W.G verus The Don

It could be said that W G Grace set the masterful tone and made cricket better and Bradman improved upon it.

But, if they had both been around at the same time who would've been the best?

Bradman - greatest there has ever been. Simple...

WG was one of the pioneers of the game.

Oh, that's that then!
Thanks

Without WG, Shrewsbury, Ranji ... maybe there would have been no Don.

Who was better, the Wright brothers or Frank Whittle?

I have no doubt that WG and The Don are the two greatest cricketers. Of the two i would give it to WG. In the 1870s he dominated cricket to an even greater extent than Bradman did in the 1930s. He practically invented modern batting technique (and out-fielding come to that) and was a great bowler too.

By the time the test era came around he was into his thirties and several others, building on his example, had caught up.

He played on into his late 50s. Since photography developed rapidly from the 1890s almost all of the images we have of him are of the fat, stately gentleman of his later years. This has fooled many into belittling his abilties and, by association, the capabilities of others in that era. Make no mistake, in his prime he was better than any cricketer before or since.

I agree with tya that WG was even more dominant than Bradman, but it could be argued that by the 1930's the game had assumed afar greater general and technical maturity, so that individual dominance had become less probable and more difficult.

In other words, there was a relatively greater pool of players in Bradman's time who were superior to the younger Grace's contemporaries, yet he still dominated comprehensively, except on rain affected pitches [which he disdained]. Bradman may have been less dominant but his dominance began from a higher base.

Consequently I'm reluctant to share tya's conclusion that Grace was the greatest of all. Certainly the most influential, and arguably the greatest, but not indubitably so.

WG's stats compared to his contemporaries? Without looking, I still don't think they'd be as far superior as DG's are compared to his.

being the first great cricketer, and hence the one who invented many of the game's basics, does not make you the greatest cricketer imo. else the greatest of any sport would always be amongst the few who played the sport first. while being a pioneer, like someone said, is creditable the greatest should be the one who you would think possessed the most skill. with db's performance being so far above his peers, unmatched by any sportsperson, i would give my vote to him

Well put, TO.

The One wrote:being the first great cricketer, and hence the one who invented many of the game's basics, does not make you the greatest cricketer imo. else the greatest of any sport would always be amongst the few who played the sport first. while being a pioneer, like someone said, is creditable the greatest should be the one who you would think possessed the most skill. with db's performance being so far above his peers, unmatched by any sportsperson, i would give my vote to him

WG was not the first great cricketer and cricket had been a major sport for 100 years when Grace was in his prime. He was not a pioneer but he did revolutionise the sport.

In the 5 seasons between 1870 and 1874 he scored 35 centuries from 102 matches during wich period everyone else scored 40 centuries between them.

Top 4 averages in this period (with Grace always no 1) were:

1870: 54.78, 51.36, 49.81, 37.27
1871: 78.25, 37.66, 37.16, 35.8
1872: 57.11, 41.88, 34.64, 33.06
1873: 72.20, 41.60, 34.80, 34.52
1874: 52.00, 36.42, 28.07, 28.04

In those 5 years Grace averaged 62.91 while the next best was Richard Daft who averaged 34.96.

Bowlers started to catch up after that and Graces averages came back to the pack. When something similar happened to Bradman in 1932 the new bowling techniques were effectively scuttled by the cricket authorities.