The greatest cricketer ever died 100 years ago

By Camo McD / Roar Guru

Who is the greatest cricketer that ever lived? It’s not Sachin or Sobers or even the Don.

It is not Kallis or Imran or Warnie either.

The greatest ever cricketer died 100 years ago this month. He dominated the game to an extent which, Bradman aside, has never again been approached. His huge frame shepherded the elevation of cricket from the uncertain, early days of the overarm bowling revolution, into Test cricket, all the way into Golden Age before the First World War.

William Gilbert Grace’s extraordinary first class career spanned from 1865 until 1908, a scarcely believable 44 years. Tall at 1.88m, immensely strong and far from the large bellied, grey bearded old man photographed in later years, WG was a superb athlete. Following an innings of 224 not out for England against Surrey as an eighteen year old, he was allowed a brief leave from fielding duties so he could win the nearby hurdles championship at Crystal Palace.

Adept off both front and back foot to strokes all around the wicket, Grace was a pioneer in having mastery over such a range of batting options. His quickly became the template for others to follow. The tiny amount of film footage available shows him quirkily raising his left toe into the air as he waits for the bowler to deliver.

Starting as a round-arm medium pacer, by the mid-1870s he favoured bowling leg breaks, usually from around the wicket. In his prime, he was a genuine all-rounder, one of the finest bowlers in addition to being the greatest batsman.

At The Oval in 1882, he hit 32 of the 85 required for English victory but the rest had no answer to Fred Spofforth as Australia famously won by seven runs, English cricket was declared dead and the Ashes have been played for ever since.

Grace’s Test match batting average of 32, less than that of Marcus North and a third of Bradman’s, has to be taken in context. Scores were generally much lower in the early days of Test cricket. As at the end of the 19th Century, Grace’s figures stack up respectably against his contemporaries however they would undoubtedly be improved had Test cricket existed earlier in his career. Thirteen of his 22 Test matches were played after he had turned forty.

W.G.’s first-class statistics give a truer indication of his standing, and are as startling as any record accumulated by any cricketer before or since. His overall batting average of a tick under 40 was twice as high as his bowling average of just 18. Now bear in mind that Grace played first-class cricket until just before his 60th birthday and that most of the pitches on which he prospered would be considered unplayable today.

Statistics show a gradual decline in his dominance – to the age of 30 for instance, he averaged over 50 with the bat and 14 with the ball. Nevertheless he remained a giant of the game and one of the leading players right to the turn of the 20th century.

Even in his mid-fifties, having finally retired from Test cricket, he brought himself on to bowl in a first class match against the touring 1902 Australians and took 5-29.

First Class / WG Grace/Cum. runs/Cum. Bat Av/Cum. Wkts/Cum. Bwl Av
To end of 1868 Aged 20 1512 47.25 134 12.56
To end of 1878 Aged 30 19078 51.42 1259 14.27
To end of 1888 Aged 40 32871 44.18 2199 16.25
To end of 1898 Aged 50 48445 40.99 2609 17.45
To end of 1908 Aged 60 54211 39.45 2809 18.15

His contribution to the game is extraordinary. Said C.L.R. James in Beyond a Boundary.

Bradman piled up centuries. W.G. built a social organisation. Despite the impression of continuity and expansion which the histories of cricket give, there is little evidence to show that it was widely played or that it was a common public entertainment before the decade in which W.G. first appeared.

Grace’s gamesmanship was legendary and often controversial. When he famously replaced the bails after being clean bowled (albeit in an exhibition match) stating ‘They’ve come to watch me bat, not you bowl,’ few could argue. People flocked in unprecedented numbers to see the champion in action. There was no suggestion of malice but he would never hesitate in taking any advantage he thought he could get away with.

Off the field he became an adept and compassionate medical doctor around Bristol. When it was thought he might devote more time to his practice in his early fifties, he instead gave it away, moved to London and continued for years as captain of the new ‘London County’ club. There can be no doubt of his love for the game. Aged 66, he scored 69 not out in his last ever match, for Eltham Cricket Club.

Today’s players are fitter and better prepared however that does not mean they are necessarily more skilful than those before them. How can you compare another player against a man who did much to establish modern batting technique and whose record breaking scores popularised the sport?

Is WG the greatest cricketer of all time? I like to think so.

The Crowd Says:

2015-10-08T03:09:45+00:00

JGK

Roar Guru


On a related point, WG Grace was born exactly 101 years before one DK Lillee.

2015-10-08T03:08:38+00:00

JGK

Roar Guru


Being the greatest is not the same as being the best. WG clearly has claims. Without him, there may not even be cricket as we know it.

AUTHOR

2015-10-06T13:00:46+00:00

Camo McD

Roar Guru


I agree Connor. WG belongs in the conversation as the greatest with his extraordinary dominance, particularly circa the 1870s, plus his tremendous influence in advancing batting and amazing longevity. Bradman having basically perfected batting in a way that has never been approached is a strong contender, and you could possibly make a case for Sobers too. Then you'd probably look at a larger group like Warne, Marshall, Viv Richards, George Headley, Sydney Barnes, Imran, Hadlee, Tendulkar, Lara, Murali, Hobbs and probably a dozen or so others who are absolute legends and strong contenders for an all-time XI but probably didn't do quite enough to be THE greatest.

AUTHOR

2015-10-06T12:42:20+00:00

Camo McD

Roar Guru


Thanks Paul, totally agree with regards to us having to assume a champion in one era would be a champion in any era.

