"Greatest Ever" Lists - A Modern Evolution

[Agent Nationaux]

ATG fair enough. I fully respect Mr Z's opinions, but he has been placed too high on CW rankings.

 

[unam]

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]

ATG fair enough. I fully respect Mr Z's opinions, but he has been placed too high on CW rankings.

Don't see how you could have him lower, if you rank him at all it has to be right near the very top, it is that or leave him out entirely, something I disagree with but do understand.

 

[zaremba]

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.

I don't think there are many people here who would argue for Grace's inclusion in an all-Test XI, for the reasons that have been identified at length.

The real issue is whether he can be considered an "all time great cricketer" and if so where in the pantheon he ranks. That is a separate question: because one could legitimately say he was the greatest cricketer of all time without necessarily picking him for your imaginary XI to play a game tomorrow. This question raises two points. First, was he a cricketer at all? For my part, as I've said, I don't buy the "WG Grace didn't play cricket" approach. The game has evolved and in my view it's artificial and misleading to slice up different parts of the history of the evolving game and to say that they are/were different games such that he can't be regarded as a cricketer. The second point is whether he was a great cricketer. As to this, the fact that he may not have thrived, if transported from one era to another, is not really to the point (hence the Spitfire analogy that I made before benchmark's outburst). He was unquestionably a great player as shown by his domination of his peers, by his sustained excellence, by his reputation, and by his enormous influence on the way in which the game was - and is - played. Personally I'd say all that makes him a very great cricketer indeed, and very high in the pantheon, quite possibly no. 1.

 

[benchmark00]

I don't think there are many people here who would argue for Grace's inclusion in an all-Test XI, for the reasons that have been identified at length.

The real issue is whether he can be considered an "all time great cricketer" and if so where in the pantheon he ranks. That is a separate question: because one could legitimately say he was the greatest cricketer of all time without necessarily picking him for your imaginary XI to play a game tomorrow. This question raises two points. First, was he a cricketer at all? For my part, as I've said, I don't buy the "WG Grace didn't play cricket" approach. The game has evolved and in my view it's artificial and misleading to slice up different parts of the history of the evolving game and to say that they are/were different games such that he can't be regarded as a cricketer. The second point is whether he was a great cricketer. As to this, the fact that he may not have thrived, if transported from one era to another, is not really to the point (hence the Spitfire analogy that I made before benchmark's outburst). He was unquestionably a great player as shown by his domination of his peers, by his sustained excellence, by his reputation, and by his enormous influence on the way in which the game was - and is - played. Personally I'd say all that makes him a very great cricketer indeed, and very high in the pantheon, quite possibly no. 1.

Firstly, I didn't realise spitfire was a synonym for 'rubbish' or 'irrelevant'.

Secondly, Noone sane is suggesting they get judged if you transport them after they have grown up in their respective era. The point would be is there any evidence to suggest that if they were raised in a different era would they be as successful? The fact that cricket from the last one hundred years is so different to what was seen in Grace's era gives no indication that he would or would not have been as great.

 

[zaremba]

The Spitfire analogy is no more than a comment on the nature of "greatness", namely that greatness doesn't necessarily equate to "the most effective by current standards". For the same reason "evidence to suggest that if they were raised in a different era would they be as successful", as you put it, isn't really to the point.

 

[unam]

I don't think there are many people here who would argue for Grace's inclusion in an all-Test XI, for the reasons that have been identified at length.

The real issue is whether he can be considered an "all time great cricketer" and if so where in the pantheon he ranks. That raises two points. First, was he a cricketer at all? For my part, as I've said, I don't buy the "WG Grace didn't play cricket" approach. The game has evolved and in my view it's artificial and misleading to slice up different parts of the history of the evolving game and to say that they are/were different games such that he can't be regarded as a cricketer. As to the second question of whether he was a great cricketer, the fact that he may not have thrived, if transported from one era to another, is not really to the point (hence the Spitfire analogy that I made before benchmark's outburst). He was unquestionably a great player as shown by his domination of his peers, by his sustained excellence, by his reputation, and by his enormous influence on the way in which the game was - and is - played.

Agree with the "I don't buy the "WG Grace didn't play cricket" approach".
Answer to your second question: if you are saying he was a an all time great cricketer because of his domination of his peers, I don't agree with that.
He did have enormous influence on the game but that doesn't mean he was an all time great cricketer. Maybe a respected cricketer? or Influential cricketer?

 

[zaremba]

Agree with the "I don't buy the "WG Grace didn't play cricket" approach".
Answer to your second question: if you are saying he was a an all time great cricketer because of his domination of his peers, I don't agree with that.
He did have enormous influence on the game but that doesn't mean he was an all time great cricketer. Maybe a respected cricketer? or Influential cricketer?

Well his greatness relates partly to his domination of his peers - showing that by the standards of his day he was phenomenally outstanding - and partly to his influence on the game.

 

[benchmark00]

The Spitfire analogy is no more than a comment on the nature of "greatness", namely that greatness doesn't necessarily equate to "the most effective by current standards". For the same reason "evidence to suggest that if they were raised in a different era would they be as successful", as you put it, isn't really to the point.

Ofcourse it's to the point, because you're trying to compare players who weren't contemporaries, so the best way to do this is to create a set of circumstances where every player was born at the exact same time.

