Request Your Custom Title Now!
Ha, it didn't take long for the WG Grace criticisms to be emphatically shot down.
Very happy these people had Worrell so high. What a man.At the turn of the century, Wisden asked 100 eminent cricketing people to nominate their Five Cricketers of the 20th Century. After collating the votes, the top 10 was:
1. Don Bradman
2. Garry Sobers
3. Jack Hobbs
4. Shane Warne
5. Viv Richards
6= Dennis Lillee
6= Frank Worrell
8. Walter Hammond
9. Denis Compton
10= Imran Khan
10= Richard Hadlee
Tests weren't as important in his day, plus you should compare him to his peers. Most of them averaged like 10!I never understand why people rate WG Grace so highly as a cricketer. No one alive has seen him play and his statistics aren't the greatest like Bradman or Sobers.
So based on only that, people call him a great. In those days everyone was a cricket amateur apart from Grace who modernised the game, so people should expect him to be much greater than his peers. It's like rating a nothing special international bowler as a great because he is significantly better than all the club cricketers he has played.
Struggling to reconcile those two tbhExactly. People in the late 1800's were amateurs as compared to cricketers post war. Today the good doctor would just have been a doctor.
England in Victorian times had lots of men who derived their living from cricket and were openly professional and recognised as such - Grace wasn't one of them of course, though his was the best living of all.How are you struggling. I called them amateurs in both posts. Or are you really going to argue that players back then were just as professional as today.
Because Tendulkar "eats, sleeps and drinks" cricket. A much more professional player!I said your post contained an implication, not a statement, and I still think it does.
As to your second paragraph no one would dispute that today's players are more athletic than those from Grace's era or, quite frankly, from as recently as a generation ago, but I still don't see why, Arthur Shrewsbury for example, is any less a professional than, say, Sachin Tendulkar
Depends how you define better - in the sense that Tendulkar and Ponting have had the benefit of more than a century's development in the game I agree. But if you are suggesting they are more talented then I certainly don'tDoes it really matter because overall today's players are better. And Grace wouldn't have been as good as Tendulkar or Ponting, etc.
Seems relevant enough here.I've been having a look at Grace's First Class career with this method.
If you treated the England First Class season (inclusive of all Tests, county games, etc) in the same way I've treated a Test calender year here, Grace's standardised batting average in the 862 matches he played in the English summer would be 72.03. Using the same "value" formula I used here which gave the Don a 12.47 rating, Grace gets a rating of 12.97 for his First Class batting in England.
If that doesn't seem impressive enough, his standardised average dropped off significantly towards the end of his career as he played on well into his late 50s. After 17 years of cricket and 293 matches his standardised average was still sitting pretty at over 102. In his prime - after 10 years of cricket and 143 matches - his standardised average stood at a ridiculous 123.71.
And that's before we even start looking at his bowling - no small matter of 2800 First Class wickets.
Could Tendulkar have faced the entirely different pressures of the pre-Test game like Grace?Talent doesn't make you ATG. Could Grace have faced the pressures of the modern game like Tendulkar to be considered an ATG?
And even then I would say he wasn't as talented.