W.G. versus The Don

[Perm]

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.

Yes, it does. I'm not pretending to be any sort of expert on WG Grace, as my knowledge on that era of the game isn't as good as many of the members here, but there have been several stories throughout the years that paint Grace in an extremely poor light. In my experience, those sort of stories don't spring up from nowhere, so there must be some sort of basis. Whether they are true or not, well I don't really know. However, there is sufficient doubt over Grace's sportsmanship for it to be held against him (IMO).

 

[Perm]

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.

Cheating is out of place in any era, of that I have no doubt. Comparing the doubt of Michael Clarke and Chamara Silva over catches is far different to not leaving the crease after being clean-bowled (as the story goes). But no, my knowledge of the game isn't extensive enough to have pin-pointed any definite cases of cheating.

 

[neville cardus]

SJS' disparaging talk of that C_C fool is always worth a rehash.

I'm rather tempted to take a dip into the archives and see what all the fuss is about, but it'd probably serve only to up the blood pressure.

 

[Perm]

So, although it might not have happened -- indeed, it is highly likely that it did not happen --, it nevertheless counts against him?

Why is it, I wonder, that this ostensible cheating did not hugely tarnish his reputation during his own epoch? Why is it that, based only on these unsubstantiated yarns, we discount him as a cheating rogue who would never get by today?

How is it highly likely that those instances of WG Grace supposedly cheating did not actually happen? Stories have to evolve from somewhere, they don't just spring up from nothing.

Grace was held in such reverance (rightly so, for his acheivements are hugely impressive) back in his hay-day and is considered the grand-father of cricket. If there was any who did question his honesty and sportsmanship, then they would be quickly dismissed by the multitude of fans and supporters who felt differently.

 

[neville cardus]

Cheating is out of place in any era, of that I have no doubt. Comparing the doubt of Michael Clarke and Chamara Silva over catches

There's no doubt in my mind, but that's an entirely different matter.

is far different to not leaving the crease after being clean-bowled (as the story goes). But no, my knowledge of the game isn't extensive enough to have pin-pointed any definite cases of cheating.

Incidentally, I was just browsing through some old emails when I spotted the following of relevance from David Frith (who I'm certain won't mind me repeating it here):

"Yes, Wilfred (on a tape which I still have, though the old reel-to-reel machine's now too noisy to play it properly) relished telling of trapping WG leg-before. Bob Thoms raised his finger, but the Old Man seemed reluctant to depart. 'Y're out! Y're out! You'll have to go!' bellowed Thoms. And so WG went."

Doubtless that's the sort of antic to which you were referring?

 

[neville cardus]

How is it highly likely that those instances of WG Grace supposedly cheating did not actually happen? Stories have to evolve from somewhere, they don't just spring up from nothing.

They most certainly don't, but you've just answered for me: I reckon that most have "evolved", out of minor happenings, into grossly distorted and misleading legends.

Grace was held in such reverance (rightly so, for his acheivements are hugely impressive) back in his hay-day and is considered the grand-father of cricket. If there was any who did question his honesty and sportsmanship, then they would be quickly dismissed by the multitude of fans and supporters who felt differently.

By many accounts, they were.

 

[neville cardus]

Given that, before its abrupt conclusion, this argument was fast degenerating into an all-out flamewar, the sort in which the last word is golden, might the fact that I had the last word be construed as my winning it?

 

[Richard]

Certainly.















IMO

 

[neville cardus]

Your word is golden, Rich.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Cheat? No sir. Don't you ever believe it: he were too clever for that.

I should rephrase that...refusing to leave the crease.

Edit: If, indeed, the stories were true.

 

[Son Of Coco]

How so? Have you even bothered to examine the relevant statistics (vis-a-vis, those not distorted by Grace's playing on too long)? His coming was far more a revelation to the game than Bradman's, and that is proven by the wealth of records that he not only broke but absolutely smashed, and how comparatively far ahead of his contemporaries he was.

THat's fair enough, but then Bradman's relevant statistics would have to take into account his battles with illness whilst playing. No disrespect to WG, as he was obviously a revolutionary at the time, but the records he smashed were probably a bit of a reflection on the state of the game during that period. He's the 'Elvis'*of the game, but that doesn't mean someone hasn't made better music in the years following

(* Note: I'm not suggesting he had a penchant for fast food and prescription drugs in his latter years with this comparison. )

 

[neville cardus]

I should rephrase that...refusing to leave the crease.

If you could provide a clear-cut instance of his getting away with it in first-class cricket, rather than in the minor rubbish from which most of this defamation stems, I'd be most impressed, not so say surprised.

 

[neville cardus]

THat's fair enough, but then Bradman's relevant statistics would have to take into account his battles with illness whilst playing.

While, with W.G., you would have to take into account the toll that his professional responsibilities took. Having struck an unbeaten 163 in a county match one day, W.G. went home early for a much-deserved and -needed night's rest, but was pulled away to attend to a maternity case. He did get a wink of sleep all night.

Returning to the game the following morning, however, Grace sailed on to 221 and then, with Gloucestershire in the field, started on his match haul of eleven wickets at less eleven runs apiece, from all of 63 overs.

At the end of the game, one of the Gloucestershire players, astounded by his captain's energy, asked how the maternity case had gone. "Oh," smirked Grace, "it was fairly successful: the child died, and so did the mother; but I saved the father."

No disrespect to WG, as he was obviously a revolutionary at the time, but the records he smashed were probably a bit of a reflection on the state of the game during that period.

Doubtless, in today's terms, the same could be said of Bradman's records. It is only to be expected that the game should improve over the course of time. No cricketer, in terms of ability, can transcend the many years we're talking about here; he may only stand out in his own. 'Tsall relative, and it would be unfair to approach it otherwise.

