Geoff Armstrong- The 100 Greatest Cricketers

[Prince EWS]

WG didn't dominate his era. Was revolutionary, but hardly dominant compared to his peers.

Nah he really did completely dominate his peers during his prime. He was 32 by the time he played his first Test, and even after that point consistent performances in county cricket were regarded as the most important gauge of quality with Tests being seen as gimmicks to an extent.

And as far as how much he towered over his peers at that level at the time, well....

You can say a lot of things against Grace, but that he wasn't a massive, massive, massive stretch ahead of his peers during his prime is certainly not one of them.

 

[archie mac]

Nah he really did completely dominate his peers during his prime. He was 32 by the time he played his first Test, and even after that point consistent performances in county cricket were regarded as the most important gauge of quality with Tests being seen as gimmicks to an extent.

And as far as how much he towered over his peers at that level at the time, well....

You can say a lot of things against Grace, but that he wasn't a massive, massive, massive stretch ahead of his peers during his prime is certainly not one of them.

The reason only Grace can be compared to Bradman.

 

[Red]

Nah he really did completely dominate his peers during his prime. He was 32 by the time he played his first Test, and even after that point consistent performances in county cricket were regarded as the most important gauge of quality with Tests being seen as gimmicks to an extent.

And as far as how much he towered over his peers at that level at the time, well....

You can say a lot of things against Grace, but that he wasn't a massive, massive, massive stretch ahead of his peers during his prime is certainly not one of them.

Guys who played tests with Grace, like Ranji, CB Fry, Stanley Jackson & Shrewsbury, all had very comparable raw stats (in both test and FC cricket) to Grace. I'm prepared to be wrong, as I know very little about English cricket in this era, but to me it seems like plenty of guys from Grace's era performed at a similar capacity to Grace.

 

[archie mac]

Guys who played tests with Grace, like Ranji, CB Fry, Stanley Jackson & Shrewsbury, all had very comparable raw stats (in both test and FC cricket) to Grace. I'm prepared to be wrong, as I know very little about English cricket in this era, but to me it seems like plenty of guys from Grace's era performed at a similar capacity to Grace.

For a period he was so far ahead of all his contemporaries it beggers belief. I think he was averaging 70 while most were in mid 20s

 

[Prince EWS]

Guys who played tests with Grace, like Ranji, CB Fry, Stanley Jackson & Shrewsbury, all had very comparable raw stats (in both test and FC cricket) to Grace. I'm prepared to be wrong, as I know very little about English cricket in this era, but to me it seems like plenty of guys from Grace's era performed at a similar capacity to Grace.

I'll try and do something similar with their figures for you tomorrow.

If they did have comparable standardised averages though, it would have to mean there were an astonishing amount of players who were truly, truly useless to their teams. You can't have that many players so far ahead of the mean without a ridiculous amount of complete passengers. I find it unlikely that they'd record similarly ridiculous standardised averages over long periods like Grace did, but I'll let you know. The fact that he played so long really hurts his raw stats, as does the fact that scores were typically so much lower (in terms of how we view his raw stats, anyway).

Either way, he was further ahead of the average, typical county cricketer than Bradman was of the average, typical Test player. That to me is what dominating your peers is about, being a long way ahead of the mean, rather than being a long way ahead of #2. You can have more than one player well ahead of the rest of the pack, if you get me.

 

[Slifer]

If we assume that Bradman would average around 50 if he played his 52 Tests in the 70s-80s-90s-00s (as has been suggested) then it follows that the likes of Hobbs, Hammond, Leyland, Woodfull and McCabe would average about 25 or so.

We would then have to assume that the batting talent of Walter Hammond sits somehere between that of Mike Brearley and Shahid Afridi. Clearly this is not the case.

Yeah thats exactly the issue we face when we try to disect DGBs career. Whatever percentage we wanna lower hsi average by, its only logical we do the same for most of his contemporaries (say most because Im also in the camp who believe George HEadly couldve been 70+ under similar circumstances to theDON). If we lower the dons averageto say 75 for facing modern attacks, then it follows that we lower Hammond etc to Carl Hooper range and there is no way Hammond was the Carl Hooper of his time.

We therefore just have to accept that the DOn was simply just that good.

