"Greatest Ever" Lists - A Modern Evolution

[fredfertang]

So based on only that, people call him a great. In those days everyone was a cricket amateur apart from Grace who modernised the game, so people should expect him to be much greater than his peers. It's like rating a nothing special international bowler as a great because he is significantly better than all the club cricketers he has played.

I don't know where you get that from - there were lots of professional players in Grace's time

 

[The Sean]

I don't know where you get that from - there were lots of professional players in Grace's time

And the good Doctor's performances against them contributed significantly to his legend.

 

[unam]

So based on only that, people call him a great. In those days everyone was a cricket amateur apart from Grace who modernised the game, so people should expect him to be much greater than his peers. It's like rating a nothing special international bowler as a great because he is significantly better than all the club cricketers he has played.

Agree with that

 

[smash84]

Zaremba in 5...4...3...

 

[smash84]

Our new CW ranking won't differ greatly from those above - again, understandably - but we will have one brand new entrant into the Top 10 who doesn't feature in any previous list. And IMO his entry into such exclusive company is well deserved.

I hope Sean you do understand that the only reason that someone is breaking into our top 10 is that Grace had to be left out a bit unceremoniously because of some people voting for tests only qualification (I'll admit my part in the confusion )

 

[Pothas]

Prince EWS had some sort of stat somewhere not all that long ago that showed quite how outrageous Grace was and that is to totally ignore his wider social and cultural impact which was huge.

 

[ankitj]

John Woodcock's 100 greatest cricketers (07 Jul 1997) | Cricket News | Global | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[smash84]

thanks for posting that Ankit.

Woodcock has Warne at 13 even back in 1997?

 

[kyear2]

why not Murli? and in 2000 his career was only half done, I know he won Australia 99 WC semi final and Final but that doesn't automatically make him top 5 cricketers of the century.

Why not Muali? He thrieved on his made to order pitches at home and his away stats pale in comparrison. Just look at Shane's stats in Sri Lanka to see, also Shane's home conditions are not nearly as helpful to him as Murali's and Warne always had to compete with other great bowlers for wickets while Murali had the run of the place and could hold up an end all day and wipe up the tail. Murali's stats are also greatly boosted by the minnows of his day. Warne could also hold a bat and was a very good slip fielder. He also revieved the lost art of leg spin bolwing. That is why Warne was choosen over Murali.

 

[kyear2]

John Woodcock's 100 greatest cricketers (07 Jul 1997) | Cricket News | Global | ESPN Cricinfo

List is a joke.

 

[Ikki]

why not Murli? and in 2000 his career was only half done, I know he won Australia 99 WC semi final and Final but that doesn't automatically make him top 5 cricketers of the century.

Murali wasn't really Murali till after 2000. And as good as he was, I don't agree that he was as good as Warne. Warne was was also an ATG slip fielder, a brilliant cricket brain and a handy bat when the occasion arose.

Anyway, you can agree or disagree. I am just stating why a lot of people seem to rate Warne so highly - including Murali himself, who regarded Warne as the greatest bowler ever.

 

[zaremba]

I never understand why people rate WG Grace so highly as a cricketer. No one alive has seen him play and his statistics aren't the greatest like Bradman or Sobers.

Some Grace stats:

1. In 1871, 17 centuries were scored in total. Grace scored 10 of them.

2. Over the decade 1871 to 1880, Grace averaged 49 in FC cricket when no-one else managed more than 26. That is a truly Bradmanesque statistical dominance as a batsman.

3. What takes Grace above Bradman is that he was also a front line bowler. Over the same decade, Grace also took 1,174 wickets - only one man took more.

4. Over the course of a FC career lasting 872 matches, Grace averaged well over twice as much with bat than ball.

5. Over his career, Grace took more FC wickets than Warne and Murali combined.

6. Grace took 246 5-wicket hauls and 66 10-wicket hauls.

7. In 1876, he scored 344, the first triple century. Two days later he scored 177 and two days after that 318no.

In his Greatest 100 Cricketers, Geoff Armstrong put it nicely: "These type of figures reflect an extraordinary supremacy. A Test batting average of 99.94 is probably more amazing. Probably."

