"Greatest Ever" Lists - A Modern Evolution

[wellAlbidarned]

So it's all a conspiracy. Clears things up.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

But the statistical model for Grace wouldn't be as accurate as that for modern cricketers, with many more factors coming into play. And I have also mentioned the societal conditions during Grace's time. Players like Tendulkar are given every opportunity to play the game without worrying about providing for their families because they get compensated plenty. Therefore players from poor families with great talent also have the chance. Not as much during Graces time, hence why his figures are not as reliable.

 

[smash84]

But the statistical model for Grace wouldn't be as accurate as that for modern cricketers, with many more factors coming into play. And I have also mentioned the societal conditions during Grace's time. Players like Tendulkar are given every opportunity to play the game without worrying about providing for their families because they get compensated plenty. Therefore players from poor families with great talent also have the chance. Not as much during Graces time, hence why his figures are not as reliable.

 

[smash84]

Do you know Agent that Imran's figures are not reliable because Imran was from the privileged class of Mianwali and while his domestic servants would be able to bowl significantly quicker than him but they never got the opportunity to play for Pakistan and hence Imran's record cannot be taken seriously

 

[Prince EWS]

How is it flip flopping?

Because you keep contradicting yourself and going around in circles.

AN: His stats aren't the greatest.
Everyone else: *mounts convincing statistical argument for Grace*
AN: Statistics don't represent an accurate picture.
Everyone else: *mounts convincing non-statistical argument for Grace*
AN: His stats aren't the greatest.
Everyone else: *mounts convincing statistical argument for Grace*
AN: Statistics don't represent an accurate picture.
Everyone else: *mounts convincing non-statistical argument for Grace*
AN: His stats aren't the greatest.

etc etc.

 

[benchmark00]

I haven't read through AN's argument for why he doesn't rate Grace as an all time great, but I 100% agree with the fact that we shouldn't be rating him as an all time great cricketer.

Grace dominated his era, that's undisputable, however the cricket he played back then is totally different to the game we see in the last 100 years, it's basically another sport.

I'm of the firm belief that if you bring Sir Braddles up in todays day and age he will still dominate the game because the skills are transferable, however with Grace it is actually impossible to say he would be good, never mind as dominant as he was against his peers because he played a different game against players which were frankly not serious.

I mean he could be an ATG, as much as Usain Bolt could have been an ATG if he played cricket, or Albert Einstein could have been. We have no way of knowing, but when in doubt you tend to say no because the burden has to be on the proving he is an ATG player.

Grace's impact on cricket as a sport is close to unrivaled, however that doesn't make him an all time great cricketer. Grace's aura and persona and standing in the game is what blinds people. He has legendary stories about him, he's almost a fictional character. That's better for the game than an ATG player, but if we're judging on skills, you can't hand on heart have him as one of the best of all time.

 

[Howe_zat]

Not saying I necessarily disagree, but where do you draw the line, Benchmark? When did it change from "practically a different sport" to cricket?

 

[Eds]

It's not/wasn't Grace's job to use a technique that would be successful in the 2000s, though. The primary role of a cricketer is to score as many runs and take as many wickets as possible, and he's been arguably the best of all-time at that, all things considered.

 

[benchmark00]

Not saying I necessarily disagree, but where do you draw the line, Benchmark? When did it change from "practically a different sport" to cricket?

That's a totally different discussion, and I'm not about to put an arbitrary number on it, however I can say that Grace's era definitely falls into the category of 'pre-cricket as we know it' days.

 

[benchmark00]

It's not/wasn't Grace's job to use a technique that would be successful in the 2000s, though. The primary role of a cricketer is to score as many runs and take as many wickets as possible, and he's been arguably the best of all-time at that, all things considered.

This has nothing to do with techniques. You're saying I'm arguing something I'm not.

It's not Alex Rodriquez's job to bat like a cricketer, he still hits alot of home runs. Does this mean we should rate him as an ATG six hitter in cricket? Totally different argument.

 

[Prince EWS]

What makes our cricket more valid than his? You could make the same argument to say that Grace is in fact an all-time great cricketer and someone like Gilchrist isn't because the game had changed to unrecognisable state.

 

[Ruckus]

I haven't read through AN's argument for why he doesn't rate Grace as an all time great, but I 100% agree with the fact that we shouldn't be rating him as an all time great cricketer.

Grace dominated his era, that's undisputable, however the cricket he played back then is totally different to the game we see in the last 100 years, it's basically another sport.

I'm of the firm belief that if you bring Sir Braddles up in todays day and age he will still dominate the game because the skills are transferable, however with Grace it is actually impossible to say he would be good, never mind as dominant as he was against his peers because he played a different game against players which were frankly not serious.

I mean he could be an ATG, as much as Usain Bolt could have been an ATG if he played cricket, or Albert Einstein could have been. We have no way of knowing, but when in doubt you tend to say no because the burden has to be on the proving he is an ATG player.

Grace's impact on cricket as a sport is close to unrivaled, however that doesn't make him an all time great cricketer. Grace's aura and persona and standing in the game is what blinds people. He has legendary stories about him, he's almost a fictional character. That's better for the game than an ATG player, but if we're judging on skills, you can't hand on heart have him as one of the best of all time.