 

[kyear2]

If we assume that Bradman would average around 50 if he played his 52 Tests in the 70s-80s-90s-00s (as has been suggested) then it follows that the likes of Hobbs, Hammond, Leyland, Woodfull and McCabe would average about 25 or so.

We would then have to assume that the batting talent of Walter Hammond sits somehere between that of Mike Brearley and Shahid Afridi. Clearly this is not the case.

Never intimated that it would be in the '50's, high sixties, mid seventies maybe.

 

[marc71178]

So Hobbs and co would be mid 30s then, bull****.

 

[Dan]

Nah he really did completely dominate his peers during his prime. He was 32 by the time he played his first Test, and even after that point consistent performances in county cricket were regarded as the most important gauge of quality with Tests being seen as gimmicks to an extent.

And as far as how much he towered over his peers at that level at the time, well....

You can say a lot of things against Grace, but that he wasn't a massive, massive, massive stretch ahead of his peers during his prime is certainly not one of them.

Genuine question, but how does the longevity factor influence Grace's rating there? Obviously his career was longer than anybody else's by a significant margin, but in terms of 'stretch[ing] ahead of his peers during his prime', it isn't strictly relevant.

Not saying he wasn't ahead of them, of course. And I'm only bringing it up because his career was so long that it could conceivably skew things somewhere.

 

[L Trumper]

Genuine question, but how does the longevity factor influence Grace's rating there? Obviously his career was longer than anybody else's by a significant margin, but in terms of 'stretch[ing] ahead of his peers during his prime', it isn't strictly relevant.

Not saying he wasn't ahead of them, of course. And I'm only bringing it up because his career was so long that it could conceivably skew things somewhere.

I'd say dominating for 15 years of his career will be enough from a longevity point of view. It shouldn't matter that much, that for the next 20 years he was merely good.

 

[Prince EWS]

Genuine question, but how does the longevity factor influence Grace's rating there? Obviously his career was longer than anybody else's by a significant margin, but in terms of 'stretch[ing] ahead of his peers during his prime', it isn't strictly relevant.

Not saying he wasn't ahead of them, of course. And I'm only bringing it up because his career was so long that it could conceivably skew things somewhere.

My main point there was his standardised average tbh; I just chucked the value number thing in because it was so similar to Bradman's Test one. Longevity doesn't affect the standardised averages I listed at all; just that 12.whatever number I posted.

 

[Dan]

My main point there was his standardised average tbh; I just chucked the value number thing in because it was so similar to Bradman's Test one. Longevity doesn't affect the standardised averages I listed at all; just that 12.whatever number I posted.

Yep, gotcha. That does show just how ridiculously good WG is.

Not a new point by any means, but we always tend to underrate Grace because his raw stats don't look all that flash. But damn, he was good.

 

[sobers no:1]

If we assume that Bradman would average around 50 if he played his 52 Tests in the 70s-80s-90s-00s (as has been suggested) then it follows that the likes of Hobbs, Hammond, Leyland, Woodfull and McCabe would average about 25 or so.

We would then have to assume that the batting talent of Walter Hammond sits somehere between that of Mike Brearley and Shahid Afridi. Clearly this is not the case.

bradman would avg: around 50 or 60. = hammond = headley = competitive cricket

 

[sobers no:1]

if bradman is the greatest test cricketer
WG is THE GREATEST CRICKETER

 

[smash84]

if bradman is the greatest test cricketer
WG is THE GREATEST CRICKETER

Imran is the greatest cricketer ever to play the game. PEWS has converted me to his hypothesis

 

[sobers no:1]

Imran is the greatest cricketer ever to play the game. PEWS has converted me to his hypothesis

akram - greatest from pakistan

bye for now

 

[marc71178]

bradman would avg: around 50 or 60. = hammond = headley = competitive cricket

WTF? So only Bradman needs his numbers reducing? Care to explain that one?

 

[smash84]

akram - greatest from pakistan

bye for now

 

[centurymaker]

WTF? So only Bradman needs his numbers reducing? Care to explain that one?

dimishing returns principle I guess

100 to 70

55-60 to 45-50

 

[marc71178]

But he clearly said 50 or 60 which is the same as others.