As for Sobers, I don't really see how he could begin to compete statistically with that.

And while Bradman nor Sobers both had a great influence on the game, neither can begin to match the degree to which Grace developed it.

SJS contributed a typically wonderful thread on Grace including, amongst much else, some photos of a man in his prime who was far more recognisably an athlete than the fat greying middle aged figure that we now tend to think of due to the fact that that's when most of the photos of him were taken.

 

[Lostman]

Why not Muali? He thrieved on his made to order pitches at home and his away stats pale in comparrison. Just look at Shane's stats in Sri Lanka to see, also Shane's home conditions are not nearly as helpful to him as Murali's and Warne always had to compete with other great bowlers for wickets while Murali had the run of the place and could hold up an end all day and wipe up the tail. Murali's stats are also greatly boosted by the minnows of his day. Warne could also hold a bat and was a very good slip fielder. He also revieved the lost art of leg spin bolwing. That is why Warne was choosen over Murali.

Wow managed to run out the all the same old cliches in about 4 sentences.
Bunch of crap but still give points for the effort.

 

[GIMH]

Finally, also in 2009 CricketWeb conducted its first iteration of the CW50. Our top ten was:

1. Don Bradman
2. Garry Sobers
3. WG Grace
4. Shane Warne
5. Jack Hobbs
6. Sachin Tendulkar
7. Imran Khan
8. Viv Richards
9. Malcolm Marshall
10. Richard Hadlee

Um, I'm pretty sure Bradman was ranked 8. Don't try and cover up your sham now.

 

[Howe_zat]

Prince EWS had some sort of stat somewhere not all that long ago that showed quite how outrageous Grace was and that is to totally ignore his wider social and cultural impact which was huge.

is here

I've been having a look at Grace's First Class career with this method.

If you treated the England First Class season (inclusive of all Tests, county games, etc) in the same way I've treated a Test calender year here, Grace's standardised batting average in the 862 matches he played in the English summer would be 72.03. Using the same "value" formula I used here which gave the Don a 12.47 rating, Grace gets a rating of 12.97 for his First Class batting in England.

If that doesn't seem impressive enough, his standardised average dropped off significantly towards the end of his career as he played on well into his late 50s. After 17 years of cricket and 293 matches his standardised average was still sitting pretty at over 102. In his prime - after 10 years of cricket and 143 matches - his standardised average stood at a ridiculous 123.71.

And that's before we even start looking at his bowling - no small matter of 2800 First Class wickets.

 

[Burgey]

why not Murli? and in 2000 his career was only half done, I know he won Australia 99 WC semi final and Final but that doesn't automatically make him top 5 cricketers of the century.

People think he chucked. That doesn't help. Plus, in however many tests against the best team of his career, he never looked like running through them.

But mostly it's his action I think.

 

[Mike5181]

Wow managed to run out the all the same old cliches in about 4 sentences.
Bunch of crap but still give points for the effort.

Murali did play 25 test matches against minnows compared to Warne's 3.

 

[benchmark00]

Murali wasn't really Murali till after 2000. And as good as he was, I don't agree that he was as good as Warne. Warne was was also an ATG slip fielder,

Myth #1982 about Shane Warne.

a brilliant cricket brain and a handy bat when the occasion arose.

Myth #1983 about Shane Warne.

 

[unam]

Murali wasn't really Murali till after 2000. And as good as he was, I don't agree that he was as good as Warne. Warne was was also an ATG slip fielder, a brilliant cricket brain and a handy bat when the occasion arose.

Anyway, you can agree or disagree. I am just stating why a lot of people seem to rate Warne so highly - including Murali himself, who regarded Warne as the greatest bowler ever.

until 2000 Murli wasn't the Murli but after that he was as good as Warne if not better. can't say anything about other factors (ATG slip fielder and Brilliant cricket brain).

The reason people rate Warne higher than Murli is because of media and he was better to watch than Murli.

BUT THE QUESTIONS IS ]what did he do up until 2000 that he was chosen as one of the cricketers of the century?

 

[unam]

People think he chucked. That doesn't help. Plus, in however many tests against the best team of his career, he never looked like running through them.

But mostly it's his action I think.

This could be another factor.