A case for Grace(WG)

[Lurker]

And so here I am, writing another longish article about a sports that is dear to my heart. I have always asked myself -why do I like cricket so much? Apart from the usuals there have been some subtle reasons, one of which is literature. Quite simply no sport in the history of mankind has had the kind of literature that cricket has. It is slightly disappointing that many today do not care much about it. Those who do are obviously richer for it and perhaps would understand what CLR James meant when he said, "What do they know of cricket?...that cricket only knows?" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The easiest question you can ask an Australian cricket fan is "Who is the greatest Aussie batsman of all times". Indeed by most account the gentleman (Don Bradman) is widely recognized as the best batsman(of any nationality). However ask the same fan "Who is the 2nd greatest Aussies batsman of all time?" and his answer may very well surprise you. You would perhaps be thinking he would answer Greg Chappell, Steve Waugh, Allan Border, Ricky Ponting perhaps some old timers like Neil Harvey, Arthur Morris, Stan McCable, Ponsford etc. Instead there is a good chance that he may mention the name of Victor Trumper. Indeed you may even be shocked that many Aussie fans think of Trumper as as good, if not better than Bradman himself. And so the very next thing you would do(after giving him a you-must-be-joking look) is to log onto your computer, go to some cricket statistics site and look up Victor Trumper. 48 Tests, 3163 runs at an average of 39. Hmmm. Very probable that you may doubt this person whose batting average is less than that of Mark Taylor, Boon, Dean Jones getting selected ahead of them, let alone a Border or a Waugh? And how in the world is he considered as good as Bradman when he scored a good 60 runs less than him per innings? It would also not be imprudent if you think the player has surely been glorified beyond what he deserved. A classic case of writers painting a picture where none existed perhaps? Or maybe its the case of new generation simply dismissing the old? Afterall havent I faced questions from younger Indian fans wondering "Why do you beleive Kapil Dev was greatest one day all-rounder when he has only 1 100 in 225 innings?" or "How do you even entertain the thought that CK Nayudu would fit in an all-time Indian XI". And why only cricket? Isnt it true that my generation(me included) continues to wonder how KL Sehgal was a singing icon? How could he be better than Mohd.Rafi, Kishore and Mukesh(even though they all mention themselves as Sehgal fan and admit to copying him at various stage of their career). You can take any field and you shall get relevant examples. Perhaps it was in one such moment that the great Ghalib allowed a moment of rare praise towards another fellow writer of yore: Rekhta ke tumhi ustaad nahin ho Ghalib, kahte hain agle zamaane mein koi Meer bhi tha (rekhta - form of Urdu, Meer - Meer Taqi Meer) Victor's performance has to be seen not only in the context of the time when the game was played but how it was played. This was the era when pitches were not covered, an era when bowlers did some awful tricks off the wicket. It was a bowler's game much like cricket is a batsman's game today. Consider this - the lowest official bowling average in history of cricket is around this time.That of George Lohmann, 112 wickets at 10.7. In fact the lowest three bowling averages are all around this era,give or take a few years, bowlers being Lohmann,Ferris and Albert Trott. Critics who are quick to dismiss players of this era(Trumper, Clem Hill, Archie McLaren etc) do so on basis of their statistical performance. But if that is the right approach surely it is also prudent that the likes of Lohmann, Trott, Peel should be celebrated as the greatest bowlers ever? Right? Hypocracy or lack of knowledge? You decide. If that was not enough do also bear in mind that cricket was as one author put it, game generated by chance. This was the era when the game was developed as we play today. There was no googly(you can thanks Bosanquet for that), no leg glance or late cuts(thank Ranji for that). Fans today should perhaps learn this part of our cricketing history and thank the players who made this "game by chance" into what we know today. Victor Trumper belonged to the lot of players who made cricket into a art. How good he was can be gauged by the fact that in the season where legendary Yorkshire Wilfred Rhodes captured 200 wickets in the season, Trumper slammed 2500 plus runs at a shade under 50. Amongst his most famous innings is the time where he scored 70 odds in less than 2 hours on a crumbling pitch(out of total of 112 by Aussies). Little wonder that not only does Trumper gets named to all-time Aussie XI, he was recently picked as part of all time NSW XI(of which Mcgrath failed to be a part of), or all-time Ashes XI that BBC put up before Ashes. I must admit that I have a slight bias towards Trumper because he was the one about whom I read a line that I have not forgotten in a hurry, "When he went out to bat every single blade of grass bowed down to salute him" Touche. In a symbolic sign perhaps Trumper played his first Test when another all-time great played his last...WG Grace. To be contd... xxxx

