Best After The Don

[doesitmatter]

No, there weren't.

Maybe not..but from the business perspective his name sold papers then as SRT's does now and that's the point i was trying to make..

 

[honestbharani]

Dude, you make a good post and then ruin it all at the end by suggesting there were equally great players as The Don during his career..

 

[doesitmatter]

Dude, you make a good post and then ruin it all at the end by suggesting there were equally great players as The Don during his career..

Greatness is not just defined by average,runs scored, consistency, longevity alone that's what everyone has been saying...btw Bradman is No.1 in my book as well..

 

[honestbharani]

I am sorry.. I would love to listen to you but the fact that you even think there were cricketers who were AS GREAT as The Don during his time means I am just wasting my time here Btw, I thought to be a great cricketer, well, you had to be a great cricketer..

 

[doesitmatter]

I am sorry i made you waste your time here...What i should have done is remove equally from the line "It happened during Don's time even though there were other equally great players".....Will you still not listen to me? oops i forgot

 

[kyear2]

Boycott names Hobbs the best after Bradman

The Jury's Out: Who's the next-best batsman after Bradman? | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

By my count that is 3 votes for Sobers, 2 for Tendulkar and 1 for Hobbs.

 

[Geoffboycott]

Bad pick from Geoff that is. Normally he's better then that.

 

[harsh.ag]

Bad pick from Geoff that is. Normally he's better then that.

Why do you think it's a bad pick?

 

[Coronis]

Personally, Hobbs is 3rd for me, behind Sobers.

English opener names English opener as next best, what a surprise :P Hobbs was almost unquestionably the best before Bradman, and is still easily one of the ATG's.

 

[harsh.ag]

Personally, Hobbs is 3rd for me, behind Sobers.

English opener names English opener as next best, what a surprise :P Hobbs was almost unquestionably the best before Bradman, and is still easily one of the ATG's.

Nice.

As an aside, I want to ask something else. When I see statements like "Hobbs best before Bradman", and I too have said that many a time, is everybody, like me, not including Grace in the discussion at all as that would be too complex? Just like Lohmann in terms of bowling.

I mean, in all batting conversations we have about the past, we are all consciously ignoring Grace, right? Or do most people do not rate him highly at all?

 

[Dan]

Nice.

As an aside, I want to ask something else. When I see statements like "Hobbs best before Bradman", and I too have said that many a time, is everybody, like me, not including Grace in the discussion at all as that would be too complex? Just like Lohmann in terms of bowling.

I mean, in all batting conversations we have about the past, we are all consciously ignoring Grace, right? Or do most people do not rate him highly at all?

I get the feeling it's because the unwritten rule is discussion is exclusively based upon Tests unless otherwise stated. And WG was well past his best days when Test cricket rolled around.

If you specifically widened the criteria to include pre-Test performances, Grace would rate far more of a mention, I think. Still a few who don't rate him, as is their opinion, but you'd have more Grace supporters than with a Test-exclusive metric.

 

[watson]

I've never really thought about the number of Tests that WG played. Couldn't tell you.

Rather, I make the assumption that the twin sciences of batting and bowling were still in their formative years when WG played. So while he did very well in the 1880s, he would would have real tecnhical difficulties against modern cricketers.

I happen to think that Grace and Bradman are equally the greatest cricketers ever to play cricket. But this is completely different to saying that Grace is among the best cricketers. He isn't, for the simple reason that he probably wouldn't last all that long against Malcolm Marshall and Michael Holding with the new ball. Bradman would relish the challenge, Grace would be out either bowled or injured.

But that's just my intuitive opinion. Nothing more.

 

[harsh.ag]

I've never really thought about the number of Tests that WG played. Couldn't tell you.

Rather, I make the assumption that the twin sciences of batting and bowling were still in their formative years when WG played. So while he did very well in the 1880s, he would would have real tecnhical difficulties against modern cricketers.

I happen to think that Grace and Bradman are equally the greatest cricketers ever to play cricket. But this is completely different to saying that Grace is among the best cricketers. He isn't, for the simple reason that he probably wouldn't last all that long against Malcolm Marshall and Michael Holding with the new ball. Bradman would relish the challenge, Grace would be out either bowled or injured.

But that's just my intuitive opinion. Nothing more.

It's a nice way of putting it. But then, again, you are only taking it one way. If we are going to envision Grace batting against Marshall and co. when cricket has fully(?) evolved, we should also envisage what Marshall and co. would have looked like if taken to back when it wasn't (apart from being slaves in the British empire, I mean)

 

[fredfertang]

I've never really thought about the number of Tests that WG played. Couldn't tell you.

