"Greatest Ever" Lists - A Modern Evolution

[benchmark00]

Sorry Flem just seen this

sure.

 

[benchmark00]

Cut it out please. I have been debating the point and this sort of abuse doesn't help either the discussion or the forum atmosphere more generally.

Making a deliberately smart arse and obtuse post, which is underlined by a condescending tone does far worse to forum atmosphere. Check everything is in order at home first.

 

[Flem274*]

Cricket is the only sport where people think what Warne batting on a 1930s Indian pitch after a rain break actually matters.

It's accepted in sports such as rugby, soccer, athletics et al that while many dominant players from bygone eras would suck in todays era, it is entirely irrelevant to their status as an all time great, because they are judged in context alongside their peers.

It's why I rate McGrath and Pollock higher than Malcolm Marshall or Dennis Lillee. In context of their peers and the era of flat pitches they played in, McGrath and Pollock are freaks. It's also why Dale Steyn is already an all time great imo as well.

What W.G. Grace would do in 2012 doesn't matter, because he will never have to do it and will never get the chance due to being rather dead. What we do know is he played cricket - and compared to a sport like rugby where the rules change every five minutes Grace's cricket is roughly the same game to 2012s cricket - and was so far ahead of his peers a case can be made for him being the greatest cricketer of all time.

If you were to ask me what I do think would happen if Grace was transported from the 1800s to 2012, I think he would get smoked. But it doesn't matter, because when he played 2012 wasn't relevant.

 

[pskov]

Napoleon isn't a great general because he never fought an army that had tanks and attack helicopters.

 

[Mike5181]

Napoleon isn't a great general because he never fought an army that had tanks and attack helicopters.

Ugh, it's pointless.

 

[benchmark00]

Ugh, it's pointless.

Pretty much.

People will believe what they won't to believe, especially when it's been hammered into them from birth.

 

[silentstriker]

If you were to ask me what I do think would happen if Grace was transported from the 1800s to 2012, I think he would get smoked. But it doesn't matter, because when he played 2012 wasn't relevant.

But that's the point we've been making. He is surely massively influential and a historically significant figure and it's fair to have him in lists of all time greats for that reason. But to have him in all time XI which you'd want to play modern cricket against other modern sides doesn't make much sense IMO.

 

[Flem274*]

But that's the point we've been making. He is surely massively influential and a historically significant figure and it's fair to have him in lists of all time greats for that reason. But to have him in all time XI which you'd want to play modern cricket against other modern sides doesn't make much sense IMO.

All time elevens are a funny one for me. By their very nature they're impossible and will never happen, so designing them along the lines of playing another side in 2012 seems pointless to me.

When I pick mine, I assume cricket has been constant and what McGrath or Larwood did in their respective eras will translate to any other era. Otherwise it becomes a very messy exercise full of guesswork.

 

[Flem274*]

Pretty much.

People will believe what they won't to believe, especially when it's been hammered into them from birth.

How is this any different to Zaremba's post which you replied to in an impolite manner?

Lets keep this kind of line to a minimum cheers mate. This has been a pretty interesting discussion.

 

[benchmark00]

How is this any different to Zaremba's post which you replied to in an impolite manner?

Lets keep this kind of line to a minimum cheers mate. This has been a pretty interesting discussion.

Because my post is not deliberately smart arsed or obtuse?? Totally different post, don't be ridiculous.

 

[zaremba]

But that's the point we've been making. He is surely massively influential and a historically significant figure and it's fair to have him in lists of all time greats for that reason. But to have him in all time XI which you'd want to play modern cricket against other modern sides doesn't make much sense IMO.

I agree completely. There is a big difference between rating someone as an all time great cricketer and saying you'll select them in an imaginary XI.

 

[sledger]

Bradman, a cricketer in name only.

 

[Howe_zat]

But that's the point we've been making. He is surely massively influential and a historically significant figure and it's fair to have him in lists of all time greats for that reason. But to have him in all time XI which you'd want to play modern cricket against other modern sides doesn't make much sense IMO.

Wait, when was it agreed that the all-time xi has to play in 201?

The ambiguity of the exercise seems to allow it to be whatever you want it to be, really.

 

[unam]

You misinterpreted what everyone has been saying. No-one is arguing he's not an all time great. His accomplishments, influence and skill in the sport at the time he played is sufficient enough to leave that undisputed IMO.