 

[Son Of Coco]

If you could provide a clear-cut instance of his getting away with it in first-class cricket, rather than in the minor rubbish from which most of this defamation stems, I'd be most impressed, not so say surprised.

I probably can't...I'm not up for trolling through websites , but then unless any of us were at the ground and saw it either happen, or not happen, with our own eyes there's no clear cut way of proving anything. One person says it was written of so it must of happened, the other says it was probably minor games, or a charity match (like the 1877 Tsunami Benefit I presume ).

Ok...so maybe I did have a look on Google

The scene is a cricket field during a Test match. Late in the third innings, a close-in fieldsman indulges in a little gamesmanship. After the batsman has played his shot, deciding not to run, the fieldsman beckons to him. The unwitting batsman leaves his crease for the supposed chat, the fieldsman throws down the stumps, and a shameful run out is completed.

Murmurs start about the erosion of the spirit of cricket. The batting team is incensed. One of its members in particular is livid and comes out in the next innings to take 7-44 and lift his side to a seven-wicket win.

Many may think this took place in the so-called dark days of the 1970s when gamesmanship boomed under the influence of Ian Chappell. Perhaps it occurred during Steve Waugh's reign as a tough, ruthless, success-obsessed Australian captain.

In fact, the batsman involved was Australian No.8 Sammy Jones. The fieldsman was the revered Englishman Dr W. G. Grace. The incensed bowler was Fred "The Demon" Spofforth, and the match spawned a small mock death notice in a London newspaper a few days later, from which the Ashes legend began.

 

[neville cardus]

Under the rules of the time, W.G. was well within his rights to do that. Although it earned him widespread condemnation, it certainly wasn't cheating.

 

[Son Of Coco]

While, with W.G., you would have to take into account the toll that his professional responsibilities took. Having struck an unbeaten 163 in a county match one day, W.G. went home early for a much-deserved and -needed night's rest, but was pulled away to attend to a maternity case. He did get a wink of sleep all night.

Returning to the game the following morning, however, Grace sailed on to 221 and then, with Gloucestershire in the field, started on his match haul of eleven wickets at less eleven runs apiece, from all of 63 overs.

At the end of the game, one of the Gloucestershire players, astounded by his captain's energy, asked how the maternity case had gone. "Oh," smirked Grace, "it was fairly successful: the child died, and so did the mother; but I saved the father."


Doubtless, in today's terms, the same could be said of Bradman's records. It is only to be expected that the game should improve over the course of time. No cricketer, in terms of ability, can transcend the many years we're talking about here; he may only stand out in his own. 'Tsall relative, and it would be unfair to approach it otherwise.

As I said before, WG was obviously a revolutionary with his approach to batting and his records speak for themselves, as do Bradman's. WG had an all-round game when many of his contemporaries were very limited in their approach. Bradman took batting to another level during his playing career and it hasn't been matched since. They're probably very similar in their impact on the game (with WG being the man who changed the way batting was approached). I'm not sure being the first to do something necessarily makes you the best though, hence the 'Elvis' analogy. Having not seen either in real life I can't really voice an opinion on which I'd rather watch play, so unfortunately stats is all I have. WG scored a massive amount of runs though, and was obviously a very good player.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Under the rules of the time, W.G. was well within his rights to do that. Although it earned him widespread condemnation, it certainly wasn't cheating.

Did the rules state that you were allowed to call a player out of his crease and then run him out? I have my doubts, but then the batsman was a bit stupid for walking over to him I suppose.

 

[pasag]

Currently a couple hundred pages into Rae's WG Grace so might be a bit biased here, but my God he was good. The most telling factor for me (where I'm up to in his career anyways age 25 or so) is that whenever he failed with the bat he almost certainly made up with it with stunning performances with the ball. Also his fitness was superb with no boundaries having to run everything (sometimes up to 7) is truly amazing. To paraphrase a good post from a while back, everything we have today including Bradman stands on his shoulders.

 

[archie mac]

Currently a couple hundred pages into Rae's WG Grace so might be a bit biased here, but my God he was good. The most telling factor for me (where I'm up to in his career anyways age 25 or so) is that whenever he failed with the bat he almost certainly made up with it with stunning performances with the ball. Also his fitness was superb with no boundaries having to run everything (sometimes up to 7) is truly amazing. To paraphrase a good post from a while back, everything we have today including Bradman stands on his shoulders.

Good to see you back

It is true, that you really need to read a bio of the great man (and you have picked the best) to understand just how good a cricketer WG was

 

[neville cardus]

As I said before, WG was obviously a revolutionary with his approach to batting and his records speak for themselves, as do Bradman's. WG had an all-round game when many of his contemporaries were very limited in their approach. Bradman took batting to another level during his playing career and it hasn't been matched since.

And therein, I think, lies the difference. W.G. brought batting to the world, and we still delight in his gift today; Don brought to it batting perfection, but his is not a gift in which we can share. It is, I suppose, up to you decide who is the greater for that.

They're probably very similar in their impact on the game (with WG being the man who changed the way batting was approached). I'm not sure being the first to do something necessarily makes you the best though, hence the 'Elvis' analogy. Having not seen either in real life I can't really voice an opinion on which I'd rather watch play, so unfortunately stats is all I have. WG scored a massive amount of runs though, and was obviously a very good player.

As I have already mentioned, W.G. was further ahead of his time than Bradman was his. I don't comprehend the logic in discriminating against Grace based on the relative backwardness his epoch. All that we could possibly ask of either man is that he master the conditions of his era. Both did that, but W.G. emphatically more so, and it is for that -- and the fact that we are still reaping the benefits of his sway today -- that I hold him in such high regard.