Michael Holding vs Waqar Younis

[sayon basak]

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

61.51-29.48 is a 2.08× disparancy while 99.94-58.46 (Hammond) is a 1.70× disparency.

if Grace is to be rated, he should, by all rights, be the GOAT.

Richard Daft wasn't as good as Hammond imo.

 

[Johan]

Richard Daft wasn't as good as Hammond imo.

Why

 

[sayon basak]

Why

Why not?

Btw where did you get those numbers?

 

[Johan]

Why not?

Btw where did you get those numbers?

he's averaging 30 on wickets that must've been unimaginable to play on, it looks like the standard for good batters back then was 25 average and he's averaging 30, if WG's stats are taken seriously so should his contemporaries no?

I got them from @a massive zebra

 

[kyear2]

I think there's nothing much separating him and Garner. Garner had the better overall numbers, but he has ATG/Great series in all of India, England and Australia. In many ways, he is the Viv of bowling, not the most consistent but has high octane series in a variety of conditions.

Holding was the better bowler than Garner imo.

 

[kyear2]

nah Sobers is Hadlee

Yesssss, exactly this.

 

[capt_Luffy]

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

61.51-29.48 is a 2.08× disparancy while 99.94-58.46 (Hammond) is a 1.70× disparency.

if Grace is to be rated, he should, by all rights, be the GOAT.

It's from halfway of his career. He was ahead of everyone by a huge margin in the 1870s, but by the 2nd half of the 80s, Shrewsbury was better/equal. Then ofcourse in the 90s Ranji took the crown. Also, ofcourse his competition was shittier, Daft was no Hammond, Jupp no Headley and Beldham was 6 years older to Grace than he was to Sobers. I find Ranji's quote on Grace's batting to be very own point.

 

[kyear2]

c'mon bro

Barnes is Hobbs

Again, agree.

 

[kyear2]

and when did Marshall became spearhead?

Garner’s career also coincided with Holding.

'83

 

[kyear2]

My cut off point is turn of the century

You're on a roll today.

3 for 3

 

[a massive zebra]

he's averaging 30 on wickets that must've been unimaginable to play on, it looks like the standard for good batters back then was 25 average and he's averaging 30, if WG's stats are taken seriously so should his contemporaries no?

I got them from @a massive zebra

Those were the first class stats of any batsmen who had scored over 5,000 runs in first class cricket at an average of over 20 as at the end of the 1873 season.

 

[kyear2]

Sobers is Babe Ruth.
Marshall is Randy Johnson.

Then who is Don??

Sobers is Mays
Don is Ruth

 

[capt_Luffy]

Sobers is Mays
Don is Ruth

Ruth was the allrounder though

 

[Johan]

It's from halfway of his career. He was ahead of everyone by a huge margin in the 1870s, but by the 2nd half of the 80s, Shrewsbury was better/equal. Then ofcourse in the 90s Ranji took the crown. Also, ofcourse his competition was shittier, Daft was no Hammond, Jupp no Headley and Beldham was 6 years older to Grace than he was to Sobers. I find Ranji's quote on Grace's batting to be very own point.

doesn't that basically prove my point then? that Grace is an innovator to Cricket and during his time cricket went forward? as the Ranji quote you mentioned stated, it really makes Grace sound more or less like the father of modern batsmenship who completely changed how batting was done, so what wrong is it in saying Grace was the first modern style batter and somewhere in the golden era Cricket evolved to the game that is today, due to Grace's contributions.

 

[kyear2]

And it's very disingenuous.

How ?

 

[capt_Luffy]

doesn't that basically prove my point then? that Grace is an innovator to Cricket and during his time cricket went forward? as the Ranji quote you mentioned stated, it really makes Grace sound more or less like the father of modern batsmenship who completely changed how batting was done, so what wrong is it in saying Grace was the first modern style batter and somewhere in the golden era Cricket evolved to the game that is today, due to Grace's contributions.

Nothing really, except for that the somewhere belongs at the start of the 1890s, not 1900. I preferably take the date of first Test match. And Grace showed tremendous adaptation in his game. Spin was first discovered to counter him. He scored centuries against George Freeman, John Jackson, Fred Morley, Alfred Shaw, Fred Spofforth, George Lohmann, Charlie Turner, Bobby Peel, Johnny Briggs, Ted Peate to all the way through to Bart King, Wilfred Rhodes, Hugh Trumble and Sydney Barnes.

 

[Johan]

Nothing really, except for that the somewhere belongs at the start of the 1890s, not 1900. I preferably take the date of first Test match. And Grace showed tremendous adaptation in his game. Spin was first discovered to counter him. He scored centuries against George Freeman, John Jackson, Fred Morley, Alfred Shaw, Fred Spofforth, George Lohmann, Charlie Turner, Bobby Peel, Johnny Briggs, Ted Peate to all the way through to Bart King, Wilfred Rhodes, Hugh Trumble and Sydney Barnes.

so wait your whole point was to pull back my cut off date by 10 or 9 years to 1890-91 instead of 1900?

 

[capt_Luffy]

so wait your whole point was to pull back my cut off date by 10 or 9 years to 1890-91 instead of 1900?

Kinda..... I prefer the time when Tests began really, so 1877 (though count 1880 as well). And ofcourse, Grace counts.

 

[capt_Luffy]

How ?

After enough time passes, these thoughts rises:

 

[Johan]

Kinda..... I prefer the time when Tests began really, so 1877 (though count 1880 as well). And ofcourse, Grace counts.

You earned it