As you say, it's hard to believe. However by some quite telling statistical measures Grace's achievements over a sustained period are perhaps even more astonishing than Bradman's. I don't have the figures to hand but when/if the relevant thread gets re/started I will dig them out.
I remember seeing such stats - the good Doctor's performances when compared to his contemporaries in the 1870s and 1880s were nothing short of phenomenal. I've just always thought it was comparing apples with oranges a little - dominating the much narrower world of English cricket in the 19th Century isn't an even comparison with a similar level of dominance across the spectrum of a much more developed and international sport half a century later.
WG was the greatest of his era. And any comparison between him, Don and Tendulkar would be even more laughable than the cliched apple-orange-tomato one.
I disagree. Of course they're from different eras, and their games can't be compared precisely (not least because none of us saw WG or the Don play). That won't, and shouldn't, stop us from debating the point for the sake of it. Nothing will turn on the outcome of our discussions, except perhaps for the presentation of some interesting arguments and facts, so I say bring it on.
More or less, but probably without the slight sneer placed in the emphasis.
McGrath, Lillee, O'Reilly would be a few.
WG and Don, yes. Don and Tendulkar, though, no. There are many differences between Test cricket in the 1930s and 1990s, but the fundamental basics were the same. The same is not true of the 1870s and 1930s. You could recognise similarities, but no more than that. If cameras were positioned behind bowlers in the 1930s, and film was in colour, most casual eyes would be hard-pressed to tell the difference between a game in the 1930s and 1990s.
Not to mention the much more considerable factor that overarm bowling had only just been legalised in the 1870s, never mind become commonplace. It had essentially disappeared from the professional game by the 1930s.
See, I can't see that it's entirely fair to say that to be "great" you have to bring something new. I'm quite happy to let someone merely better what everyone has done before. I'm extremely sceptical that the likes of Bradman, Warne, Gilchrist and several others left the game any different to how it was before they arrived - players that good can't, really. No-one can remotely hope to match the deeds of a Bradman, or very possibly a Gilchrist. Muralitharan, of course, has matched the deeds of Warne but it's very possible no spinner will ever touch either again.
Averages don't work that way, though, and you know it. No batsman can be two batsmen, because you can only bat one innings at a time. Batting and bowling, however, you do at different times of the game. So you really can be two players in one if you're an all-rounder of the highest class.
It's an almost universely held view that those players DID leave the game changed from what had proceeded it. With something as ultimately subjective as how we view/understand/appreciate cricket, if enough people believe something to be true, it becomes true to all intents and purposes.
See, to me, you've crystallised exactly in these comments the difference between the best and being the greatest.
One innings in which you consistently score twice as much as any other batsman really = two innings, IMO.
Never heard it about Bradman TBH. People currently say it plenty about Gilchrist and Warne, but they're very wrong IMO and I hope that'll be realised as time goes by and people see how they didn't actually change anything, they just temporarily put themselves in playing positions.
You can't score if you don't have batsmen staying with you.
