SA Footy

named as an opener in wisdens best ever side but what are his credentials apart from being a pompous poonce? averaged 32 at test level and 39 at FC level but is touted as the greatest ever why?

They were celebrating 150 years of the "Cricketers' Almanack" (whatever that is), so they were obviously wanting to include at least 1 player from the start of that period.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/24640224

These sorts of all time sporting line ups cause great debate and reading through the readers responses on the above link you will never get an agreed consensus. I have my thoughts:

Grace may have had a poor average etc. compared to the "modern" greats (not Bradman as is simply Bradman) but there is no one alive who can actually vouch for how he influenced the game and how the comparable stars of that time performed? His selection is debatable to say the least.

Lillee, McGrath, Lara and Kallis could all be considered very unlucky.

Murali - took too many of his "chucking" wickets on doctored dust bowl pitches in Asia and played alot of cricket against lesser nations such as Zimbabwe etc but many calling for him to be in ahead of S.K. Warne?

Hadlee to my thinking is the unluckiest. He was an amazing bowler and decent lower order batsman / allrounder. All the great paceman in consideration all had decent bowlers at the other end and decent change bowlers to put on pressure and relieve them from long spells. Who did Hadlee have in a basically poor NZ team for most of his career, Bob Cunis, Ewan Chatfield and Martin Snedden and a cast of other very average just medium pacers. He got his wickets at a very cheap average and against much better teams without support or pressure from the other end. When he slowed down re pace as he got older from being a very fast bowler, he got smarter with line length and could swing the ball with real accuracy and guile. As good a pace bowler I have ever seen.

Agreed re Hadlee - whilst I didn't particularly like the bloke, he's probably the best fast bowler I've ever seen (or best non-West Indian bowler anyway).

Would be interesting to know who they would have gone for if not Grace - perhaps Gavaskar or Hutton.

Alan Knott 95 Tests, 4,389 runs at 32.75, 250 catches, 19 stumpings

Adam Gilchrist 96 Tests, 5,570 runs at 47.60, 379 catches, 37 stumpings

but the biggest difference is that Knott is a pom

Actually reading a book about the history of Wisden at the moment, written to celebrate 150 years, called "The Little Wonder", which was John Wisden's nickname when he was a cricketer. Books combines the prevailing English society with the history of the Almanack and the Wisden company itself, which was heavily into sporting goods in at least it's first century (which I didn't know).

Would have to re-visit some of the WG Grace stuff, but from memory his performances were quite often incredible for the time, and he also changed the way the game was played, with certain shots frowned upon until he started scoring so heavily from them.

Not a bad read, but definitely a cricket-tragics' book.

Grace had as much an influence on the game as Bradman.
He saw the game develop and helped it develop with his play and shenanigans.
An average of 32 and 39 on uncovered decks tells us he was pretty darn good.
From the books I've read, I also wouldn't describe him as a 'poonce', as that suggests he had a veneer of femininity and weakness. He was a man of very strong character and would happily fight his corner.

FlyingHigh wrote:Actually reading a book about the history of Wisden at the moment, written to celebrate 150 years, called "The Little Wonder", which was John Wisden's nickname when he was a cricketer. Books combines the prevailing English society with the history of the Almanack and the Wisden company itself, which was heavily into sporting goods in at least it's first century (which I didn't know).

Would have to re-visit some of the WG Grace stuff, but from memory his performances were quite often incredible for the time, and he also changed the way the game was played, with certain shots frowned upon until he started scoring so heavily from them.

Not a bad read, but definitely a cricket-tragics' book.

He must have had a single figure average until he started using these shots...and/or cheating

Very good Stats for the era. Doubt he would have played on many hard decks like we see today.

Hobbs/Grace/Barnes are they serious

The team is mostly political. Grace is no way in the best 6 bats of all time. I love also how people say "on uncovered pitches" as if that automatically makes it a billion times harder to bat on. If it doesn't rain then it's a moot point, but rain on uncovered pitches can actually make it easier to bat. If I'm not out on a wearing day 4 pitch, I'm praying for rain to make it like a day 1 pitch again. Have a read of the last timeless test and see the effect rain had on that deck.

Gilchrist is a massive mistake. Would not be many more blokes who won games for their country than him. Cops a bit for not being a great keeper, but I think that's largely a myth. All keepers miss chances. Nobody watched Gilly keeping to Warnie and wished for Healy back.

Marshall clearly a better bowler than Hadlee IMHO. If you're wanting an allrounder in that slot though, Imran Khan's bowling is not far behind (and almost identical to Hadlee) but batting near 40. These are Imran's stats from the last 10 years of his career.

M 51 R 2477 HS 136 Ave 51.60 100s 5 W 204 BBI 8/60 Ave 19.90

It is hard to compare eras, but if you go through a list of names of the whose who of cricket through the eras you'd definitely have WG Grace in.

