SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Thats why I wish people would read more about the earlier times. Its fascinating stuff to start with on top of that its an education
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
WG Grace - The Champion Cricketer
- Thread starter SJS
- Start date
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Okay here are action pictures of WG. Please keep in mind he was well into his fifties when these were taken and as Fry has suggested his movements had become slower and restricted because of his weight and age. The beauty of the strokes and the purity of technique still stands out. Also remember this is probably the man who was most responsible for batting to look the way it does today.
The Grip and the Stance
Its clear that his grip is the orthodox grip used by players even today though very few have the 100 % orthodox grip. The stance however is a different matter.
In the second picture he is standing with the bat away from the body as was in fashion when he started his cricket. The resting of the bat lightly against the inner thigh came later and you see it in the second picture. Its not clear which stance WG used regularly. One has seen more pictures with the older stance than the newer.
Even in the latter picture the bat is not resting closer to the leg as in the case of. say Trumper as in the picture that follows.
The Grip and the Stance
Its clear that his grip is the orthodox grip used by players even today though very few have the 100 % orthodox grip. The stance however is a different matter.
In the second picture he is standing with the bat away from the body as was in fashion when he started his cricket. The resting of the bat lightly against the inner thigh came later and you see it in the second picture. Its not clear which stance WG used regularly. One has seen more pictures with the older stance than the newer.
Even in the latter picture the bat is not resting closer to the leg as in the case of. say Trumper as in the picture that follows.
Last edited:
adharcric
International Coach
Is there anything wrong with that? If we have anecdotal evidence that there were no tear-away fast bowlers around when (for example) Grace batted, can we be sure that he would've fared well against such bowlers in a different era? Similarly, can we be certain that Tendulkar would've thrived without any protective gear on those pitches against Barnes? Many cricket fans seem to believe that the standard of play has generally improved with time, hence someone like Grace being discredited more so than someone like Tendulkar. Is it possible to compare cricketers across eras or shall we simply compare them to contemporaries and assume that they would've done just fine at any other time?SJS said:
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you but am raising some questions. Lots of questions, perhaps you have some answers.
Last edited:
bagapath
International Captain
am i wrong to believe in the age old saying of "once a champion, always a champion"?
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Yes. Once a champion doesn't necessarily mean always a champion. If Bjorg, McEnroe, Sampras and Federer had played in the same era, not all would be as dominant. Surely some would win less and hence be less credited.
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
The grip and stance of the Australian champion of the day
Victor Trumper
Well to be accurate, Trumper was 29 years younger than WG and started his FC cricket 35 years later. Thats a lot of time.
Trumper's grip is slightly (very slightly) more strong in the right hand. The right hand grips the bat more firmly with the entire palm and fingers in complete contact with the handle. This has become more pronounced in Australians and they have, by and large, had firmer right hand grips. Otherwise Trumper's grip is orthodox and his stance is very relaxed. As was the trend in those days, his left foot is slightly straightened (pointing towards cover/extra cover) but not as much as WG's.
The foot pointing forward was a sign of the early times when the game was almost entirely based on front foot. Later came backfoot play but even then it divided players between the front foot and the backfoot players. WG was the first top player to play off both feet and play the stroke according to the length of the ball rather than the preference of the batsman which is how it was till then. Even so, WG's left foot is pointing towards wide mid off in keeping with the norm of his younger days.
Doesn't Trumper look so supremely relaxed and yet so full of energy? I think the finest action pictures Beldham took were of the Australian champion. He must have been some awesome batsman.
Victor Trumper
Well to be accurate, Trumper was 29 years younger than WG and started his FC cricket 35 years later. Thats a lot of time.
Trumper's grip is slightly (very slightly) more strong in the right hand. The right hand grips the bat more firmly with the entire palm and fingers in complete contact with the handle. This has become more pronounced in Australians and they have, by and large, had firmer right hand grips. Otherwise Trumper's grip is orthodox and his stance is very relaxed. As was the trend in those days, his left foot is slightly straightened (pointing towards cover/extra cover) but not as much as WG's.
