Goughy
Hall of Fame Member
Wow..just wowHow do you rate Ramprakash then?
Did you just compare W.G. Grace with Mark Ramprakash?
EDIT- After reading the post below, phew! I was worried for a second.
Last edited:
Wow..just wowHow do you rate Ramprakash then?
Completely depends how you read it. Do does Test players mean, the Test career players? or (as I read it) the career of those that have played Tests?
There is no question that if we are rating cricketers per se, then Grace is a shoe-in for the top 3 best cricketers of all time.Completely depends how you read it. Do does Test players mean, the Test career players? or (as I read it) the career of those that have played Tests?
By virtue of playing Test cricket it makes Grace eligible for the list and that bring in all his career achievements rather than just those it Tests.
No. That is not the only way to read it. It is limiting the players to those that played International cricket and in the 'Test' age.There is no question that if we are rating cricketers per se, then Grace is a shoe-in for the top 3 best cricketers of all time.
But CMJ was ranking test cricketers, and the only way I can read that is that he is ranking players based solely on their test careers. Otherwise, why confuse people? Why not just call it the Top 100 cricketers?
CMJ said:I made two early decisions: to stick to men’s cricket and to Test cricketers, so I have not attempted to consider players before the dawn of official international cricket in 1877.
Thus there is no Alfred Mynn, John Small, Billy Beldham, David Harris, William Clarke, Fuller Pilch or John Wisden.
and can some mod, with the permission of sean, merge all threads in this topic into one comprehensive thread? will be much easier for future use.Any sign of number 9?
Coming tonight.Any sign of number 9?
Yeah, AWTA. I think it'd be a good idea to merge them a week or so after it's done so people can search for it with ease later, but they should be separate while it's still going.No way, they should stay as separate threads at least until the series is finished!
If Grace why not Hick? He averages better than WG.. I think WG was an iconic figure and all.. However I cannot agree that he is greater than a Lara, Gilly or even Ponting.No. That is not the only way to read it. It is limiting the players to those that played International cricket and in the 'Test' age.
Calling it 100 greatest cricketers would bring in the players from the early 1800s which he didnt want to do.
There is a big difference.
Yes. Look how good Mathew Sinclair turned out with his *amazing* First Class average; streets ahead of any other New Zealand batsman. Or alternatively, Graeme Hick or Mark Ramprakash. Grace = Meh.Averaging 39 back in Grace's day whas an absolutely phenomenal achievement. Look at some other FC averages from around the time and admire just how far ahead of his time Grace was.
Just because he's not Malcolm Marshall doesn't mean you have to be bitterYes. Look how good Mathew Sinclair turned out with his *amazing* First Class average; streets ahead of any other New Zealand batsman. Or alternatively, Graeme Hick or Mark Ramprakash. Grace = Meh.
Yes, yes it does.Just because he's not Malcolm Marshall doesn't mean you have to be bitter
Fair comment.As much as I respect Woodcock, his list was a joke to be fair. He did it for The Times and the list clearly pandered to the English audience - 9 of his top 12 were English FFS.
Correct re 11 & 12, though the list I have has Compton and Hutton as I posted.Hutton Woolley IIRC. Actually, I thought Hutton was 10 and Compton 11 rather than the other way around, but either way they occupied those two positions.
Fair enough, am going from memory so I would say the guy with the list in front of him is probably right.Correct re 11 & 12, though the list I have has Compton and Hutton as I posted.