WG GRACE

[Grahaml]

Celebrating 150 years of Wisden, they named their all time test 11. Or at least that's my understanding. Doesn't mean to suggest it's 150 years of test cricket. Definitely needs to be based on test cricket only.

[therisingblues]

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

In other words, he had his best season years before Test cricket had even been invented.
Sure, the books indicate he played a huge part in the development of the game. This is also indicates the game was under developed when he dominated. But just because he had the idea to play balls off his legs (for example) doesn't mean he'd be in the best 6 bats of all time. You have to question the staff the game was at when you hear such fundamentals weren't yet standard.
Call him the father of cricket, okay. But surely those who followed excelled him under much higher standards.

[FlyingHigh]

But theri, that's like saying there shouldn't be any fast bowlers in the XI if they played before reverse-swing came into vogue. Or that football hall of fames shouldn't include players who played before the checkside and drop punt became part of the game

[therisingblues]

But theri, that's like saying there shouldn't be any fast bowlers in the XI if they played before reverse-swing came into vogue. Or that football hall of fames shouldn't include players who played before the checkside and drop punt became part of the game

Bit of an extreme comparison I'd think Flying High. Check sides and reverse swing is tweaking of a developed sport. From what I understand, cricket still had a long way to go to get to say, Bradman's era, from Grace's. It looks to me that a great deal of his above the norm (of his era) was owed to his willingness to play shots that others considered bad cricket. Obviously it was good cricket, but bowlers wouldn't have been used to it and other batsmen would've frowned on it for a time, until they decided to mimic it.
Fast forward about twenty years, cricket would've been a tougher sport, and basically all the shots would've been discovered so to speak. Just "being different" would no longer be such an advantage.
According to my theory anyway.
P.S Do they have smileys on this new forum?

[Gozu]

For anyone that missed the team for Wisden's All-time Test World XI:

1. Jack Hobbs
2. W.G. Grace
3. Don Bradman
4. Sachin Tendulkar
5. Vivian Richards
6. Garry Sobers
7. Alan Knott
8. Wasim Akram
9. Shane Warne
10. Malcolm Marshall
11. Sydney Barnes

FWIW, my father always said Sobers was the best cricket player he ever saw.

Sobers-93 Tests 8,032 runs @ 57.78 and 235 wickets @ 34.03 and took over 1,000 wickets @ less than 28 at FC level too.

[FlyingHigh]

But theri, that's like saying there shouldn't be any fast bowlers in the XI if they played before reverse-swing came into vogue. Or that football hall of fames shouldn't include players who played before the checkside and drop punt became part of the game

Bit of an extreme comparison I'd think Flying High. Check sides and reverse swing is tweaking of a developed sport. From what I understand, cricket still had a long way to go to get to say, Bradman's era, from Grace's. It looks to me that a great deal of his above the norm (of his era) was owed to his willingness to play shots that others considered bad cricket. Obviously it was good cricket, but bowlers wouldn't have been used to it and other batsmen would've frowned on it for a time, until they decided to mimic it.
Fast forward about twenty years, cricket would've been a tougher sport, and basically all the shots would've been discovered so to speak. Just "being different" would no longer be such an advantage.
According to my theory anyway.
P.S Do they have smileys on this new forum?

Fair enough, how about a wider concept like handball?

[therisingblues]

Ah, but Flying High, if imnot mistaken you're inviting a conversation about how Sturt revolutionized Australian Football. I'm going to need more time to reply.

[therisingblues]

Okay. That's a fair point, players can only exceed in the environments available to them, and the Footy reels of the early 60's show a very different brand of Footy to the late 60's, where everyone was suddenly handballing it a lot more.
I think the difference is that we have evidence that the game of footy was already being played at a very high standard before then. Whereas in the 1870's the image of "Charles Charlie Charleston of the Charleston Brothers" standing at fine leg with the ends of his twirled, ringmaster's moustache waxed, smoking a pipe and watching another shot from the likes of Grace sailing over the boundary line as he gently applauds without raising less than a gallop to stop it, is too strong. I don't think cricket was too professional back then.
But not only that, Grace's overall average isn't so awesome either. Call him the father of cricket if you will, but too many barriers exist to put him in the best team ever IMO.

[Jim05]

WG was a deadset cheat and doesnt deserve to be on any official list. Some of his intimidation tactics on umpires, officials and other players beggar belief

[The Dark Knight]

WG was a deadset cheat and doesnt deserve to be on any official list. Some of his intimidation tactics on umpires, officials and other players beggar belief

I remember when I was younger my cousin read a book on Grace and in the book it explained that Grace was so arrogant and thought so little of the guys bowling to him that when he was cleaned bowled he would reset the stumps, refuse to walk off and demand them to continue bowling at him telling them that the crowd has come only to watch him bat. Is that correct?