The foot pointing forward was a sign of the early times when the game was almost entirely based on front foot. Later came backfoot play but even then it divided players between the front foot and the backfoot players. WG was the first top player to play off both feet and play the stroke according to the length of the ball rather than the preference of the batsman which is how it was till then. Even so, WG's left foot is pointing towards wide mid off in keeping with the norm of his younger days.
Doesn't Trumper look so supremely relaxed and yet so full of energy? I think the finest action pictures Beldham took were of the Australian champion. He must have been some awesome batsman.
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Of course you cant be sure. Thats why comparison of players of two completely different eras are so silly. You can only compare them with their own counter parts. If a player is head and shoulders above his contemporaries then he is a Champion. While no one can guarantee or prove anything, surely it is safe to say that of all the hundreds of thousands playing the game then, he would fare the best in a completely different era. Remember by this we are not saying that if WG was transferred by a time machine to the future or Sachin was taken by a time machine to the past but that both were born at the same time, in mid 19th century or late 20th.
That is a fair supposition and the only one that can be made.
As bagapath puts it once a Champion always a Champion. I could put it differently. "A Champion, is a Champion, is a Champion." and a Champion is as I defined earlier in this post 'a champ of his time'
G.I.Joe
International Coach
Yeah, I agree. Kumble could possibly have been the greatest bowler ever on uncovered wickets, but he isn't the greatest ever on covered wickets. Even allowing for Grace's upbringing in a modern era, there is no guarantee his game would have dominated the modern environment to the extent he did back then.
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Finally some sort of comparisons ARE possible.
There were people who watched, played with or against Grace, Ranji, Trumper and Hobbs who have written in detail about these champions and even compared them There are more than one such account available to have a reasonable idea.
Then there are those who saw Hobbs, Hammond, Bradman, and George Headley play. The number of books and accounts are numerous.
Those who saw Bradman, Hutton, Compton, May, Harvey, Weekes, Walcott, and Worrell are too many for you to even read all the accounts.
Those who saw and wrote of the three W's, Sobers, Hanif, Barrington, right upto Gavaskar are even more.
Those who saw everyone from Tendulkar to the present day cricketers are still hail and hearty and younger than yours truly
The point is, that if one wants, there is a thread of continuity running through cricket's chronicles which can be followed. So when people like me or others form some sort of an opinion about one player being the equal of or distinctly better than another, often, a the back of it, is an opinion which has been formed over a period of time during which one has absorbed a lot of different opinions about more than one generation of cricketers at a time.
Of course it would be interesting if someone was to put down on paper a kind of "140 year poll" of the top cricketers of all time based on this kind of linking of threads, it may serve to prove some quaint idea. But finally the exercise is going to become about us and our own biases or prejudices or our need to have the last word. I think it can be done but whether it will serve any purpose, I am not so sure.
By the way, whenever, I have come across people who have very low opinion of the older cricketers, I have invariably found that a couple of questions will reveal that they have hardly any personal reading on the subject. Similarly those who do not denigrate old cricketers will by and large have a good amount of cricket reading behind them. While this doesn't prove anything regarding which might be right, it does show that many of us (right or wrong) hold our opinions without even making an effort to verify them.
That is a tragedy particularly since most of them are really lovers of the game. Since pictures and videos of older cricketers are rare or not available, written accounts are our only source. For those who have time but no inclination to read up, I can only say, "you may be right in what you are saying but you really dont know that is the case."
There were people who watched, played with or against Grace, Ranji, Trumper and Hobbs who have written in detail about these champions and even compared them There are more than one such account available to have a reasonable idea.
Then there are those who saw Hobbs, Hammond, Bradman, and George Headley play. The number of books and accounts are numerous.
Those who saw Bradman, Hutton, Compton, May, Harvey, Weekes, Walcott, and Worrell are too many for you to even read all the accounts.
Those who saw and wrote of the three W's, Sobers, Hanif, Barrington, right upto Gavaskar are even more.