Farkk man was about to post something almost identical. Well said, but there is one small point I disagree on (probably really more to do with semantics), and that's that we shouldn't be rating him as an ATG. As far as I'm concerned the term ATG is a pretty messy concept anyway, especially in the context of giving that label to players from different eras (and compiling XIs etc.). Given that, I would be most certainly rating Grace as an ATG, simply because (as your last paragraph says) of his role in the progression of the sport. It's up in the air imo whether he would make an ATG XI based on what skills/talent he had, but aside from that I think he deserves the title.

 

[benchmark00]

What makes our cricket more valid than his? You could make the same argument to say that Grace is in fact an all-time great cricketer and someone like Gilchrist isn't because the game had changed to unrecognisable state.

Ok and you're free to mount that argument. Have no problem with that. But when we talk about ATG lists it comes with the assumption that we're talking about cricket as we know it, not cricket from Grace's era.

If we change that assumption, I've got no problem with Grace being the only ATG cricketer.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Because you keep contradicting yourself and going around in circles.

AN: His stats aren't the greatest.
Everyone else: *mounts convincing statistical argument for Grace*
AN: Statistics don't represent an accurate picture.
Everyone else: *mounts convincing non-statistical argument for Grace*
AN: His stats aren't the greatest.
Everyone else: *mounts convincing statistical argument for Grace*
AN: Statistics don't represent an accurate picture.
Everyone else: *mounts convincing non-statistical argument for Grace*
AN: His stats aren't the greatest.

etc etc.

What convincing non-statistical argument? There hasn't been one in this whole thread. The only one who came close was Fred with, "commentaries on Grace being great to watch". But people who wrote those died a long time ago.

 

[Mike5181]

What makes our cricket more valid than his?

I remember going through a heap of old cricket footage to see what it was like back then.

Arthur Mold Bowling to A.N. Hornby (1901) - YouTube

Their accomplishments in the game at the time are what make them All Time Greats. That being said if you were selecting a list of the best cricketers of all time then really most of these guys bar the extraodinary players like the Bradman's etc should miss out.

I can't imagine a Dale Steyn or a Shane Bond playing in those days.

 

[fredfertang]

That's a totally different discussion, and I'm not about to put an arbitrary number on it, however I can say that Grace's era definitely falls into the category of 'pre-cricket as we know it' days.

What has changed so fundamentally? I appreciate they still had lob and roundarm bowlers in Grace's time, but since overarm bowling was legalised in 1864 the way in which the game is played hasn't essentially altered has it?

 

[benchmark00]

Would like to hear Brumby's thoughts on Mold's action in that video.

 

[smash84]

Would like to hear Brumby's thoughts on Mold's action in that video.

 

[benchmark00]

What has changed so fundamentally? I appreciate they still had lob and roundarm bowlers in Grace's time, but since overarm bowling was legalised in 1864 the way in which the game is played hasn't essentially altered has it?

The rules etc are not that far from what we've seen in the last 30 years, but along with the style of cricket that was played, as you mention lob and sidearm, the game was so undeveloped it's impossible to know if Grace's skills would be transferable.

Take twenty years of evolution of the game from the video Mike just posted and you'll get an idea of how the game would have been, and given that sports in general evolve the quickest in their early stages, that's a big gulf even from that video (which demonstrates how lax the skill set was) and what it would have been in Grace's early career.

As I said, it's possible Grace would have been an all time great if he grew up in a more modern era, but it's a total guess, and there's really no practical evidence that he would have been.

 

[Ruckus]

What makes our cricket more valid than his? You could make the same argument to say that Grace is in fact an all-time great cricketer and someone like Gilchrist isn't because the game had changed to unrecognisable state.

I don't understand, do people here actually believe the game hasn't actually improved at all (at some absolute level), but it is merely different, between, say, Grace's era and the modern one?

If so, I find that utterly ridiculous. Sure, there would be aspects of the game back then that required slightly different technical approaches/mindsets (e.g. batting on uncovered wickets), but overall it's still the same game, with the same basic principles. Something like modern batting technique isn't just the result of adaptation to the modern game, it is a result of hundreds of years of fine tuning aimed at improving batting skills no matter what the conditions are (basic things like keeping your bat and pad close together defensively). I would be very confident, given the footage I have seen, that any capable modern batsman (after perhaps some intial familarity with the conditions) could excel if they were transported back to the 1930's. I really doubt that would be true vice versa. The game has changed, but it also has improved...it would be embarrassing if it hadn't.

In addition to improvement in the technical aspects, the modern era also has a massive increase in the number of professional players involved. These are the kind of things which mean, frankly, our cricket is more valid (when making these comparisons) to a time like Grace's era. There are more people competing at an unprecedented level of competition, which means rating a player is going to be a far more valid process, given the talent pool they are being assessed within is much greater. As Benchmark said in his previous post, it is extremely difficult to work out how good Grace really was (in the overall context of the sport) given the era he played in and the peers he was being compared with. I would question whether even judging and comparing players around the 1930's to those in the modern era is a valid exercise. Bradman really, for me, is the only exception simply because of the magnitude of his dominance.

I just want to make it clear; I am not saying I think players in the (very) early eras would be any worse than modern players if they lived (and were raised) in this era. However, also I don't think the 'comparison with peers' argument for players in those eras provides particularly strong evidence for how they would sit in bigger picture.