2015-10-06T02:10:54+00:00

Connor Bennett

Editor


No doubt one of the most influential people to grace a cricketing field (see what i did there) and there are a million arguments to be made about who is the greatest of all time, although the Don surely has to be a strong case, but no one can deny that very very few people would have the longevity that he had. How many other people in history would have played at that level of skill well into their fifties especially when you consider most people in the current era retire in their thirties

2015-10-06T01:49:33+00:00

Paul D

Roar Guru


The difficulty in constructing these sort of arguments – as you have seen, is that it’s tremendously difficult to compare players from different eras, simply because the game itself has changed immeasurably. A lot of the time people aren’t prepared to balance up the pros & cons from each era in trying to make a realistic comparison, as you can see from some of the comments you’ve received – a mix of off-topic barrow pushing and historical ignorance. There are challenges and pitfalls that every generation of cricketer has faced. Proponents of the prehistoric eras of cricket cite uncovered pitches, rudimentary equipment and lack of protection for batsmen, whereas proponents of the modern era cite improved fitness, speed of the game, more defensive field settings and higher standard fielding & bowling. It’s not something that can ever be reconciled, so it comes down to a contest of opinions. My preferred option with these articles is that a champion player in an era would be a champion player in any era. Their latent skill and talent would have seen them rise to the top and they would adapt to the conditions of the time. As to Grace being the greatest player to play the game – I would say he has influenced the game more than any other player. Compared to where cricket was when he started, and where it was when he finished, represented nothing more than a total transformation of the structure and conduct of the game. He played a huge part in bringing that about. I’m not certain I’d say he’s the best over, although as you point out, his all-round abilities certainly put him in the frame. Thanks for taking the time to write the article, I enjoyed it.

2015-10-04T11:19:20+00:00

Sideline Comm.

Guest


You're simple is you think Clarke was a bad captain champ.

2015-10-04T04:53:22+00:00

Alex L

Roar Rookie


Kallis was a big part of why South Africa won many test matches (and reached the top of the test rankings), ultimately he was a rock that the team needed, especially later in his career when more erratic but devastating bowlers like Steyn and Morkel replaced the reliability of Pollock. It's a team game, Scott.

2015-10-04T03:52:43+00:00

scott

Guest


Kallis was a fantastic cricketer, but the black mark against him (and plenty of other South African players of his era) is that they constantly underachieved as a side. Kallis' stats are excellent, but he scored too slowly (which on occasion cost them games) and never really dominated attacks like other batsman. As an all rounder, I would rate Imran Khan above him easily, along with Botham, because they were true match winners.

2015-10-04T00:14:39+00:00

Pope Paul vii

Guest


didn't know that, seems appropriate

AUTHOR

2015-10-03T21:03:27+00:00

Camo McD

Roar Guru


BJ Watling should be touring this season.

AUTHOR

2015-10-03T20:48:44+00:00

Camo McD

Roar Guru


Indeed. From what I've read Trumper seems to have been a remarkable player and immensely popular. Sad he died relatively young. I believe his test debut was also WG's final test.

AUTHOR

2015-10-03T20:18:17+00:00

Camo McD

Roar Guru


Yeah Don, I don't doubt he would've been unbearable at times. I believe in the famous 'Ashes' match he ran out Sammy Jones whilst he was gardening the pitch which spurred Spofforth and co on. Having said that I reckon his influence on the game is unparalleled by any other single player. Firstly his advance of batsmanship technically - being equally adept off both front and back foot, and secondly his unprecedented run scoring contributed hugely to growing the popularity of the sport. I reckon much of his career was amongst the most difficult for batting given the pitches he played on too. Grace himself seems to have been remarkably popular with spectators and from what I've read I get the impression with respect to the controversies he was involved in, he was more a 'pantomine villain' than a genuinely nasty character.

2015-10-03T19:44:52+00:00

12th Man

Guest


mmmm ... a great first-class cricketer who changed the game, no doubt., but the best cricketer ever? He only scored one Test Century.

2015-10-03T14:25:34+00:00

Ryan Ranger

Roar Rookie


VVS Laxman comes to mind!

2015-10-03T14:08:52+00:00

Don Freo

Guest


You're getting so much wrong, Really. Clarke was a terrific captain.

2015-10-03T14:06:59+00:00

Don Freo

Guest


Nah... Any player who refuses to go out, despite having been dismissed, because he argued the public came to watch him bat is not great. He must have been unbearable. Underarm bowlers and walk up trundlers. Good try Camo. WG was probably not in the top 1,000.

2015-10-03T12:19:22+00:00

Kersi Meher-Homji

Guest


Like WG, how many cricketers are known by their initials? I can think of AB deVilliers and AB Border. Also CK Nayudu, India's cricket captain of 1930s. Any more, Roarers? Outside cricket there was PG Wodehouse, the British humorist and comedian WC Field.

2015-10-03T07:20:07+00:00

Klee gluckman

Guest


Michael Clarke a terrible captain. Really.

2015-10-03T06:52:37+00:00

really

Guest


Not all great players are great captains. That Tendulker or any other player wasn't a good captain is irrelevant to how they played as a Batsman or Bowler. Kallis was never South Africa's main captain. (Apart from 2 isolated tests when graham smith was unavailiable) Lara wasn't a great captain. Michael Clarke was terrible. None of this has anything to do with how great these players were as cricketers

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar