In memory of William Gilbert Grace

[SJS]

It is my favourite time 'The Golden Age of Cricket' I know there were a lot of problems, but have a look at our times. If I had the choice of watching any Cricket series in history; I would with out any compulsion vote for the 1902 series. No WG but maybe I could take in a county game featuring the Doc.

All those who existed fifty years or more before I was born were unprofessional, rascist, did things only for sinister motives, substandard, inconsistent, and (Gawd help us all) immoral as well.

I refuse to condone them

And if you do not stop appeasing them I am going to issue a fatwa against you infidels

-signed-
Ayatollah Chair Critic​

 

[Steulen]

Jeeee Haaaad!

- signed: Cowboy Yusuf

 

[archie mac]

All those who existed fifty years or more before I was born were unprofessional, rascist, did things only for sinister motives, substandard, inconsistent, and (Gawd help us all) immoral as well.

I refuse to condone them

And if you do not stop appeasing them I am going to issue a fatwa against you infidels

-signed-
Ayatollah Chair Critic​

Lol, well I found it funny

 

[SJS]

Lol, well I found it funny

How dare you, you, you

 

[archie mac]

How dare you, you, you

Sorry, I always have a nervous laugh when I am scared silly, please take pity on this poor Golden Age Tragic.

 

[C_C]

All those who existed fifty years or more before I was born were unprofessional, rascist, did things only for sinister motives, substandard, inconsistent, and (Gawd help us all) immoral as well.

I refuse to condone them

And if you do not stop appeasing them I am going to issue a fatwa against you infidels

-signed-
Ayatollah Chair Critic​

Do not twist my words.
Where did i say ALL of them were ?
It is on RECORD that CB Fry and the likes admitted to matchfixing for more money and any objective social commentary of 1800s english cricket reflects inequality due to social standing and class factors.
There are numerous lords and nobles who played regularly despite not being worth the dirt in some of the player's shoes in cricketing term.
You can condone racists, blue-blood superiorists, matchfixers etc. if you want.
That is your perogative.
And it is my perogative to deduce that you lack any moral and objective fibre in your being for condoning that.

And they WERE substandard. Show me ANY field in human activity that hasnt progressed far beyond what it was in the 1800s. Show me just one!

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It's strange how everyone has a different version of the refusing to walk story. The one I heard was that he was playing in charity game and was clean bowled, he said to the opposing captain that the huge crowd had come to see him bat and the fielding side withdrew the appeal.

 

[a massive zebra]

Show me ANY field in human activity that hasnt progressed far beyond what it was in the 1800s. Show me just one!

Billiards.

 

[a massive zebra]

And they WERE substandard.

Do you think Grace/Ranji/Trumper/Rhodes/Lohmann/Barnes would make a county side today?

 

[Richard]

Probably not, but there we go - that's just the C_C way of things.
Fundamentally flawed in some of it's bases, but the crux idea isn't an inconceivable thing - there's no disputing that the likes of CB Fry and a few others "organised" matches (what would today be fixing of the highest order), nor that some amateurs mightn't have taken the game wholly seriously.

 

[SJS]

Do you think Grace/Ranji/Trumper/Rhodes/Lohmann/Barnes would make a county side today?

You could also ask, would Tendulkar have batted like this if he was born a hundred years earlier ??

 

[C_C]

Billiards.

Incorrect...Billiards has progressed...the best scores posted were in the last half century.

 

[C_C]

Fundamentally flawed in some of it's bases, but the crux idea isn't an inconceivable thing - there's no disputing that the likes of CB Fry and a few others "organised" matches (what would today be fixing of the highest order), nor that some amateurs mightn't have taken the game wholly seriously.

Care to point out the flaws ?

 

[C_C]

Do you think Grace/Ranji/Trumper/Rhodes/Lohmann/Barnes would make a county side today?

Yeah. County isnt that high-standard.....there are some pretty mediocre players who play county today.
If you change the question to " do you think Grace/Ranji/Trumper/Rhodes/Lohmann/barnes would've been as great today as they were in their era ?" then i would have to answer as thus:

If they were born in this era, its pure speculation how good they would've turned out.
For while they get to scrutinise the bowlers in greater magnitude, the bowlers get to scrutinise them at a higher magnitude...any flaw in execution would be exposed by high callibre bowlers and exploited to the hilt.