[Guest BossBhai]

Re: A case for Grace(WG) -- Removed on request of the user --

[kumble_rocks]

Re: A case for Grace(WG) Good well articulated article. My thoughts on this matter is, Victor Trumper can be classified as Top 5 batsmen in the world during first half of 19 th century. Interestingly , my uncle used to be a big fan of Victor Trumper and rated him better than Bradman

[Lurker]

Re: A case for Grace(WG)

Just a case of Ghar ki murghi daal barabar or is it something else ? :shrug:

Yes it is something else. And that something else is that there can be people who enjoy cricket and celebrate players from different country BB. You are somehow suggesting, indeed insinuating, that I, or others, should write day in and day out about Merchants and Hazares of Indian cricket. Now without sounding immodest I would say my knowledge of Indian cricket is second to none but why would you, or anyone else, tell me what to write and who to celebrate? Why dont you go compile an article about Vinoo Mankad and CK Nayudu? I would write them when I feel like surely that is my pregotive and you should not question it. xxxx

[Mr. Wicket]

Re: A case for Grace(WG) A few things to note about Trumper that you seem to have either left out or not researched upon are the facts that he batted in a very cavalier fashion on easy pitches - would be known to gift his wicket away with loose strokeplay from time to time (and by rumour, on occasion in lesser club games, it would be deliberate to benefit a hard working bowler). The same altruistic mentality wasn't there in sticky situations. It was said by a number of contemporaries that it was better to bowl to Trumper on a good wicket than on a bad one, because he genuinely tried on a sticky. In fact, in the this match (Scorecard link), the Old Trafford Ashes test of 1902 Australia were batting first on a freshly rained upon wicket. Trumper chose that occasion to belt a hundred before lunch, the first batsman to do so in the first session of a test match.

[Guest BossBhai]

Re: A case for Grace(WG) -- Removed on request of the user --

[yoda]

Re: A case for Grace(WG) Bheem, I guess you missed Lurker's Jumbo writeup: http://indiancricketfans.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=391&mode=&order=0&thold=0

[Lurker]

Re: A case for Grace(WG) BB, Clearly we are different and lets just leave it there. I wouldnt want to be you, and surely you wouldnt want to be so let it go. I shall write what moves me, and I would appreciate that you read/ignore without wondering about my motives. Fair? xxxx

[gator]

Re: A case for Grace(WG) waste of words and writing on a mediocre old faggot.... u seem to be desperate to pass off as an elite, old white man smokin a fackin pipe clattering away at his typewriter, who still thinks all talent died after 1940.....

[Guest BossBhai]

Re: A case for Grace(WG) -- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest dada_rocks]

Re: A case for Grace(WG) Comparison of players from different era is a futile exercise as far as rationality is concerned albeit reminiscing does bring forth nice literature.. job well done as far as literature is concerned.. For my father noone comes close to Rohan kanhai it's all jaundiced view :wtg:

[Bumper]

Re: A case for Grace(WG) Lurker, I appreciate your enthusiasm and informative research on old timers. But am not sure, where u draw the line between hype & facts. To me, nothing counts more than plain, cold facts! A hypothetical question for you: Suppose Bradman, being the great player that he was, averaged 49 instead of 99, do u think batting pundits would rank him at the numero uno spot, unquestionably ? Why or why not, stats as u seem to suggest, is not true indication of some one's greatness ?

