W.G. versus The Don

[neville cardus]

How? Well, y'know... write email... send email... I presume you've an address you can do such a thing from, naturally?

Aye, but I don't have yours.

 

[nightprowler10]

Bradman would seem to be the obvious choice, and one I will vote for, but anyone who says that Bradman was undoubtedly the greater by a country mile would happen to have very little knowledge of cricket's history and/or W.G.

 

[Sanz]

What could possibly make you think that, given that his life and legacy are still both celebrated 160 years after his birth, I have no idea.

Assuming that Cricket Commentry and cricket articles are the most popular and easiest way to learn about the legacy of our cricket greats, How many times do we hear commentators talk about Sir WG or for that matter how many commentators/writers today know anything about him ?

IMO Sir Don Bradman's legacy is going to be there forever mainly because of his outstanding record as a batsman, unfortunately same can not be said about Sir WG Grace.

All IMO ofcourse.

 

[Richard]

Aye, but I don't have yours.

Oh right. Sorry, you mentioned you'd email me a little while ago so I presumed you did. My email is easily accessible via any piece written by me, such as this one.

 

[neville cardus]

Assuming that Cricket Commentry and cricket articles are the most popular and easiest way to learn about the legacy of our cricket greats, How many times do we hear commentators talk about Sir WG or for that matter how many commentators/writers today know anything about him ?
IMO Sir Don Bradman's legacy is going to be there forever mainly because of his outstanding record as a batsman, unfortunately same can not be said about Sir WG Grace.
All IMO ofcourse.

And you have unwittingly done much to support that view by bestowing on Grace a title that was never his. (He came close, though: in 1911, his name, along with those of Fry, Ranji and H.G. Wells, appeared on a list drawn up as part of Asquith's diabolical scheme to crush opposition to the Parliament Act.)

 

[JBH001]

This is one of the easier ones to answer of these types of CW thread.

The Champion wins it, hands down. Not even much of a contest, tbpf.

 

[Ikki]

Instead of "oh, you guys just don't know how much he Grace did", how about some of you write a bit on the man. Give us a better idea. I am not too knowledgeable on him.

 

[Sanz]

Instead of "oh, you guys just don't know how much he Grace did", how about some of you write a bit on the man. Give us a better idea. I am not too knowledgeable on him.

That's the point I was trying to make. Avg. fan doesn't know anything about WG at all unless he makes a conscious effort to read the history of the game.

Even the the likes of us who frequent on various cricket related forums, dont get to read much about WG and just hear in passing about his contribution to the game from those who have spent time reading the Cricket history books.

That's why I feel the legacy of WG will not last long, atleast not as long as Sir Don's.

 

[JBH001]

Hmmm, I put up a little post on him a few months ago outlining his contribution of the art of batting (drawing mainly on a quote from Ranji in "The Jubilee Book of Cricket").

But, tbf, Neville and Archie are probably the best people to give a good description of the effects and the deeds of WG (and even if I could do justice to the subject I am rather busy of late and simply dont have the time).

 

[SJS]

Instead of "oh, you guys just don't know how much he Grace did", how about some of you write a bit on the man. Give us a better idea. I am not too knowledgeable on him.

Thats the best post from anyone who may have voted for Bradman.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I started a thread a couple of years ago as a tribute on what would have been his birthday. I seem to recall SJS ventured the suggestion that not only was he the Father of the Modern Game, he was also the Grandfather of Match fixing.

 

[SJS]

I started a thread a couple of years ago as a tribute on what would have been his birthday. I seem to recall SJS ventured the suggestion that not only was he the Father of the Modern Game, he was also the Grandfather of Match fixing.

It was said in jest.

 

[Son Of Coco]

And also not that hard to speculate that if W.G. was an Aussie, and the Don an Englishmen, you'd say W.G. was far superior, you biased Aussie git.

Well, that and the fact that WG engaged in a spot of cheating from time to time.

 

[neville cardus]

Instead of "oh, you guys just don't know how much he Grace did", how about some of you write a bit on the man. Give us a better idea. I am not too knowledgeable on him.