WG Grace
Don Bradman
Sir Garfield Sobers
Shane Warne

They're probably the "BIG 4"?

Mr Beefy wrote:

FlyingHigh wrote:Actually reading a book about the history of Wisden at the moment, written to celebrate 150 years, called "The Little Wonder", which was John Wisden's nickname when he was a cricketer. Books combines the prevailing English society with the history of the Almanack and the Wisden company itself, which was heavily into sporting goods in at least it's first century (which I didn't know).

Would have to re-visit some of the WG Grace stuff, but from memory his performances were quite often incredible for the time, and he also changed the way the game was played, with certain shots frowned upon until he started scoring so heavily from them.

Not a bad read, but definitely a cricket-tragics' book.

He must have had a single figure average until he started using these shots...and/or cheating

IIRC they were always a part of his game, but before he came on the scene they were looked on as not the shots of skillful cricketers. Mainly legside shots. Don't know if they meant hooks and sweeps or cow-corner slogs.
His reputation was also enhanced because he was the hero of the Gentlemen (the amatuers of the MCC and establishment) against the Players who were considered lower class as they played for money rather than for the sheer enjoyment of the game (even though Grace was doing very well out of the game he was still considered an amateur). Wisden was independent of Lords but at this time sympathetic with their view on cricket and often gave more space to the school games than those played by professionals in the County leagues.

Interesting the best players ever debate always, always has Warney in ahead of Murali....

While the rules may have been bent to accomodate his bowling, the establishment doesn't quite accept him.

I think a novel idea would be for us all to list our all-time XIs. I'm sure most of us could come up with something at least as good as Wisden.

Failed Creation wrote:I think a novel idea would be for us all to list our all-time XIs. I'm sure most of us could come up with something at least as good as Wisden.

i would ******* well hope so FC, we would have enough great players to choose from ffs

How about an XI that doesn't include DGB?

Grace was probably the best batsman in the world and close to the best bowler in the world for an incredibly long period of over 25 years.
Remember also that he was at his best before he played his first Test at the age of 32.

His 1871 season is arguably as dominant as any of Bradman's seasons

In all first-class matches in 1871, a total of 17 centuries were scored and Grace accounted for 10 of them, including the first century in a first-class match at Trent Bridge. He averaged 78.25 and the next best average by a batsman playing more than a single innings was 39.57, barely more than half his figure. His aggregate for the season was 2,739 and this was the first time that anyone had scored 2,000 first-class runs in a season; Harry Jupp was next best with 1,068. Grace's highest score was 268 for South v. North at The Oval. He took 79 wickets at 17.02 with a best analysis of 7–67. He claimed five wickets in an innings 5 times and twice had 10 in a match

Personally I would have been very surprised if he hadn't made the team.

Ecky wrote:Grace was probably the best batsman in the world and close to the best bowler in the world for an incredibly long period of over 25 years.
Remember also that he was at his best before he played his first Test at the age of 32.

His 1871 season is arguably as dominant as any of Bradman's seasons

In all first-class matches in 1871, a total of 17 centuries were scored and Grace accounted for 10 of them, including the first century in a first-class match at Trent Bridge. He averaged 78.25 and the next best average by a batsman playing more than a single innings was 39.57, barely more than half his figure. His aggregate for the season was 2,739 and this was the first time that anyone had scored 2,000 first-class runs in a season; Harry Jupp was next best with 1,068. Grace's highest score was 268 for South v. North at The Oval. He took 79 wickets at 17.02 with a best analysis of 7–67. He claimed five wickets in an innings 5 times and twice had 10 in a match

Personally I would have been very surprised if he hadn't made the team.

Its a test XI, so what he did in a North Vs Souths game is irrelevant

Mr Beefy wrote:

Ecky wrote:Grace was probably the best batsman in the world and close to the best bowler in the world for an incredibly long period of over 25 years.
Remember also that he was at his best before he played his first Test at the age of 32.

His 1871 season is arguably as dominant as any of Bradman's seasons

In all first-class matches in 1871, a total of 17 centuries were scored and Grace accounted for 10 of them, including the first century in a first-class match at Trent Bridge. He averaged 78.25 and the next best average by a batsman playing more than a single innings was 39.57, barely more than half his figure. His aggregate for the season was 2,739 and this was the first time that anyone had scored 2,000 first-class runs in a season; Harry Jupp was next best with 1,068. Grace's highest score was 268 for South v. North at The Oval. He took 79 wickets at 17.02 with a best analysis of 7–67. He claimed five wickets in an innings 5 times and twice had 10 in a match

Personally I would have been very surprised if he hadn't made the team.

Its a test XI, so what he did in a North Vs Souths game is irrelevant

Thats not quite right from my understanding Mr Beefy
They are celebrating 150 years which takes it back to 1863. Test cricket only started in 1877.
Therefore with the above stats i think it's a more than fair call to include Grace in the best 11