Those who saw everyone from Tendulkar to the present day cricketers are still hail and hearty and younger than yours truly
The point is, that if one wants, there is a thread of continuity running through cricket's chronicles which can be followed. So when people like me or others form some sort of an opinion about one player being the equal of or distinctly better than another, often, a the back of it, is an opinion which has been formed over a period of time during which one has absorbed a lot of different opinions about more than one generation of cricketers at a time.
Of course it would be interesting if someone was to put down on paper a kind of "140 year poll" of the top cricketers of all time based on this kind of linking of threads, it may serve to prove some quaint idea. But finally the exercise is going to become about us and our own biases or prejudices or our need to have the last word. I think it can be done but whether it will serve any purpose, I am not so sure.
By the way, whenever, I have come across people who have very low opinion of the older cricketers, I have invariably found that a couple of questions will reveal that they have hardly any personal reading on the subject. Similarly those who do not denigrate old cricketers will by and large have a good amount of cricket reading behind them. While this doesn't prove anything regarding which might be right, it does show that many of us (right or wrong) hold our opinions without even making an effort to verify them.
That is a tragedy particularly since most of them are really lovers of the game. Since pictures and videos of older cricketers are rare or not available, written accounts are our only source. For those who have time but no inclination to read up, I can only say, "you may be right in what you are saying but you really dont know that is the case."
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Backfoot defense to a short pitched delivery
Please keep in mind that the pictures are not from the same shot. They are from different shots of different balls which would have risen to different heights. In fact they are taken at two different times altogether - two in the nets and two in the middle. (This just gives an idea of how the Old Man played the shot. Again you cant find a flaw.
Please keep in mind that the pictures are not from the same shot. They are from different shots of different balls which would have risen to different heights. In fact they are taken at two different times altogether - two in the nets and two in the middle. (This just gives an idea of how the Old Man played the shot. Again you cant find a flaw.
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
You find that in a lot of photographs taken by Beldham including those of Trumper. I presume it was put there to allow CB Fry to be able to write in detail about the foot movement in his detailed comments which follow each and every photograph in these big volumes.
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
And finally, the one shot you were so damned sure WG did not invent. You could swear it was a late 20th century shot. Well you were wrong. WG did play the slog sweep and he picked it up from outside the off stump ! It was called by the youngsters in those days (and the name has still stuck to the shot)....
The Old Man's "Cow Shot"
(from the last picture it looks as if he missed the ball completely but Beldham decided to go ahead and use the photograph anyway)
Thats it as far as WG's pictures are concerned. Hope it gives some idea of his batting style.
What stands out is how little the shots have changed after nearly 150 years. It is absolutely amazing. I have often tried to do what Fry has suggested, use the "barber's eye" and imagine the batsman in those photographs as someone without a beard. I wish someone who is good at graphics would take some of these and superimpose the head of a clean shaven cricketer (it should be black and white of course). I think Jesse Ryder might be an appropriate model to chose and then we may be able to see these photographs without the all imposing beard which dominates any photograph of WG. I am sure we might see them even more for what superb cricketing shots these are (except that cow shot !! ugh)
PS : Correction. In that last picture WG had not missed the ball, he had pulled it from outside the off stump to straight down the ground and thats why he is looking straight.
The Old Man's "Cow Shot"
(from the last picture it looks as if he missed the ball completely but Beldham decided to go ahead and use the photograph anyway)
Thats it as far as WG's pictures are concerned. Hope it gives some idea of his batting style.
What stands out is how little the shots have changed after nearly 150 years. It is absolutely amazing. I have often tried to do what Fry has suggested, use the "barber's eye" and imagine the batsman in those photographs as someone without a beard. I wish someone who is good at graphics would take some of these and superimpose the head of a clean shaven cricketer (it should be black and white of course). I think Jesse Ryder might be an appropriate model to chose and then we may be able to see these photographs without the all imposing beard which dominates any photograph of WG. I am sure we might see them even more for what superb cricketing shots these are (except that cow shot !! ugh)
PS : Correction. In that last picture WG had not missed the ball, he had pulled it from outside the off stump to straight down the ground and thats why he is looking straight.
Last edited:
