I think we're looking at who was greater, and that's fine.
And there's a reason why even we, nor did cricinfo nor do most experts go all that way back into that 19th century. As Red said, it really was a different game that didn't start to resemble ours until the 1930's or so and fully transition completion wise until post WW2.
The rules were different, the techniques were archaic, the completion limited and basically between and in two countries. We don't know what techniques Grace had, we've heard the stories of him being dismissed and refusing to walk because the crowds were there to see him. As much as we speculate what Barnes bowled and at what speeds, it's basically just that, speculation.
It was the developmental stage of the game and it's important for historical and nostalgic purposes, but let's not pretend they would be competitive. So if anyone says that they would trust Grace vs a South African attack more than Barry ****ing Richards, then it's purely for the purpose of being contrarian.
And for
@capt_Luffy I do admire Hutton, but for even in those post war times for him to be accused of not imposing himself on attacks, I don't see him being better in the middle order than a Pollock.
And with regards to giving Bradman a pass and not Hammond, I don't for a min believe (and have consistently said) he would have averaged 100 playing in the '80's or 90's. Hammond struggled vs Constantine and Martindale, were aren't talking A list talent, good players yes, not guys knocking down the all time greats list.
I was previously asked who do I have Hobbs rated 4th but my openers would be Hutton and Gavaskar, and precisely for this reason.
Plus with a batting lineup of
Sutcliffe, Hobbs, Hutton, Barrington and Hammond were obviously playing draw cricket. Root and more is required in such a lineup, and not to add, that against such a proposed bowling lineup, you're bound a catch a good one eventually, especially if you're letting the bowlers settle into their work.