[Mr. Wicket]

Re: A case for Grace(WG)

Lurker' date=' I appreciate your enthusiasm and informative research on old timers. But am not sure, where u draw the line between hype & facts.[/quote'] A very fair point, Bumper. Lurker's point leans too heavily towards a lot of the romanticised lore about Trumper as a symbol of the period called the Golden Age of cricket in the early 1900s. There are plenty of myths about Trumper, and a lot of hyperbolic, flowery writing (like the sentence Lurker quoted) that does paint an incredible picture. In fact, this piece by Arthur Mailey is regarded as one of the finest bits of cricket writing, yet it should be noted that the game where he says he dismissed Trumper with a googly has never yet been determined through records - so it's very likely to be another of those myths. Make no mistake, Trumper was one of the finest batsmen for sheer style and elegance according to those who saw him, and one of the world's best in that tough era of batting, given his scores (particularly in the 1902 tour to England ,which was marked by a wet summer and generally sticky pitches). Yet most of the hard, true facts are forgotten or skimmed over for the lore. There's a lot less written in such manners about Neil Harvey or Stan McCabe, yet both received some of the greatest praise of peers, pundits and critics of the game - both for productivity as well as their sheer style, elegance and flair - Trumper delivered on the latter front, but there is always the question of whether his accomplishments in the former deserve to have him placed above the likes of Harvey, McCabe, Ponsford and Chappell among the great Australian batsmen. After McCabe's innings at Trent Bridge, Bradman had told him that he'd be proud to play such an innings - and McCabe's 187 not out at Sydney in 1932 against the Bodyline attack led by Larwood remains one of the most famous/courageous innings ever. Yet he's not romanticised anywhere near as much as Trumper - although that may probably have been due to being in the near-constant shadow of Bradman and Ponsford. Two other points... 1. Clem Hill had a very similar record to Trumper - a slightly higher test average but a marginally smaller first class average from the same number of tests and three fewer f/c games. Yet he's not lauded anywhere near as much. For every hundred beautifully written odes to Trumper, there may be one piece on Hill. 2. Lurker - if you're interested in reading some of the old literature on batsmen of the past, then search out pieces on the 'Governor General' Charlie Macartney... and of course McCabe and Harvey.

[Guest BossBhai]

Re: A case for Grace(WG) -- Removed on request of the user --

[Bumper]

Re: A case for Grace(WG) Thanks Salil & Lurker for some good cricket nostalgia.

[Lurker]

Re: A case for Grace(WG)

Lurker, I appreciate your enthusiasm and informative research on old timers. But am not sure, where u draw the line between hype & facts. To me, nothing counts more than plain, cold facts!

Fair enough Bumper. It is indeed hard to put in numbers the "hype". More so when one had never seen the player in action. However my logic has always been rather consistent(in this debate as also the one about Barry) - it is not always so easy to quantify facts and there is a good case for players to be a candidate in all time greats even though their average may not show so. My entire premise of this article is exactly that. If you read it closely you would see I draw analogy even from music world. There is no way any of us would consider KL Sehgal the same as Kishore Kumar but if fans/experts sit together and Sehgal comes out in top 10 singers ever surely we should appreciate and respect that. Like it or not Trumper, or Grace, were considered the best of their times and even if their stats does not show so(you hinted at Grace's average of 32) we have to realize where they came from and appreciate that.

Suppose Bradman, being the great player that he was, averaged 49 instead of 99, do u think batting pundits would rank him at the numero uno spot, unquestionably ? Why or why not, stats as u seem to suggest, is not true indication of some one's greatness ?

One good reason here is his sheer overtowering performance vis a vis others. No other batsman of his time scored at more than 60 runs. The ones that came close were Dennis Compton and Wally Hammond in high 50's. Which means Bradman was almost 1.5 times(or more) better than his peers. Amongst Aussie batsmen noone scored at 50 during his time. That sheer dominance is hard to overlook. Take the case of Trumper. Though he scored at 39 there were a few who scored about him or a few runs more. However if someone had scored at 60 or so during Trumper's era there is a very good possibility that he would have faded into oblivion. But noone could. Such was the state of ground and cricket at the time. I hope that answers your question. xxxx

[Guest BossBhai]

Re: A case for Grace(WG) -- Removed on request of the user --