"Greatest Ever" Lists - A Modern Evolution

[Uppercut]

Ha, it didn't take long for the WG Grace criticisms to be emphatically shot down.

 

[Burgey]

At the turn of the century, Wisden asked 100 eminent cricketing people to nominate their Five Cricketers of the 20th Century. After collating the votes, the top 10 was:

1. Don Bradman
2. Garry Sobers
3. Jack Hobbs
4. Shane Warne
5. Viv Richards
6= Dennis Lillee
6= Frank Worrell
8. Walter Hammond
9. Denis Compton
10= Imran Khan
10= Richard Hadlee

Very happy these people had Worrell so high. What a man.

 

[morgieb]

I never understand why people rate WG Grace so highly as a cricketer. No one alive has seen him play and his statistics aren't the greatest like Bradman or Sobers.

Tests weren't as important in his day, plus you should compare him to his peers. Most of them averaged like 10!

 

[The Sean]

Very happy these people had Worrell so high. What a man.

Indeed. As Davo so rightly said of him: "Capital S. Capital I. Capital R."

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Exactly. People in the late 1800's were amateurs as compared to cricketers post war. Today the good doctor would just have been a doctor.

 

[fredfertang]

So based on only that, people call him a great. In those days everyone was a cricket amateur apart from Grace who modernised the game, so people should expect him to be much greater than his peers. It's like rating a nothing special international bowler as a great because he is significantly better than all the club cricketers he has played.

Exactly. People in the late 1800's were amateurs as compared to cricketers post war. Today the good doctor would just have been a doctor.

Struggling to reconcile those two tbh

 

[Agent Nationaux]

How are you struggling. I called them amateurs in both posts. Or are you really going to argue that players back then were just as professional as today.

 

[fredfertang]

How are you struggling. I called them amateurs in both posts. Or are you really going to argue that players back then were just as professional as today.

England in Victorian times had lots of men who derived their living from cricket and were openly professional and recognised as such - Grace wasn't one of them of course, though his was the best living of all.

The first of your posts that I quoted implies Grace was the uber-professional of his time, which is a fair point, whereas your second goes back to saying that like his peers he was, whatever label is applied to them, really an amateur compared with today's players

I simply don't buy the argument that because the cricketers of the 1800s didn't have a battery of coaches and analysts to help them, which as far as I can see is your point, makes them any less professional.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I didn't say Grace was uber professional. Just compared him to a nothing special player (in today's standards) against club level players. And nothing special players don't survive international cricket for long.

And my generation is the greatest in terms of overall sporting excellence. So yes they are much more professional and athletic.

 

[fredfertang]

I said your post contained an implication, not a statement, and I still think it does.

As to your second paragraph no one would dispute that today's players are more athletic than those from Grace's era or, quite frankly, from as recently as a generation ago, but I still don't see why, Arthur Shrewsbury for example, is any less a professional than, say, Sachin Tendulkar

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Does it really matter because overall today's players are better. And Grace wouldn't have been as good as Tendulkar or Ponting, etc.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I said your post contained an implication, not a statement, and I still think it does.

As to your second paragraph no one would dispute that today's players are more athletic than those from Grace's era or, quite frankly, from as recently as a generation ago, but I still don't see why, Arthur Shrewsbury for example, is any less a professional than, say, Sachin Tendulkar

Because Tendulkar "eats, sleeps and drinks" cricket. A much more professional player!

 

[Prince EWS]

I never understand why people rate WG Grace so highly as a cricketer. No one alive has seen him play and his statistics aren't the greatest like Bradman or Sobers.

They are actually, if you take them into the right context.

 

[fredfertang]

Does it really matter because overall today's players are better. And Grace wouldn't have been as good as Tendulkar or Ponting, etc.

Depends how you define better - in the sense that Tendulkar and Ponting have had the benefit of more than a century's development in the game I agree. But if you are suggesting they are more talented then I certainly don't

 

[Prince EWS]

I've been having a look at Grace's First Class career with this method.

If you treated the England First Class season (inclusive of all Tests, county games, etc) in the same way I've treated a Test calender year here, Grace's standardised batting average in the 862 matches he played in the English summer would be 72.03. Using the same "value" formula I used here which gave the Don a 12.47 rating, Grace gets a rating of 12.97 for his First Class batting in England.

If that doesn't seem impressive enough, his standardised average dropped off significantly towards the end of his career as he played on well into his late 50s. After 17 years of cricket and 293 matches his standardised average was still sitting pretty at over 102. In his prime - after 10 years of cricket and 143 matches - his standardised average stood at a ridiculous 123.71.

And that's before we even start looking at his bowling - no small matter of 2800 First Class wickets.

Seems relevant enough here.

 

[Flem274*]

I strongly disagree with Warne being so high on some of these lists. He shouldn't even be the first specialist bowler named, let alone ahead of an all time great bowler and passable batsman like Imran Khan.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Talent doesn't make you ATG. Could Grace have faced the pressures of the modern game like Tendulkar to be considered an ATG?

And even then I would say he wasn't as talented.

 

[Flem274*]

And even then I would say he wasn't as talented.

Tell us when about when you saw him play and how you went about measuring such an intangible thing as "talent"?

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Impressive average compared to rubbish bowlers in 1800's. I doubt he would have even averaged 40 against Marshall or Akram or McGrath.

 

[Prince EWS]

Talent doesn't make you ATG. Could Grace have faced the pressures of the modern game like Tendulkar to be considered an ATG?

And even then I would say he wasn't as talented.

Could Tendulkar have faced the entirely different pressures of the pre-Test game like Grace?

Would Brian Lara have been successful as a wicket keeper on uncovered wickets? Would Dravid have been a good 1940s leg spinner?