• 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.

"Greatest Ever" Lists - A Modern Evolution


I could say the same thing to Fred, unless he is actually that old to have seen him play.
I'm not one for taking everything ex-players and commentators are gospel, and I often think the line "So you think you know better than [player X]" is reminiscent of the Flat Earth Society trying to crush debate by telling people to look around and prove it isn't flat, but in Grace's case I think we can make an exception, since information is so hard to come by.

Along with that, when you do apply science to Grace's career like PEWS has done, in the context of his peers, Grace is the best player ever. And we should only judge players by the context of their era because as someone who can express ideas far more eloquently than I once said, Sehwag doesn't bat to impress you enough to think he could take on Dennis Lillee, he bats in the style he finds most effective to score runs and win test matches for his side.

It is completely irrelevant what Tendulkar and Grace would do in each others eras, because they will never have to play in those eras.

Lastly, your "talent" argument is a classic case of using something which can never be quantified to justify your argument. You cannot prove Tendulkar is a more talented player than Grace, and even if you could it would still remain entirely irrelevant because we are measuring success, not potential.

What you basically said was you think Tendulkar can piss higher than Grace and that he has a massive penis, despite the fact you would be arrested for attempting to prove this is the case.
Last edited:


Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Don't know about that Fred but my guess would be that at best he would not stand out from the crowd in today's game.
Granted he'd have to get used to improved fielding and better bowling, but then presumably you'd allow him, fresh off the time machine, the benefit of a few nets with the better equipment and better pitches he'd have to get used to

Agent Nationaux

International Coach
Modern standards in training, equipment, video analysis, coaching, etc has eliminated the freak effect you would get in guys like Bradman.

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
I reckon Tendulkar would've been a ****ing **** **** in the 1890s. I mean I have absolutely no evidence for this at all but that clearly doesn't matter in the slightest, and given the 1890s is my favourite decade of cricket I hold all players throughout history to exactly how they'd adapt to it, even though it had absolutely no relevance to the success or failure of 99% of cricketers throughout their respective careers. Tendulkar as an ATG? Pfft; Charlie Turner would've cleaned him up. Laughable suggestion and vastly over-rated player.
Last edited:


International Regular
Modern standards in training, equipment, video analysis, coaching, etc has eliminated the freak effect you would get in guys like Bradman.
So you're saying that players can't be considered ATGs unless they're modern? Seems a bit of an oxymoron - when exactly are you drawing the line - 1980, or maybe later?


State Captain
i don't mind warne making these individual lists but for him to make the cricket hall of fame was farcical the guy is a drug cheat.


U19 12th Man
If you guys are comparing Grace record to his peers' records and saying he was an all time great it might not be justified because when Grace played, cricket was in early stages and there would be a lot of amature cricketers during that time.
Look at any sport or activity, in early stages you would see a lot of amature people participating in that.

Another thing to look for would be how was the political system during that time and how was cricket administered? it is reasonable to assume that players from poor families and players who lived far wouldn't have got enough chances/support to play at top level.