Early era batsmen

[fredfertang]

Originally Posted by Agent Nationaux

No one has seen him play and there is no footage so why should I rate him? And if you say because he was better than his competition, then wasn't he the only one to actually take his cricket seriously as compared to everyone else and he was also a cheat.

It's probably as well that you haven't seen the bit of footage that there is

I normally relish the chance to try and convince non-believers of the eminence of WG, but on this occasion I think I'll pass given those rather odd pre-conceptions you have there

[Agent Nationaux]

What odd pre-conceptions? Everyone was an amateur and there were no professionals back then. And isn't he known for being a cheat?

[fredfertang]

Originally Posted by Agent Nationaux

What odd pre-conceptions? Everyone was an amateur and there were no professionals back then. And isn't he known for being a cheat?

The first Gents v Players match was more than forty years before WG was even born, and WG wasn't really a cheat - he tried it on, and he took his cricket as seriously as any professional (because in most ways that matter that's what he was), but he was no Malik/Azhar/Cronje/Butt

[kyear2]

Originally Posted by Agent Nationaux

No one has seen him play and there is no footage so why should I rate him? And if you say because he was better than his competition, then wasn't he the only one to actually take his cricket seriously as compared to everyone else and he was also a cheat.

This

[Agent Nationaux]

Originally Posted by fredfertang

The first Gents v Players match was more than forty years before WG was even born, and WG wasn't really a cheat - he tried it on, and he took his cricket as seriously as any professional (because in most ways that matter that's what he was), but he was no Malik/Azhar/Cronje/Butt

Of course match fixers are worse but they under perform deliberately, whereas guys who refuse to walk off improve their averages and thus are seen as being better than what they were.

Now I would be willing to consider Grace as being rated equally to a good 40-45 averaging batsman today (if you convince me), but I wouldn't rate him being equal to say a Tendulkar or a Lara.

[Agent Nationaux]

Could you post some footage?

[fredfertang]

Originally Posted by Agent Nationaux

Could you post some footage?

I'm afraid I can't find it by googling it, though I suspect it must be out there - its not rare - its just a few frames of WG and Ranji in the nets at Lord's - he was very much at the veteran stage by then

[Coronis]

Originally Posted by fredfertang

I'm afraid I can't find it by googling it, though I suspect it must be out there - its not rare - its just a few frames of WG and Ranji in the nets at Lord's - he was very much at the veteran stage by then

Here it is.

[Agent Nationaux]

Ranji isn't even wearing pads, some real pace bowling there. Would like to imagine how they would have gone against the likes of Marshall, Lillee, Waqar, Steyn, etc.

[watson]

Did anyone notice that people were sitting directly behind Grace and Ranji while they were batting with no netting or barrier inbetween? They must have had complete faith in the batsman hitting the ball, or perhaps they didn't mind getting hit because the bowling wasn't very fast. Grace was wearing pads though.

[watson]

Originally Posted by Agent Nationaux

Ranji isn't even wearing pads, some real pace bowling there. Would like to imagine how they would have gone against the likes of Marshall, Lillee, Waqar, Steyn, etc.

Initially, I would get guess pretty bad. Thrust into a Test match at Lords in 1984 with Marshall at the top of his run they would be lucky to make double figures.

However, after 3 months of practice on modern pitches with modern equipment against modern fast bowlers I would postulate that they would fair much better than your average Test batsman.

After all, Grace andf Ranji are called greats for very good reasons: - superb hand to eye co-ordination, leaders in innovation and technique, determined and iron-clad temperment, and so forth.

(Incidently, this highlights a 'problem' when choosing Grace or Ranji during an ATG Draft. Do we assume that they be will playing in a hypothetical Test match against modern fast bowlers without any practice or preparation against modern fast bowlers, or assume that they would be playing a modern domestic season before taking part in their first hypothetical Test match? I've always assumed the former so tend not to select pre-WWI batsman)

[Agent Nationaux]

How do you know that they had superb hand eye coordination?

The hand eye coordination needed to face the likes of fast bowlers today doesn't just come within a matter of 3 months. And if they did have the superb hand eye coordination you are talking about then their averages would have been better.

[Prince EWS]

I'd back myself to do better on a 2013 Year 10 Astronomy exam than Galileo; doesn't mean I'm a better astronomer than him. (Pretty sure I've ripped that comparison off from another member here ftr, apologies for not remembering who).

I'm sure cricket has improved vastly in standard overall since 1910; in fact I think people would be surprised to see an overall rise in quality since the 70s for example, judging by the hard evidence that exists in other sports to prove increased athleticism and refinement of skills over time.

I just think trying to judge sportsmen in absolute terms like that is completely absurd, not to mention pretty much impossible objectively when it comes to cricket. The only valuable - not to mention possible - way to compare players across eras is to first compare them to their peers and then compare the results of those comparisons.

[Howe_zat]

Originally Posted by Agent Nationaux

Ranji isn't even wearing pads, some real pace bowling there. Would like to imagine how they would have gone against the likes of Marshall, Lillee, Waqar, Steyn, etc.

How would they have gone against trebuchets?

[watson]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

I'd back myself to do better on a 2013 Year 10 Astronomy exam than Galileo; doesn't mean I'm a better astronomer than him. (Pretty sure I've ripped that comparison off from another member here ftr, apologies for not remembering who).

I'm sure cricket has improved vastly in standard overall since 1910; in fact I think people would be surprised to see an overall rise in quality since the 70s for example, judging by the hard evidence that exists in other sports to prove increased athleticism and refinement of skills over time.

I just think trying to judge sportsmen in absolute terms like that is completely absurd, not to mention pretty much impossible objectively when it comes to cricket. The only valuable - not to mention possible - way to compare players across eras is to first compare them to their peers and then compare the results of those comparisons.

What about ATG Drafts though? In a hypothetical Test match made up of players from many different decades you have to make some kind of assumption of how Grace would go against Malcolm Marshall in a 'real live' scenario because that's who Grace would be facing-up to in 'reality'. That's the whole point of the exercise!

In other words, you can't hind behind the statement 'Grace was the greatest batsman of his time relative to his peers' because it's an All-Time-Great Draft. Grace 'will be' facing Marshall at his 1984 peak whether you like it or not.

And Galileo 'will be' taking that 2013 astronomy exam to turn your point on its head.