W.G. versus The Don

[neville cardus]

Makes my effort look like that of a school boy But then CB was a great writer

I really don't think that he played as big a role as most suspect.

 

[Sanz]

Hmm ... and where did you read about the Don?

Honestly I have not read much about him, not much more than what I have read about WG. But Sir Don's batting record is something that has always been and will always be talked about and and hence fans are more inclined to do a reaearch about him than on WG, who is rarely talked about outside of England or atleast in the subcontinent.

If I were not part of this forum, I wouldn't have known much about WG except that he was the guy who once said "they came to see me bat, not to see you umpire". Obviously that would spell my own ignorance on the subject but it is not because I was not interested in knowing about him but because hardly anyone ever talked/wrote about his immense contribution to the game.

 

[neville cardus]

Fair enough. It looks like Grace has been let down somewhat by the distance of his time and the game's rapid developmental changes since then.

 

[Engle]

A common quandry afflicting not just cricket, but all sports. With the passage of time, the heroes of yester-year fade further into the recesses of the collective psyche.

While I'm aware of WG's exploits (heck, I read Kynastons' Grace's 50th Birthday), I'm also fully cognizant of the fact that unless the athlete does something that will stand out exponentially, they will fade away gradually.

As a test amongst my cricketing fraternity who are fanatic about the modern game, I throw out a few names...Sutcliffe, Trumper, Richardson. I get blank stares.

FWIW, Graces' name still is recognizable, tho just barely.

 

[archie mac]

Damnation! I've only managed two.



I should get out that photo of his cover-drive again.



118 yards, he sent it.



Unfortunately, such photos are very rare, but I'll have a look 'round.



I do not believe that it was quite so bad as that. E.M., for example, could both drive and pull to astonishing effect.



Fry coined that one, no?



Admittedly, though, he caught it in his beard.



He would have gone on for longer had not fielding become such a mission.



And that at an age when most would have been put out to pasture.



And, like Don, he never registered a pair.



[SOFT WHISPER]399*[/SOFT WHISPER]



All of whom fielded.



A romantic notion, but not quite true.

I think it was Fry I new it was not me, so I put the quotes

On the 400 in a day, my memory must be faulty, I should have looked it up, but that is what your editor is for

 

[wpdavid]

Fair enough. It looks like Grace has been let down somewhat by the distance of his time and the game's rapid developmental changes since then.

And understandably so. I wouldn't want to choose who was the better bat for all the reasons previously stated, but if you're picking a side to save your life, you have to choose the guys who've performed in what is recognisably the same game as the one we now know & love.

During the 2005 ashes, C4 had a character dressed up like Grace flouncing around in their promotional clips. I wonder how many of the younger viewers knew who he was suppposed to be.

 

[Richard]

I found-out who Grace was the year I first started to get properly into the game FWIW.

 

[Ikki]

I guess I still see Bradman reigning supreme. It is very noteworthy to change the way a game is played based on technique and I suppose strategy. But creation of new techniques don't interest me as the pure dominance Bradman has shown in the sport. He is a freak.

 

[neville cardus]

A common quandry afflicting not just cricket, but all sports. With the passage of time, the heroes of yester-year fade further into the recesses of the collective psyche.

What ails me, though, is that this apparently applies now to the legends of yesteryear, too.

While I'm aware of WG's exploits (heck, I read Kynastons' Grace's 50th Birthday)

A book that I would dearly love to read some day. I have none of Kynaston's work but have it on good authority that he is a very fine and surreptitious writer.

As a test amongst my cricketing fraternity who are fanatic about the modern game, I throw out a few names...Sutcliffe, Trumper, Richardson. I get blank stares.

Dire -- truly dire --, but I know what you mean. Sadly, I myself am yet to speak to anyone, face to face, in my sunny corner of the globe, with whom I can have some proper, half-decent cricket chat; hence my predilection with this forum.

 

[Anil]

as a batsman and as a cricketer, the don is light years ahead, w.g has his place as one of the greatest pioneers of the modern game but he is nowhere near bradman in terms of cricketing ability...

 

[shortpitched713]

Pre-edit.

Beleg strikes again.

 

[Perm]

Bradman.

