Greater cricketer-W.G Grace or Gary sobers?

[HookShot]

I wasn't talking about Grace or the best players of the next generation like Trumper. I'm talking about Grace's peers in the 1870s, where he was consistently averaging 50+ and scoring 8 to 10 centuries a year, whilst the next best batsman averaged mid 20s and made only one.

My point was that Grace dominated more than Sobers because of the primitive techniques of his colleagues, not because he was necessarily a better batsman.

K.S. Ranjitsinhji on W.G. Grace in The Jubile Book of Cricket:

"He revolutionised cricket, turning it from an accomplishment into a science; he united in his masterly self all the good points of all the good players and made utility the criterion of style... He turned the old one-stringed instrument into a many chorded lyre, a wand. But in addition he made his execution equal his invention. Possibly Grace's most far reaching achievement was to master both forward and back play and draw on both with equal dexterity. Until his time, a man was either a back player like Carpenter or a forward player like Pilch, a hitter like E.H. Budd or a sticker like Harry Jupp. But W.G. Grace was each and all at once."

If we look at the batsmen who had scored over 5,000 runs in first class cricket at an average of over 20 up to the end of the 1873 season, we do indeed see a crazy discrepancy of much greater than Bradmanesque proportions:

W.G. Grace 10,669 runs @ 61.51 with 38 centuries.
Harry Jupp 9,987 runs @ 24.53 with 8 centuries
William Beldham 7,043 runs @ 21.47 with 3 centuries
George Parr 6,626 runs @ 20.20 with 1 century
Richard Daft 6,427 runs @ 29.48 with 6 centuries
Lord Frederick Beauclerk 5,442 runs @ 24.96 with 5 centuries
Bob Carpenter 5,184 runs @ 24.80 with 4 centuries

Great post!

 

[honestbharani]

The good doctor needed no Murray Mints. The shampoo on his beard was enough.

 

[jayjay]

Pre war cricket was too different to make any sense of these comparisons.

Exactly!

It was a completely different time period to even the 1930s, let alone later. The game has come on leaps and bounds since then.

 

[a massive zebra]

I have to confess to coming very close there to Googling Murray Mints to see if they were available in the 1870’s.

Nope, they were introduced during WWII.

Exactly!

It was a completely different time period to even the 1930s, let alone later. The game has come on leaps and bounds since then.

A cricketer is inevitably a product of his times, and obviously if we were able to send a time machine back to fetch W.G. and put him into a Test match today, he would probably struggle. But a cricketer of Grace's calibre born into modern times would probably still become the greatest cricketer in the world, if given the opportunities. The demands of the game, the skills required, and the equipment, have not changed very much.

His total dominance over all contemporaries between 1868 and 1880 really does beggar belief and is clearly illustrated by the stats in my previous post.

 

[Chrish]

I have a soft spot for a beard.. So, Grace it is..

 

[jayjay]

Nope, they were introduced during WWII.


A cricketer is inevitably a product of his times, and obviously if we were able to send a time machine back to fetch W.G. and put him into a Test match today, he would probably struggle. But a cricketer of Grace's calibre born into modern times would probably still become the greatest cricketer in the world, if given the opportunities. The demands of the game, the skills required, and the equipment, have not changed very much.

His total dominance over all contemporaries between 1868 and 1880 really does beggar belief and is clearly illustrated by the stats in my previous post.

It's just not comparable. Grace being ranked as greater than Viv, Sobers, Khan, Warne, McGrath, Tendulkar just doesn't make sense. But you are allowed your opinion, no matter how much better my opinion is than yours

 

[Nikhil99.99]

It's just not comparable. Grace being ranked as greater than Viv, Sobers, Khan, Warne, McGrath, Tendulkar just doesn't make sense. But you are allowed your opinion, no matter how much better my opinion is than yours

*Better* should have been used rather than greater.As far as greatness is concerned W.G is to cricket that ruth is to baseball.May be more than that.

 

[jayjay]

*Better* should have been used rather than greater.As far as greatness is concerned W.G is to cricket that ruth is to baseball.May be more than that.

Are you saying the others are better cricketers but Grace is greater? So does greatness merely mean someone who is iconic...that still wouldn't work because Grace isn't really iconic beyond cricketing borders, whereas the likes of Khan and Tendulkar are.

 

[trundler]

*Better* should have been used rather than greater.As far as greatness is concerned W.G is to cricket that ruth is to baseball.May be even more than that.

Somebody needs to get a time machine and give Rhodes a CW account. Bloke bowled to all great batsmen between Grace and Headley. Would've seen plenty of the post War greats too though sadly he went blind in his old age.

Also, Sobers's domination of batting AR ranks is being underrated here. He's easily better than Kallis and there's no one else to merit even a cursory comparison.

 

[trundler]

Are you saying the others are better cricketers but Grace is greater? So does greatness merely mean someone who is iconic...that still wouldn't work because Grace isn't really iconic beyond cricketing borders, whereas the likes of Khan and Tendulkar are.

 

[Slifer]

All I know is this, Sobers played a few seasons of Shield cricket in Australia and achieved the all rounders double twice when no one else b4 had. He scored 1000 runs in a season and took 50+ wickets twice. Not even Keith Miller achieved that. He almost did it thrice but fell agonizingly short. To travel half way across the world and dominate the best FC competition says a lot (imo) about the great man.

 

[a massive zebra]

Also, Sobers's domination of batting AR ranks is being underrated here. He's easily better than Kallis and there's no one else to merit even a cursory comparison.