I am sorely tempted to tell you to sod off and do your own research, but, alas, you do not find me in the most hostile of moods today. Instead, I've gone all generous and scanned the most famous piece ever written on W.G.:

"[T]here is one great landmark that separates the old batting from the new -- the appearance of Dr W.G. Grace in the cricket world. In 1865 W.G. came fully before the public that has admired and loved him ever since. He revolutionised batting. He turned it from an accomplishment into a science. All I know of old-time batting is, of course, gathered from books and older players, but the impression left on my mind is this: Before W.G. batsmen were of two kinds, -- a batsman played a forward game or he played a back game. Each player, too, seems to have made a speciality of some particular stroke. The criterion of style was, as it were, a certain mixed method of play. It was bad cricket to hit a straight ball; as for pulling a slow long-hop, it was regarded as immoral. What W.G. did was to unite in his mighty self all the good points of all the good players, and to make utility the criterion of style. He founded the modern theory of batting by making forward- and back-play of equal importance, relying neither on the one nor on the other, but on both. Any cricketer who thinks for a moment can see the enormous change W.G. introduced into the game. I hold him to be, not only the finest player born or unborn, but the maker of modern batting. He turned the old one-stringed instrument into a many-chorded lyre. And, in addition, he made his execution equal his invention. All of us now have the instrument, but we lack his execution. It is not that we do not know, but that we cannot perform. Before W.G. batsmen did not know what could be made of batting. The development of bowling has been natural and gradual; each great bowler has added his quota. W.G. discovered batting; he turned its many narrow straight channels into one great winding river. Any one who reads his book will understand this. Those who nowadays try to follow in his footsteps may or may not get within measurable distance of him, but it was he who pioneered and made the road. Where a great man has led many can go afterwards, but the honour is his who found and cut the path. The theory of modern batting is in all essentials the result of W.G.'s thinking and working on the game." -- Ranji: The Jubilee Book of Cricket, pp. 375-6

 

[neville cardus]

That's the point I was trying to make. Avg. fan doesn't know anything about WG at all unless he makes a conscious effort to read the history of the game.
Even the the likes of us who frequent on various cricket related forums, dont get to read much about WG and just hear in passing about his contribution to the game from those who have spent time reading the Cricket history books.

Hmm ... and where did you read about the Don?

 

[neville cardus]

Well, that and the fact that WG engaged in a spot of cheating from time to time.

Cheat? No sir. Don't you ever believe it: he were too clever for that.

 

[archie mac]

Hmmm, I put up a little post on him a few months ago outlining his contribution of the art of batting (drawing mainly on a quote from Ranji in "The Jubilee Book of Cricket").

But, tbf, Neville and Archie are probably the best people to give a good description of the effects and the deeds of WG (and even if I could do justice to the subject I am rather busy of late and simply dont have the time).

I will give it a quick go

I have read 5 full length bios of WG so I hope I can part a little of what I know of the Grand Old Man

The thing that I find most up setting is that so many people only think of WG has a fat cheating old man, with a very stiff stance and a bushranger beard. In fact as a young man he was a fine athlete winning a number of trophies for hurdle races, (once in 1866 winning the 440 yards hurtles at the first national Olympian Association, this after scoring 244* for England against Surrey on the previous two days), and during the visit of the Aboriginal team in 1868, a young WG (20) can be found competing in the longest throw competition. In early photographs of WG up to his mid to late 20s he has the perfect physique of an athlete.

Batting

Ranji once said that WG “he turned an old one stringed instrument into a many chorded lyre” It was thought before Grace that players were either of one type or other, that is they played a back game or a forward game. WG was the first to combine both styles, and this is the reason he is known as the ‘Father of Modern Batsmanship’

Records (I could give hundreds but here are a few)

If there is a record to be broken by the modern batsman there is an extremely good chance that WG once held the record here are a few that he established:

Only player to hold a catch off his first ball as a wicket keeper

Ended his career at the age of 50 and remains the oldest man to ever captain England

Exceeded 1000 runs in a season 28 times

First to claim 100 wckts and score 1000 runs in a season

First to score 2000 runs in a season

First to score 100 FC centuries

First to score 1000 runs in the month of May

Carried his bat on a record 17 occasions

Scored 126 out of 159 the highest proportion ever in a FC match (79.2%)

And at the age of 51-60 he still managed to score 26 tons in minor matches

Legend (outside a ground ‘Entry sixpence if WG plays Entry a shilling”)

WG was so far in front of his contemporaries, when he was averaging in the 60s the next best batsman were averaging in the mid 20s, and the last word to WG on what was his greatest innings: “Well they all fielded, and they hadn’t cut the grass’. This was the time he scored 400* against 22 of Grimsby, all scored in a day


I could write more, but people might start to nod off

 

[archie mac]

