Who is Australia's second best Test cricketer ever?

[The Sean]

We had a battle of the Englishmen. Hobbs beat Barnes 12-6 in the final, Ranji and Grace lost the semis.

Oh right, I even remember that now. Old age catching up with me...

[Lillian Thomson]

Worth a poll/battle I reckon - though I'm not convinced that Grace would win it. I reckon a lot of CWers would find the era he played in to be an immovable obstacle to considering him England's greatest ever.

As for Grace and Hobbs being unquestionably the top two - well if you as John Woodcock he's got Alfred Mynn sandwiched in between them.

If the poll was similar to this one ie: "best Test cricketer ever" I don't see any argument in favour of WG Grace. The greatest ever English cricketer certainly.

[The Sean]

If the poll was similar to this one ie: "best Test cricketer ever" I don't see any argument in favour of WG Grace. The greatest ever English cricketer certainly.

No argument from me. But as that Battle of the Englishmen showed, there are plenty here on CW who don't share that sentiment.

[zaremba]

Worth a poll/battle I reckon - though I'm not convinced that Grace would win it. I reckon a lot of CWers would find the era he played in to be an immovable obstacle to considering him England's greatest ever.

Dominance x Influence x Beard = the Greatest by a mile

[zaremba]

If the poll was similar to this one ie: "best Test cricketer ever" I don't see any argument in favour of WG Grace. The greatest ever English cricketer certainly.

A very fair point

[The Sean]

Dominance x Influence x Beard = the Greatest by a mile

This formula proves that Grace's beard was so important that if he'd shaved it he'd have been nothing. I can only concur - 'twas truly the king of beards.

[The Sean]

No votes for Monty Noble?

A wonderful player, though it's a push to consider him Australia's second greatest ever. That being said, there were those who saw both men in action who considered Noble to be Australia's greatest all rounder ahead of Miller.

When you read accounts from the first decade of the 20th century you begin to get a good idea of just what a colossal figure he was in Australian cricket. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that relatively speaking he was at least as big a name in Australian culture in the 1900s as Border was in the 1980s or Waugh in the 1990s.

[The Sean]

How many people on CW know much about cricketers from before the 1970s, never mind the 1930s? Even I don't know massive amounts about anyone before that famous Bradman's Ashes (except for the events of 1902 and 1905).

I would daresay there's more early cricket knowledge on CW than there is in most, if not all, other cricket forums in existence. I think we can be really proud of the depth and breadth of knowledge that we have here.

[Richard]

Oh, fo' sho', but still, I'd say the greater majority of posters on here don't care tremendously for anything that predates colour film.

[Precambrian]

Oh, fo' sho', but still, I'd say the greater majority of posters on here don't care tremendously for anything that predates colour film.

And there are valid reasons for that.

[Richard]

Noting that the poll asked for 'best' rather than 'greatest' or 'most valuable' I went for McGrath just over Miller and Warne. If it had been the other questions, it would have been a toss up tween warne, miller and Lillee.

Strange interpretation that, "2nd best" or "2nd Greatest" essentially mean the same thing to me

Not to me.

Yeah, odd TSTL for mine from he of the birth in '79. "Best" and "greatest" are just euphemisms for one another, the way I see it. Of course, "most valuable" is a bit different, but by-and-large the best players are the most valuable ones.

What's the difference between "best" and "greatest" then? All to do with mystic auras, I guess?

[zaremba]

Yeah, odd TSTL for mine from he of the birth in '79. "Best" and "greatest" are just euphemisms for one another, the way I see it. Of course, "most valuable" is a bit different, but by-and-large the best players are the most valuable ones.

What's the difference between "best" and "greatest" then? All to do with mystic auras, I guess?

Well put.
(Except that "euphemism" isn't a synonym for "synonym")

[Richard]

And there are valid reasons for that.

Maybe so. What's annoying, though, is when posters try to make the case that the stuff that they care about was better than that which they don't. If a poll question is posed about 110 years, quite often you'll see the results skewed by votes from people who pretty well never discuss anything that predates 40 years - or even 10 - and are simply voting for that which they are familiar with over that which they are not. Stay out of such things completely, IMO.

[Richard]

Sorry, who's their best bowler ever then?

Maybe Ray Lindwall; maybe Dennis Lillee; maybe Glenn McGrath. Maybe even Alan Davidson, though his time at the top was too short for mine, these days. He was 29 before he developed into a Test-class bowler and 33 when he retired.

The three right-armers, though, were all superlative.

[The Sean]

Yeah, odd TSTL for mine from he of the birth in '79. "Best" and "greatest" are just euphemisms for one another, the way I see it. Of course, "most valuable" is a bit different, but by-and-large the best players are the most valuable ones.

What's the difference between "best" and "greatest" then? All to do with mystic auras, I guess?

I can see Matt's point here - I think an example might be if someone considers Bradman to be the "best" cricketer of all time, due to him simply playing the game of cricket better than anyone before or since. But that same person might consider Grace the "greatest" cricketer of all, given his influence on and legacy to the sport overall, combined with his playing prowess.

Just an example obviously, but I can see the thinking.