Great players are able to adapt to the environment in which they are required to operate in. For that reason it's quite easy to assume Bradman, Sobers et. al. would be able to adapt to the modern age as well as Glenn McGrath or Ambrose would have been able to adapt to 1940's cricket for example.

It's harder (read: impossible) to say if Grace was able to, because the style and type of cricket he and his peers played is so less evolved, and so different to what we have seen over the past 100 years.

 

[unam]

Well his greatness relates partly to his domination of his peers - showing that by the standards of his day he was phenomenally outstanding - and partly to his influence on the game.

The reason I don't agree with that is that cricket was in very early stages of its life and there wouldn't be a lot of mature/professional cricketers around at that time. Also I am assuming that during that time people from poor families and people who lived far would have got enough support/chances to play. Also I would say it is reasonable to assume that a lot people would have taken cricket more of a luxury (just for fun thing) then a professional sport during that time. (correct me on above 2 points if I am wrong).

I do agree that he had enormous influence on the game, but that doesn't necessarily mean he was an all time great cricketer.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Agree with Unam.

 

[zaremba]

Ofcourse it's to the point, because you're trying to compare players who weren't contemporaries, so the best way to do this is to create a set of circumstances where every player was born at the exact same time.

Great players are able to adapt to the environment in which they are required to operate in. For that reason it's quite easy to assume Bradman, Sobers et. al. would be able to adapt to the modern age as well as Glenn McGrath or Ambrose would have been able to adapt to 1940's cricket for example.

It's harder (read: impossible) to say if Grace was able to, because the style and type of cricket he and his peers played is so less evolved, and so different to what we have seen over the past 100 years.

But yours is a very particular, and narrow, definition of greatness. It equates greatness with ability, and ability measured in a particular way, ie on the assumption that were all born in the same era. i think that's an overly narrow view of greatness. It ignores, other than as a measure of ability, a player's achievements or contribution. To me, what a player actually achieves in his era is a big part of assessing his greatness, and not merely as an indicator that he would have performed at a particular level in the current era.

 

[benchmark00]

But if we're judging cricketers on their cricketing ability alone (which we should be), that takes out all the other stuff. If we're judging cricketers on their impact on the game, then sure, include Grace, but I'm not interested in that list, I'm merely interested in great cricketers, not great cricket people.

 

[zaremba]

The reason I don't agree with that is that cricket was in very early stages of its life and there wouldn't be a lot of mature/professional cricketers around at that time. Also I am assuming that during that time people from poor families and people who lived far would have got enough support/chances to play. Also I would say it is reasonable to assume that a lot people would have taken cricket more of a luxury (just for fun thing) then a professional sport during that time. (correct me on above 2 points if I am wrong).

I do agree that he had enormous influence on the game, but that doesn't necessarily mean he was an all time great cricketer.

I hear all of that mate but we're in danger of going round in circles. There are all sorts of reasons why it's difficult to compare Grace's era with the present, or with the world as it stood 30, 60 or 90 years ago. And whether or not you rate WG Grace as an all-time great cricketer is going to be a matter of personal opinion. I've given my reasons for thinking that he was, but you're entitled to disagree.

 

[zaremba]

But if we're judging cricketers on their cricketing ability alone (which we should be), that takes out all the other stuff. If we're judging cricketers on their impact on the game, then sure, include Grace, but I'm not interested in that list, I'm merely interested on great cricketers, not great cricket people.

I don't agree that we are measuring players by ability alone. Bradman's greatness isn't just that he was tremendously able and that such ability would have translated into the present day. Part of what made him great was what he actually achieved: the runs he scored, the innings he played, the matches he won, the influence he had on the game and on his country, in the real world in which he actually lived and in the era in which he actually played.

 

[unam]

But if we're judging cricketers on their cricketing ability alone (which we should be), that takes out all the other stuff. If we're judging cricketers on their impact on the game, then sure, include Grace, but I'm not interested in that list, I'm merely interested in great cricketers, not great cricket people.

Agree with: Grace = one of the most influential persons in the cricket
Do not agree with: Grace = All time great Cricketer

 

[benchmark00]

I don't agree that we are measuring players by ability alone. Bradman's greatness isn't just that he was tremendously able and that such ability would have translated into the present day. Part of what made him great was what he actually achieved: the runs he scored, the innings he played, the matches he won, the influence he had on the game and on his country, in the real world in which he actually lived and in the era in which he actually played.

The runs Bradman scored and the matches he won are merely a by-product of his ability.

Grace's impact on cricket wasn't necessarily a by-product of his comparative ability.

As I said, you're free to boost Grace's standing as a cricketer by factoring all the other stuff he did for the game, I'm merely interested in judging him on his comparative ability when comparing him against all time great cricketers.

 

[unam]

On a side note: Lalit Modi also has great influence on cricket by the way of IPL. is he an all time great cricketer too?

 

[benchmark00]

On a side note: Lalit Modi also has great influence on cricket by the way of IPL.

Must be noted that 'great' doesn't necessarily equal positive...

 

[unam]

Must be noted that 'great' doesn't necessarily equal positive...

well who knows.... in 20 years people might just be playing T20 and saying that Lalit Modi was a great cricketer because he got rid of boring old test cricket