I am sorely tempted to tell you to sod off and do your own research, but, alas, you do not find me in the most hostile of moods today. Instead, I've gone all generous and scanned the most famous piece ever written on W.G.:

"[T]here is one great landmark that separates the old batting from the new -- the appearance of Dr W.G. Grace in the cricket world. In 1865 W.G. came fully before the public that has admired and loved him ever since. He revolutionised batting. He turned it from an accomplishment into a science. All I know of old-time batting is, of course, gathered from books and older players, but the impression left on my mind is this: Before W.G. batsmen were of two kinds, -- a batsman played a forward game or he played a back game. Each player, too, seems to have made a speciality of some particular stroke. The criterion of style was, as it were, a certain mixed method of play. It was bad cricket to hit a straight ball; as for pulling a slow long-hop, it was regarded as immoral. What W.G. did was to unite in his mighty self all the good points of all the good players, and to make utility the criterion of style. He founded the modern theory of batting by making forward- and back-play of equal importance, relying neither on the one nor on the other, but on both. Any cricketer who thinks for a moment can see the enormous change W.G. introduced into the game. I hold him to be, not only the finest player born or unborn, but the maker of modern batting. He turned the old one-stringed instrument into a many-chorded lyre. And, in addition, he made his execution equal his invention. All of us now have the instrument, but we lack his execution. It is not that we do not know, but that we cannot perform. Before W.G. batsmen did not know what could be made of batting. The development of bowling has been natural and gradual; each great bowler has added his quota. W.G. discovered batting; he turned its many narrow straight channels into one great winding river. Any one who reads his book will understand this. Those who nowadays try to follow in his footsteps may or may not get within measurable distance of him, but it was he who pioneered and made the road. Where a great man has led many can go afterwards, but the honour is his who found and cut the path. The theory of modern batting is in all essentials the result of W.G.'s thinking and working on the game." -- Ranji: The Jubilee Book of Cricket, pp. 375-6

Makes my effort look like that of a school boy But then CB was a great writer

 

[archie mac]

Cheat? No sir. Don't you ever believe it: he were too clever for that.

One of my favourites

 

[neville cardus]

I will give it a quick go
I have read 5 full length bios of WG so I hope I can part a little of what I know of the Grand Old Man

Damnation! I've only managed two.

The thing that I find most up setting is that so many people only think of WG has a fat cheating old man, with a very stiff stance and a bushranger beard.

I should get out that photo of his cover-drive again.

In fact as a young man he was a fine athlete winning a number of trophies for hurdle races, (once in 1866 winning the 440 yards hurtles at the first national Olympian Association, this after scoring 244* for England against Surrey on the previous two days), and during the visit of the Aboriginal team in 1868, a young WG (20) can be found competing in the longest throw competition.

118 yards, he sent it.

In early photographs of WG up to his mid to late 20s he has the perfect physique of an athlete.

Unfortunately, such photos are very rare, but I'll have a look 'round.

Batting
Ranji once said that WG “he turned an old one stringed instrument into a many chorded lyre” It was thought before Grace that players were either of one type or other, that is they played a back game or a forward game.

I do not believe that it was quite so bad as that. E.M., for example, could both drive and pull to astonishing effect.

WG was the first to combine both styles, and this is the reason he is known as the ‘Father of Modern Batsmanship’

Fry coined that one, no?

Records (I could give hundreds but here are a few)
If there is a record to be broken by the modern batsman there is an extremely good chance that WG once held the record here are a few that he established:
Only player to hold a catch off his first ball as a wicket keeper

Admittedly, though, he caught it in his beard.

Ended his career at the age of 50 and remains the oldest man to ever captain England

He would have gone on for longer had not fielding become such a mission.

First to score 1000 runs in the month of May

And that at an age when most would have been put out to pasture.

Carried his bat on a record 17 occasions
Scored 126 out of 159 the highest proportion ever in a FC match (79.2%)
And at the age of 51-60 he still managed to score 26 tons in minor matches

And, like Don, he never registered a pair.

Legend (outside a ground ‘Entry sixpence if WG plays Entry a shilling”)
WG was so far in front of his contemporaries, when he was averaging in the 60s the next best batsman were averaging in the mid 20s, and the last word to WG on what was his greatest innings: “Well they all fielded, and they hadn’t cut the grass’. This was the time he scored 400*

[SOFT WHISPER]399*[/SOFT WHISPER]

against 22 of Grimsby

All of whom fielded.

all scored in a day

A romantic notion, but not quite true.