[heater31]

WG was a deadset cheat and doesnt deserve to be on any official list. Some of his intimidation tactics on umpires, officials and other players beggar belief

I remember when I was younger my cousin read a book on Grace and in the book it explained that Grace was so arrogant and thought so little of the guys bowling to him that when he was cleaned bowled he would reset the stumps, refuse to walk off and demand them to continue bowling at him telling them that the crowd has come only to watch him bat. Is that correct?

Don't think Grace ever did that in a First Class match, but I'm sure he did it in other matches. Despite being classed as an 'amateur' by the MCC his Family were probably the highest paid sportsmen of the era by claiming expenses....

[Jim05]

WG was a deadset cheat and doesnt deserve to be on any official list. Some of his intimidation tactics on umpires, officials and other players beggar belief

I remember when I was younger my cousin read a book on Grace and in the book it explained that Grace was so arrogant and thought so little of the guys bowling to him that when he was cleaned bowled he would reset the stumps, refuse to walk off and demand them to continue bowling at him telling them that the crowd has come only to watch him bat. Is that correct?

That is correct, he would quite often do that. He would also intimidate umpires in to not giving him out. There is also stories of him claiming run outs after having spare balls hidden in his trousers or I did read where he once hid a ball in his beard and then claimed a run out with it. Not sure if there is any truth to that or not

[Trader]

Matty Hayden, underrated...

Fastest to 20 Test Centuries:
Bradman: 35 Tests
Gavaskar: 50
Hayden: 55
Sobers: 69
Tendulkar: 69
HASHIM AMLA: 71

[therisingblues]

There's a story about when Grace played on Adelaide Oval against an SA IX. The story goes that there was a chain fence around the playing arena and he was caught in the deep by a young SA fielder who leaned back over it, without actually touching it. Grace spat the dummy, refused to walk and made quite a scene but was basically told to get on his bike, much to the amusement of our forebearers in an early example of the humor that'd come to characterize the colony.

[Grahaml]

I am definitely a Matt Hayden fan, wouldn't be far from my opening combination. Averaging over 50 opening up is a pretty fair achievement. Add into that the fact he tried to dominate the opposition even early on the first day when he could have selfishly played for runs and averages has him in the top 5 openers. But I still think there's probably a couple of others just narrowly ahead. Runs in India, England and Australia a testimony to his ability.

[Grahaml]

Ok, my side then.

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Bradman
Pollock
Richards
Sobers
Gilchrist
Khan
Warne
Marshall
McGrath

Hobbs and Sutcliffe weren't just the greatest opening combination, as individuals they sit clear of everyone else. Bradman at #3 is the first bloke in. Pollock over a long career produced some amazing first class numbers to prove his test numbers weren't a fluke. Being left handed gets him in ahead of a bunch of others. IVA averaged 50 dominating the game from the front at #3. Imagine what he'd do batting at 5. Sobers holds his own as a batsman at #6, but offers variety with the ball. Adam Gilchrist at 7 shouldn't have to worry about scoring runs more than scoring them quickly. Imran Khan's batting and leadership to keep the egos in check to go with a reasonable average of 22 gets him in. Warne the greatest spinner of all time. Marshall the firebrand and McGrath the steady worker would lead a balanced, varied and deep bowling attack.

[Dogwatcher]

Interesting that Pollock's long-term figures, rather than his abbreviated Test career, can get him into some people's sides. However, the fact that much of WG's best cricket was played before Test cricket started rules him out...

[Failed Creation]

My side would be:

Gavaskar
Hobbs
Bradman (c)
Tendulkar
Richards
Sobers
Gilchrist (wk)
Akram
Hadlee
Warne
Lillee

I found it really hard to leave out players like Kallis (13,000+ Test runs and nearly 300 Test wickets), Lara, McGrath, Marshall, Imran Khan, Hayden, Healy (the best pure wicketkeeper I've ever seen), Steve Waugh (I love a fighter), Botham, Greg Chappell, and Kapil Dev.

[Grahaml]

Interesting that Pollock's long-term figures, rather than his abbreviated Test career, can get him into some people's sides. However, the fact that much of WG's best cricket was played before Test cricket started rules him out...

Actually, it's the opposite. His test numbers are what gets him in, his first class numbers just negate any idea that his test numbers are a fluke.

[Dogwatcher]

I dunno, Phil Hughes' initial Test figures looked pretty good...great?