Too many stories about WG Grace that put him in a bad light, and I get the feeling he would be correctly labelled as a cheater in this day and age. I'm not saying all those stories are correct, but there must be some basis.

 

[archie mac]

Bradman.

Too many stories about WG Grace that put him in a bad light, and I get the feeling he would be correctly labelled as a cheater in this day and age. I'm not saying all those stories are correct, but there must be some basis.

I hardly think a man averaging 70 while his contemporaries average 25 can be explained away by a bit of 'sharp practice'

Surely these apocryphal stories are 99% relating to minor cricket?

 

[FRAZ]

I'll sum it up !
It's same like when you have to chose b/w Shoaib Akhtar and Wasim Akram . One is a showman and a real threating entertainer and a real treat to watch and the other one is a slow but steady perfectionist .
"Who is greater ?" may be means who is a better showman so I voted for Sir W.G.

 

[Perm]

I hardly think a man averaging 70 while his contemporaries average 25 can be explained away by a bit of 'sharp practice'

Surely these apocryphal stories are 99% relating to minor cricket?

No need to bust the rolleyes out on me archie, stop being so precious.

As I said in my initial post, I am NOT sure whether the stories are true or false, but there most be some basis to them. I wouldn't discredit Grace's run scoring because of some 'sharp practice' as you call it, but I wouldn't vote for him because it tarnishes his reputation hugely.

 

[archie mac]

No need to bust the rolleyes out on me archie, stop being so precious.

As I said in my initial post, I am NOT sure whether the stories are true or false, but there most be some basis to them. I wouldn't discredit Grace's run scoring because of some 'sharp practice' as you call it, but I wouldn't vote for him because it tarnishes his reputation hugely.

Always know the roll eyes will get a bite from you

Hugely is a big over reaction tbh, no difference in batsman not walking or fielders appealing when they know the batsman did not hit the ball.

 

[Perm]

Always know the roll eyes will get a bite from you

Hugely is a big over reaction tbh, no difference in batsman not walking or fielders appealing when they know the batsman did not hit the ball.

How often does a batsman stay at the crease and not want to leave after the umpire has given him out? It almost never happens, unless there was major controversy over the dismissal. Often a batsman will wait for the umpire to decide, as put down in the rules of the game, before he walks. I've no problem with that, because it's the umpires decision and I don't feel as though the batsman is cheating at all.

What WG Grace did, from the limited things I have read, was blatant cheating that bordered on ridiculous.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

How often does a batsman stay at the crease and not want to leave after the umpire has given him out? It almost never happens, unless there was major controversy over the dismissal. Often a batsman will wait for the umpire to decide, as put down in the rules of the game, before he walks. I've no problem with that, because it's the umpires decision and I don't feel as though the batsman is cheating at all.

What WG Grace did, from the limited things I have read, was blatant cheating that bordered on ridiculous.

It depends what you choose to believe. The story where he stayed in and said something like "The crowd have come to watch me bat and not you bowl" has been exaggerated out of all proportion, there are so many versions of it. The one I think most likely is that it was a charity match and the huge crowd were still coming in so the fielding side withdrew their appeal so as not to upset the crowd at not seeing the main draw card.

 

[archie mac]

It depends what you choose to believe. The story where he stayed in and said something like "The crowd have come to watch me bat and not you bowl" has been exaggerated out of all proportion, there are so many versions of it. The one I think most likely is that it was a charity match and the huge crowd were still coming in so the fielding side withdrew their appeal so as not to upset the crowd at not seeing the main draw card.

Like I said very minor matches, and time and tall stories should be taken with a grain of salt imho

There is one for instance where Grace is suppose (after being bowled first ball) to have replaced the bails and said "I always get a practice ball"

In his own bio he attributes the story to another pro on the tour of Aust. But this has since became a WG story

 

[neville cardus]

Bradman.
Too many stories about WG Grace that put him in a bad light, and I get the feeling he would be correctly labelled as a cheater in this day and age. I'm not saying all those stories are correct, but there must be some basis.

Can you point to even one certain, clear-cut instance of blatant cheating on W.G.'s part? If you can, do you honestly think that it would be so terribly out of place in this day and age? As Michael Clarke and Chamara Silva proved recently, patent fraudulence was not confined to the Victorians and their greatest pallbearer.