W.G. versus The Don

[Athlai]

CW full of romantics.

 

[neville cardus]

Bradman.
Greatest batsman of all time, averaged 99.94 which is lightyears ahead of 2nd best.

As W.G.'s average in his time.

Handled England's piss weak bodyline tactics well and averaged 56.

Piss weak? They won an Ashes series.

Captained Australia.

So what? W.G. captained England.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Doubtless Bradman was better than Grace (just as Ponting is better than Bradman), but to look at it in such simplistic terms is abominably small-minded. Relativity ... that's the thing, and, relative to his contemporaries and the contemporary game, Grace swabs the floorboards with Sir Donald. Bradman did not revolutionise the game; he merely perfected it. Grace did both.

That's why I said in the post you quoted "WG stands head and shoulders above everyone else who's ever played the game." and "in terms of legacy Grace is beyond comparison." But I suppose you chose to comment on the other bit because you read the Guardian.

 

[neville cardus]

who the hell cares about "influence"?

Generally speaking, those whose minds are not bounded to neigh-baseless preconceptions. There is no doubt in my mind -- and, indeed, the minds of many better-qualified judges than I -- that, without William Gilbert Grace, cricket would not be as we know it. Of Bradman, for all his record-crushing, the same cannot be said.

Don Bradman is undoubtedly the best batsman of all time, anyone who disagrees is just wrong.

Theyre both batsmen, the topic is which one is better, answer = Bradman.
Not hard.

Especially when you can't be bothered to back it up.

 

[neville cardus]

That's why I said in the post you quoted "WG stands head and shoulders above everyone else who's ever played the game." and "in terms of legacy Grace is beyond comparison." But I suppose you chose to comment on the other bit because you read the Guardian.

Being South African, accessing said publication has always been a trifle difficult for me. The reason why I chose to reply to that bit of your post was not because I disagreed with anything that you wrote there but rather because it provided a nice platform from which to counter a sweeping statement or nine.

 

[Engle]

WG's legacy will not stand the test of time. A hundred years from now, he will fade fast if not forgotten by most followers.
Bradman's legacy is etched permanently in 99.94 carat gold

 

[Athlai]

Na Grace's beard alone should keep him in the limelight.

 

[neville cardus]

WG's legacy will not stand the test of time. A hundred years from now, he will fade fast if not forgotten by most followers.

What could possibly make you think that, given that his life and legacy are still both celebrated 160 years after his birth, I have no idea.

 

[Richard]

Irony being that Grace will never be forgotten due to the beard (a trifling irrelevancy) and the weight (a misnomer if ever there was one - as the Grace who really revolutionised the game in the 1870s was a very, very fine athlete).

The two irrelevantly-recalled things will keep him in the limelight so as his truly relevant deeds will never fade for those who are willing to keep even a trice of an open mind about cricket history.

 

[Beleg]

Umm, Bradman is far, far, far, far more famous than Grace.

 

[Richard]

He probably is, but much of that is purely due to the fact that the standout nature of his record is much more easily accessible than that of Grace's.

Any fool can have Bradman's 99.94 presented to them on a plate by a basic book or TV producer, and it remains outstanding despite the passing of time. To understand Grace's pre-eminence, you need to delve a little deeper, think a little bit for yourself, and have a little understanding of how runscoring has changed since the 1870s.

Far more people, by nature, are capable of the former than the latter.

 

[neville cardus]

Umm, Bradford is far, far, far, far more famous than Grace.

Pre-edit.

 

[Burgey]

Went for Grace here on the basis of his influence on the game, which it seemes he completely revolutionised.

It may be a different question if I had to pick an all time team though. That would have a lot to do with Grace's records being just so old, and in an era where cricket was less structured world wide than it was even in Bradman's time.

I think if there was an all time team, I'd choose Bradman before any other player. Sounds trite I know, but I still can't comprehend that you'd be happy to get a player out at test level for "only" a hundred. It just beggars belief.

Grace's legacy to me is less about his stats (which were, for their time incredibly formidable anyway), and more about how he changed the game, and went a long way towards making it a popular sport.

 

[neville cardus]

Grace's legacy to me is less about his stats (which were, for their time incredibly formidable anyway

He was often, relatively speaking, statistically further ahead of his contemporaries even than Bradman.

 

[Burgey]

No argument there, I just see his legacy as transcending them.

 

[neville cardus]

What in the name of impressive beards is Don doing with double the tally of his rival?

 

[Richard]

Thought the Peate-vs-Vettori case would've told y'all y'need to know TBH, Nev.

BTW, as an aside, don't suppose you could fire me an email? Summat I'd like to discuss with you.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Don Bradman.

 

[neville cardus]

Thought the Peate-vs-Vettori case would've told y'all y'need to know TBH, Nev.

I'm still in denial.

BTW, as an aside, don't suppose you could fire me an email? Summat I'd like to discuss with you.

Erm ... how?

 

[Richard]

How? Well, y'know... write email... send email... I presume you've an address you can do such a thing from, naturally?