Ask yourself this though. If you were to assemble the greatest cricketers of all time to play a game. Who would you select? The decision would have to factor in overall skill, technique and not just how far along they were for their time. The team would include guys like Bradman, Sobers, Marshall, Warne, Gilchrist, Tendulkar because they are the greatest cricket players to have played the game so far. There's no bonus points selection-wise for influence on the development of the game or best moustache or first to play. The absolute bona fide best players overall.

That is what I am trying to say too. People just compare him with others players from that time and say he was one of the greatest cricketers. If these days, there would be someone who would be so far ahead of the rest, he would be considered all time great but the time during which Grace played wasn't same as today. I and agent have mentioned some of the reasons why comparing Grace with other players of his time wouldn't be justified. Also his test record is not all that great. There were few international batsmen of his time who had higher average then him.

 

[unam]

Cricket is the only sport where people think what Warne batting on a 1930s Indian pitch after a rain break actually matters.

It's accepted in sports such as rugby, soccer, athletics et al that while many dominant players from bygone eras would suck in todays era, it is entirely irrelevant to their status as an all time great, because they are judged in context alongside their peers.

It's why I rate McGrath and Pollock higher than Malcolm Marshall or Dennis Lillee. In context of their peers and the era of flat pitches they played in, McGrath and Pollock are freaks. It's also why Dale Steyn is already an all time great imo as well.

What W.G. Grace would do in 2012 doesn't matter, because he will never have to do it and will never get the chance due to being rather dead. What we do know is he played cricket - and compared to a sport like rugby where the rules change every five minutes Grace's cricket is roughly the same game to 2012s cricket - and was so far ahead of his peers a case can be made for him being the greatest cricketer of all time.

If you were to ask me what I do think would happen if Grace was transported from the 1800s to 2012, I think he would get smoked. But it doesn't matter, because when he played 2012 wasn't relevant.

Agree with those points above. But when you are comparing a player with his peers, you should think about other factors too, especially for Grace because the time period during which he played was totally different from today and the fact he couldn't replicate his success at international level should make you think even more about kinds of players/people who were given chances at domestic level.

 

[smash84]

That is what I am trying to say too. People just compare him with others players from that time and say he was one of the greatest cricketers. If these days, there would be someone who would be so far ahead of the rest, he would be considered all time great but the time during which Grace played wasn't same as today. I and agent have mentioned some of the reasons why comparing Grace with other players of his time wouldn't be justified. Also his test record is not all that great. There were few international batsmen of his time who had higher average then him.

tbf the best reasons were mentioned by Benchmark00

 

[silentstriker]

Wait, when was it agreed that the all-time xi has to play in 201?

The ambiguity of the exercise seems to allow it to be whatever you want it to be, really.

Well I thought, and perhaps this assumption is not shared by others, that an all time XI would play similar teams. Meaning an all time XI might be asked to face another all time XI. So regardless of what "year" you play, the good doctor, if you chose him, would have to come out to bat against Allan Donald or Malcolm Marshall (or whoever is in that XI). My guess is that he himself would be in need of a doctor relatively quickly.

 

[silentstriker]

Bradman, a cricketer in name only.

Bradman is an interesting case. I think cricket in his era was closer to ours, combined with his dominance in that era which makes him a much better candidate. If we're talking about transference of skills, his are more so than Grace's.

 

[smash84]

Well I thought, and perhaps this assumption is not shared by others, that an all time XI would play similar teams. Meaning an all time XI might be asked to face another all time XI. So regardless of what "year" you play, the good doctor, if you chose him, would have to come out to bat against Allan Donald or Malcolm Marshall (or whoever is in that XI). My guess is that he himself would be in need of a doctor relatively quickly.

 

[Pothas]

But that's the point we've been making. He is surely massively influential and a historically significant figure and it's fair to have him in lists of all time greats for that reason. But to have him in all time XI which you'd want to play modern cricket against other modern sides doesn't make much sense IMO.

I don't think anyone was arguing that exactly were they?

The debate seems to largely rest on if you think he played what we recognise as cricket and I can understand the point for sure. We don't really ever talk about those that came before him, at least not very often at all. In this sense I would argue that in some ways Grace can count as the start of 'cricket' as we know it and for that reason I think it is perfectly to call him am all time great cricketer.