As a batsman, Sobers was a much better matchwinner, less of a minnow basher and much better to watch. As a bowler he had a much greater workload and more variety. But someone purely looking at the averages might conclude (wrongly) that there is not much between them.

Also, as a batting allrounder I'm not convinced Kallis was that much better than Wally Hammond. The only clear difference is he bowled more.

 

[trundler]

As a batsman, Sobers was a much better matchwinner, less of a minnow basher and much better to watch. As a bowler he had a much greater workload and more variety. But someone purely looking at the averages might conclude (wrongly) that there is not much between them.

Also, as a batting allrounder I'm not convinced Kallis was that much better than Wally Hammond. The only clear advantage is he bowled more.

Yeah that's what I meant. Sobers's peak 7-8 year period was as close to AR perfection as we've ever gotten. 70 with bat and 27 with ball, taking 3 wickets per match and scoring a ton every 3 games. Or something similarly crazy like that. That level of output over so long is just unmatched. That's about as good a batting peak as there has ever been whilst genuinely being a world class bowler. No flattering lower order boosted average or pretty looking average without the volume of wickets for it to matter either.

 

[a massive zebra]

Somebody needs to get a time machine and give Rhodes a CW account. Bloke bowled to all great batsmen between Grace and Headley. Would've seen plenty of the post War greats too though sadly he went blind in his old age.

Here is Wilfred Rhodes opinion of the best batsman he ever saw:



The obvious answer, but a very well argued analysis, IMO.

 

[HookShot]

Nope, they were introduced during WWII.


A cricketer is inevitably a product of his times, and obviously if we were able to send a time machine back to fetch W.G. and put him into a Test match today, he would probably struggle. But a cricketer of Grace's calibre born into modern times would probably still become the greatest cricketer in the world, if given the opportunities. The demands of the game, the skills required, and the equipment, have not changed very much.

His total dominance over all contemporaries between 1868 and 1880 really does beggar belief and is clearly illustrated by the stats in my previous post.

‘....a cricketer of Grace's calibre born into modern times would probably still become the greatest cricketer in the world.’

I tend to agree MZ.....

Australia played a Lord Sheffield XI in 1896 when WG was 48 years old. The fast bowler Ernie Jones (later described to be similar in pace and action to Larwood) was the Australian spearhead for the match.....

‘The first three balls hit WG, painfully, on the leg and in the ribs. The crowd gasped and gasped again. And then came the fourth delivery.

WG’s biographer Simon Rae calls the fourth ball the single most famous delivery that the great man ever faced. It passed straight through the Champion’s beard and flew to the boundary. Non-striker Stanley Jackson later wrote, “I can see WG now. He threw his head back which caused his beard to stick out.”....’

‘That day, even as Jones skittled out seven batsmen, Grace and Jackson added 58, withstanding the fury of the new ball. As a result, WG’s chest was rendered black and blue. Jackson broke a rib in the second innings while scoring an unbeaten 95.

Later, Jackson described the event: “In the second innings, when I had made about 10, I had the misfortune to stop one with my ribs, but with the assistance of W. A. J. West, the umpire, who rubbed me, I was able to continue my innings. When I went to London I had a good deal of pain, and my father sent for the doctor, who said, ‘It’s cracked horizontally.’

Ernie Jones - the man who bowled through the beard of WG Grace — CricketMash

Ernie Jones , born September 30, 1869, was one of the fastest bowlers in the game and has become immortal after sending a ball through WG Grace ’s beard. Arunabha Sengupta looks back at the life and career of the man who was the first cricketer to be called for chucking

cricmash.com

So I don’t think that WG would struggle too much today as he spent his career facing all types of bowling, fast and slow, on uncovered pitches.

Obviously he’d need some coaching in the nets on how to play bouncers, but that’s about it really. And with modern helmets, padding and bats, plus our well prepared pitches I think that WG would find modern Test cricket a ‘walk-in-the-park’ compared to the 1890s.

 

[Nikhil99.99]

Here is Wilfred Rhodes opinion of the best batsman he ever saw:

View attachment 31170

The obvious answer, but a very well argued analysis, IMO.

6019 runs at 107.48 in 43 matches with 25 centuries for bradman 1930-mid 1948.Simply unbelievable.
What was Wilfred rhodes opinion on best bowler,AR,WK or 2nd best batsman?

 

[a massive zebra]

6019 runs at 107.48 in 43 matches with 25 centuries for bradman 1930-mid 1948.Simply unbelievable.
What was Wilfred rhodes opinion on best bowler,AR,WK or 2nd best batsman?

Wilfred Rhodes had a definite, but less analytical, view of the best bowler he ever saw:



Rhodes and Barnes were close friends so you might call his opinion slightly biased, but it does appear to be the common consensus amongst cricketers of his generation.

I don't recall Rhodes expressing a view on the second best batsman he saw, but he did have a clear view of the best batsman of his own generation:

 

[Gob]

Are you saying the others are better cricketers but Grace is greater? So does greatness merely mean someone who is iconic...that still wouldn't work because Grace isn't really iconic beyond cricketing borders, whereas the likes of Khan and Tendulkar are.

He was decent for a while but no way I would rank him up that high

 

[Gob]

You guys are talking about zaheer Khan right?

 

[trundler]

You guys are talking about zaheer Khan right?

Mate it wasn't funny the first time. No need to repeat yourself.