings, there are usually disadvantages which tip the scales back level.

There's a reason all great batsmen across history average roughly 50-60. Well, all except one.
 
All of it balances out across eras though. For all the advantages an era brings, there are usually disadvantages which tip the scales back level.

There's a reason all great batsmen across history average roughly 50-60. Well, all except one.

Three.

Barry Richards averaged 72 in Tests and 79 in SuperTests.

And Graeme Pollock averaged 60.97 in a 7 year Test career before South Africa was thrown out of cricket.
 
I'm no fan of Bradman, but given that we now have flat covered wickets, helmets, leg side fielding restrictions and the weakest bowling standards since the 1920's I suppose that he would average well over 150 in modern Test cricket.

150 ? i thought you would say 350 .
 
Three.

Barry Richards averaged 72 in Tests and 79 in SuperTests.

And Graeme Pollock averaged 60.97 in a 7 year Test career before South Africa was thrown out of cricket.

Yes, they averaged that for a grand total of 4 and 23 tests respectively. Had the sample size been larger, I'm sure that they averages would have gone down to that of most great batsman (in the 50-60 range). In any case that is much more likely than expecting them to hold that average throughout their entire career.

Even though Pollock played for 7 years, he played only 23 tests through those years. That obviously gave him a lot of time to rest in between test matches as well. And just because his average was consistent through the 7 years doesn't mean much, since generally there isn't much loss in the ability of a batsman within the first few years of their career.
 
Last edited:
Yes, they averaged that for a grand total of 4 and 23 tests respectively. Had the sample size been larger, I'm sure that they averages would have gone down to that of most great batsman (in the 50-60 range). In any case that is much more likely than expecting them to hold that average throughout their entire career.

Even though Pollock played for 7 years, he played only 23 tests through those years. That obviously gave him a lot of time to rest in between test matches as well.

Nope, not at all.

Barry Richards played 4 Tests in 1970 in which he averaged 72 followed by SuperTests fully 7 and 8 years later in which his average was even higher.

And he never got to play the minnows of the day - India and New Zealand and England.

I think it's pretty obvious that he was the next best batsman after Bradman, and those of us who watched him pulverise international bowlers - including spinners - in domestic cricket in Australia and England are well aware of his status.
 
roughly

George Headley too

Yes, you're quite right. I included Barry Richards and then thought it only fair to include Pollock too.

Your comment about greats averaging 50-60 is under threat from the current devaluation caused by inflated scores. I see that Steve Smith now has a much higher average than Tendulkar, which is ludicrous. And it is damaging the bowlers - I gather that Trent Boult may well have a stress fracture of the spine after being overbowled on dead wickets by his skipper.
 
Australians blowing a fuse when you diss Bradman always gets me though. How can one be so attached to somebody they have never seen play?

Have you seen Gandhi ? How about god/gods/goddesses ?
 
Seen YT clips of Barry and his stance looks rather ugly.. When you look at videos of viv, you can tell he was an awesome batsman. But Barry looks just plain ugly. Also, the number of tests Barry, pollock, or even Headley played is too small so their averages don't hold much water. You can argue about FC records but first class is well, first class..
 
Don't buy this rubbish of Bradman averaging the same or anywhere close to 99 in this era.. As I said the only reason for rating him is he was above his peers.. Nothing more, nothing less. So, feel free to remove those rose-tinted glasses.
 
Junaids' posts are all over the place. One can't tell what he's trying to argue.

Anyway on op, the greatest cricketers would be Imran or Sobers.

The most influential would be any of the three: Tendulkar, Imran, Wasim.
 
Back
Top