If they were magically time-warped into this day and age, right from the middle of the pitch to a modern day pitch, then NO.
For their skills and level of game empirically were at an inferior level, given the lack of professionalism, fitness, much tougher fielding standard and a methodical approach to cricket.

 

[archie mac]

Yeah. County isnt that high-standard.....there are some pretty mediocre players who play county today.
If you change the question to " do you think Grace/Ranji/Trumper/Rhodes/Lohmann/barnes would've been as great today as they were in their era ?" then i would have to answer as thus:

If they were born in this era, its pure speculation how good they would've turned out.
For while they get to scrutinise the bowlers in greater magnitude, the bowlers get to scrutinise them at a higher magnitude...any flaw in execution would be exposed by high callibre bowlers and exploited to the hilt.

If they were magically time-warped into this day and age, right from the middle of the pitch to a modern day pitch, then NO.
For their skills and level of game empirically were at an inferior level, given the lack of professionalism, fitness, much tougher fielding standard and a methodical approach to cricket.

Your talking about some of the greatest players ever, I don't think it would take them long to adapt, and then to dominate.

 

[C_C]

Your talking about some of the greatest players ever, I don't think it would take them long to adapt, and then to dominate.

Do you think Euclid would take a few weeks/months to 'adapt' and then dominate the cutting edge mathematics ?

There is no reason to believe that they most definately would adapt...... that part is mere conjencture.
What isnt, is that empirically they were of lower quality.

 

[archie mac]

Do you think Euclid would take a few weeks/months to 'adapt' and then dominate the cutting edge mathematics ?

There is no reason to believe that they most definately would adapt...... that part is mere conjencture.
What isnt, is that empirically they were of lower quality.

It may take him a little longer, but I imagine his IQ would be very high. The more I think of it the more I believe the father of goementry would still be one of the leaders if he hitched a ride with Dr Who.

 

[C_C]

It may take him a little longer, but I imagine his IQ would be very high. The more I think of it the more I believe the father of goementry would still be one of the leaders if he hitched a ride with Dr Who.

There is no reason to believe that.
Several scientists grappled with basic concepts that they never quiete got ( akin to a chink in the armor of a batsman/bowler) - Euclid never understood 'zero'. he simply could not understand 'nothingness and something going into nothing would give nothing'.
Newton simply did not get the concept of non-euclidian geometry.

It is just a supposition that they would adapt to relative levels and set up shop to dominate like they did back in their era.... some may no doubt do just that.......but some may find it hopelessly complicated to thrive.
Either which way is possible......its just conjencture.
What isnt conjencture is the fact that Euclid had a lot less understanding of mathematics than your standard math student in univ. and the skill level of players back in the victorian age were considerably lower than skills of the modern day players.

 

[archie mac]

There is no reason to believe that.
Several scientists grappled with basic concepts that they never quiete got ( akin to a chink in the armor of a batsman/bowler) - Euclid never understood 'zero'. he simply could not understand 'nothingness and something going into nothing would give nothing'.
Newton simply did not get the concept of non-euclidian geometry.

It is just a supposition that they would adapt to relative levels and set up shop to dominate like they did back in their era.... some may no doubt do just that.......but some may find it hopelessly complicated to thrive.
Either which way is possible......its just conjencture.
What isnt conjencture is the fact that Euclid had a lot less understanding of mathematics than your standard math student in univ. and the skill level of players back in the victorian age were considerably lower than skills of the modern day players.

I am not debating that things have not improved, but that great players from other generatios are still great. If Fanny Durack had the benifits of modern coaching, why would she not win a gold medal? Conjecture is just that.

 

[C_C]

I am not debating that things have not improved, but that great players from other generatios are still great. If Fanny Durack had the benifits of modern coaching, why would she not win a gold medal? Conjecture is just that.

Conjencture is when you dont know either which way but prefer to find one way more valid than another.
Ie, i think they might've been good and its just as likely that they might've been really poor.
To assume that they would've been good is conjencture....... just as big a conjencture to say that they still would've failed ( which is not what i am saying)...the only credible way you can compare is not be subject to such conjencture and compare the game of player1 to player2 according to the quality at which they performed when they were active...