Rather, I make the assumption that the twin sciences of batting and bowling were still in their formative years when WG played. So while he did very well in the 1880s, he would would have real tecnhical difficulties against modern cricketers.

I happen to think that Grace and Bradman are equally the greatest cricketers ever to play cricket. But this is completely different to saying that Grace is among the best cricketers. He isn't, for the simple reason that he probably wouldn't last all that long against Malcolm Marshall and Michael Holding with the new ball. Bradman would relish the challenge, Grace would be out either bowled or injured.

But that's just my intuitive opinion. Nothing more.

Not sure I entirely agree with you - I have no doubt that WG would never have faced anyone as quick as Holding or Marshall, but given the wickets he played on I suspect the bowlers he faced were rather more dangerous - I think a young Grace would have enjoyed pitting his wits against 21st century fast bowlers, as long as he had to do so in 21st century conditions of course

 

[harsh.ag]

Not sure I entirely agree with you - I have no doubt that WG would never have faced anyone as quick as Holding or Marshall, but given the wickets he played on I suspect the bowlers he faced were rather more dangerous - I think a young Grace would have enjoyed pitting his wits against 21st century fast bowlers, as long as he had to do so in 21st century conditions of course

Awta.

 

[watson]

Not sure I entirely agree with you - I have no doubt that WG would never have faced anyone as quick as Holding or Marshall, but given the wickets he played on I suspect the bowlers he faced were rather more dangerous - I think a young Grace would have enjoyed pitting his wits against 21st century fast bowlers, as long as he had to do so in 21st century conditions of course

I can't disagree entirely because I have no way of manufacturing a Grace V Marshall/Holding match-up to prove my opinion.

However, given time there is little doubt that Grace would relish modern conditions and modern fast bowlers because he was a cricketing genius in every sense. But having said that, ATGs shouldn't have to go to coaching clinic and play practice matches in order to succeed against other ATGs. They should simply be.

 

[fredfertang]

I can't disagree entirely because I have no way of manufacturing a Grace V Marshall/Holding match-up to prove my opinion.

However, given time there is little doubt that Grace would relish modern conditions and modern fast bowlers because he was a cricketing genius in every sense. But having said that, ATGs shouldn't have to go to coaching clinic and play practice matches in order to succeed against other ATGs. They should simply be.

That's a bit harsh mate - I mean you wouldn't expect Australia to come over here this summer and go straight into the first Test - Grace couldn't expect much practice, and I don't think he'd need a lot but he'd surely be entitled to some - I think a 21st century batsman would need a lot more if he went back 150 years and had to play against round arm bowlers well used to making good use of poorly prepared wickets.

 

[archie mac]

Not sure I entirely agree with you - I have no doubt that WG would never have faced anyone as quick as Holding or Marshall, but given the wickets he played on I suspect the bowlers he faced were rather more dangerous - I think a young Grace would have enjoyed pitting his wits against 21st century fast bowlers, as long as he had to do so in 21st century conditions of course

I love the story when he was given a standing ovation for blocking three shooters in a row at Lords. You can almost guarantee when the ball keeps low the modern batsman misses it.

 

[watson]

That's a bit harsh mate - I mean you wouldn't expect Australia to come over here this summer and go straight into the first Test - Grace couldn't expect much practice, and I don't think he'd need a lot but he'd surely be entitled to some - I think a 21st century batsman would need a lot more if he went back 150 years and had to play against round arm bowlers well used to making good use of poorly prepared wickets.

The Aussie batsman will play a handful of games against County sides before going into the first Test. My own opinion is that WG would take more than a handful of County games to come up to scratch against an ATG attack on 21st century wickets.

As for 1880s wickets - I don't think that they are an option at all. If Marshall and Holding bowled on an 1880s pitch then there would have to be a string of ambulances waiting for the injured batsman. No batsman, even Grace or Jupp would survive very long against such an on-slaught.

(I'm now thinking of the England V West Indies Test match at Sabina Park (1998) that was called off because the pitch was unacceptably dangerous)

 

[archie mac]

The Aussie batsman will play a handful of games against County sides before going into the first Test. My own opinion is that WG would take more than a handful of County games to come up to scratch against an ATG attack on 21st century wickets.

As for 1880s wickets - I don't think that they are an option at all. If Marshall and Holding bowled on an 1880s pitch then there would have to be a string of ambulances waiting for the injured batsman. No batsman, even Grace or Jupp would survive very long against such as on-slaught.

(I'm now thinking of the England V West Indies Test match at Sabina Park (1998) that was called off because the pitch was unacceptably dangerous)

You should be aware that often fast bowlers were piss poor on the sticky wickets when Grace was at his peak. Their foot marks were not covered and the ball would on occassions stick in the wet pitch