a celebration of modern cricketing icons

[GIMH]

yeah, a celebration of modern cricketers is a fine idea, the rest of the OP is abysmal

 

[honestbharani]

Sometimes, yes- that seems to be the case here. Other times it touches a nerve because celebrating a bygone era is inadvertently devaluing another. It's not entirely due to lack of understanding that people who believe otherwise wish to dispute this.

It seems very belligerent I'm sure, but- to demonstrate it more clearly- what if i were to start a thread entitled, "A Celebration of Ricky Ponting- The Greatest Batsman of the Modern Era"? Tendulkar and Lara fans would be up in arms, when all i really wanted to do was talk about how good Ponting is.

Discussing the brilliance of the past does the same thing, although more subtly. Some will always prefer the modern era, and defend it fiercely when noone even intended to attack it.

It wont create a problem if the thread was just "A Celebration of Ricky Ponting"...


By adding the second part, you are basically ASKING for a debate/argument degenerate thread.... If such a thing happened and the thread starter came out crying about his thread being derailed, it would be a classic case of POT.KETTLE.BLACK...

 

[Beleg]

Why does a deserved celebration of truly wonderful modern players have to be accompanied – even inspired - by a denigration of the greats of the past and those who admire them?

nope, you can admire 'em all you want. eh, i admire many of 'em as well. some of them sound as if they were awesome sportsmen - however, i do have a gripe with lumping 'em along with a bunch of modern cricketers in the 'greatest bowler/batsman/all-rounder/cricketer ever' discussions. this isn't a 'denigration' of them greats. it's merely putting stuff in context.

 

[Athlai]

 

[Beleg]

Because a celebration of (or even a long discussion on) the players of very old times seems to touch a raw nerve.

nope, and nope. well you'd like to make it seem so, i am sure. unfortunately, it's wrong. if you had bothered to read the post properly and respond to the actual point instead of skimming and answering instinctively you'd have realised that the topic at hand has nothing to do with the celebration of the 19th century/early 20th century cricketers and everything to do with a misguided, blinkered prespective of their cricketing prowess in context of their descendants.

An inability to contribute meaningfully to that debate brings forth a complete denunciation of the same which can be done without even knowing anything about it (those times and the players of those times).

heh. you'd make a great politician, SJS.

Outright condemnation is often used to camouflage lack of understanding - and this is true not just in matter cricketing.

of course, it serves your purpose to use words like 'condemnation' and 'camouflage' to direct attention away from the self-evident truth of my original premise. trying to obfuscate the original post by throwing them red-herrings (...outright condemnation....) and baits (...not just in cricketing matters...)isn't going to get you anywhere though.

 

[Beleg]

you will say that because that is all you know. instead of making such sweeping statements which betray the lack of wisdom behind those words, catch up on some cricket reading and try to understand what the fuss is all about.

it's always easy to accuse others of 'lack of understanding' or 'reading'. i am not going to establish my so-called credentials just to satisfy your overblown ego, but i'll definitely be interested in knowing your reasons for how you, or anyone else, can call somebody like Trumper a better and more accomplished cricketer than, say, eh kirsten, for example.

don't you see the inherent dissonance in comparing across the eras?

if not, restart this thread and stick to celebration of modern cricketers without unnecessarily pulling down old cricketers and forum members who enjoy discussing them.

dude, you can discuss 'em as much as you want. but if you wish to be taken serious then don't lump the likes of ponting et al. with the frank wooleys and trumpers and morris' and rhodes and armstrongs and stuff.

 

[Beleg]

I dont know how I would react if my grandchildren called the likes of Akram, Lara, Mcgrath, Tendulkar, Dravid, Ponting etc as some sort of inferior talent/players to those of their generation.

i imagine you'd be incensed. which is fair enough. but there is a real possibility that the cricketer of the future will be more accomplished simply because of advancements in technology, a fundamental change in the way cricket is played and precieved and the acquisition of better biomechanical understanding. that would, in no way, imply fellas like akram, lara et al. were chumps - merely the fact that the world has moved on.

It is an absurd thread and tone of the thread is very demeaning to the sport itself and even more so to those who laid the foundations of the game for the love of the game and not for any materialistic gain.

heh @ materialistic gain. come on sanz, surely you aren't telling me that the gentlemen (for example) played cricket strictly for the love of cricket itself? the consummate pro (ehm, gentleman) grace will himself beg to disagree, if he had a conscience, that is.

 

[Beleg]

Sometimes, yes- that seems to be the case here. Other times it touches a nerve because celebrating a bygone era is inadvertently devaluing another. It's not entirely due to lack of understanding that people who believe otherwise wish to dispute this.

i didn't create this thread because of the either/or synergy being describe by you. of course, i understand where you are coming from, but my motivations are a wee bit different. history of sport, and sportsmen, is pretty fascinating, and is glossed over by your average fan owing to ignorance and a lack of understanding of what it entails. i've got no beef with its celebration at all - however, a lot of historical enthusiasts get carried away with their extrapolations and 'could-have-beens/would-have-beens', losing sight of the 'context' in which things are being evaluated/said. and this is fairly common cricketweb but is, by no means, limited to cricketweb either.

 

[Beleg]

Damn shame a thread can't be voted nil. A good thread may have been one talking up modern players, but this is clearly an attempt to slate an older generation of players and people that dare advocate their greatness.

nope, and nope.*

TBH, it seems a ridiculous propisition to me, to believe all the most talented players of a game appeared in the last 10 years

that's not what's being said mate.

* - depending on how they present their arguement, of course.

 

[Beleg]

yeah, a celebration of modern cricketers is a fine idea, the rest of the OP is abysmal

It wont create a problem if the thread was just "A Celebration of Ricky Ponting"...


By adding the second part, you are basically ASKING for a debate/argument degenerate thread.... If such a thing happened and the thread starter came out crying about his thread being derailed, it would be a classic case of POT.KETTLE.BLACK...

and so the bandwagon picks up pace...

 

[Uppercut]

i imagine you'd be incensed. which is fair enough. but there is a real possibility that the cricketer of the future will be more accomplished simply because of advancements in technology, a fundamental change in the way cricket is played and precieved and the acquisition of better biomechanical understanding. that would, in no way, imply fellas like akram, lara et al. were chumps - merely the fact that the world has moved on.

That's true in the most literal of senses. If you take a modern cricketer, with his professionalism, fitness and everything he's learnt from those who have already played the game intact, he'll walk into any side in history. Not many would deny that, and I don't think that's the point of era-crossing comparisons (which i don't actually like).

There's also the fact that the game changes. We don't know how Tendulkar would have played underarm bowling on unspeakably bad pitches in comparison with WG Grace.

 

[Richard]

That's true in the most literal of senses. If you take a modern cricketer, with his professionalism, fitness and everything he's learnt from those who have already played the game intact, he'll walk into any side in history. Not many would deny that, and I don't think that's the point of era-crossing comparisons (which i don't actually like).

This is undeniably true. Equally, if you take a cricketer with the talent of a Hammond, Larwood, Hobbs etc. and give him a year or two to cash-in on the countless improvements that have been made to the game in the decades that have followed their retirements, there's precious little doubt that they'll make every bit as much use of them as their successors have done.

I don't, personally, understand the thinking of those who argue that cricket was unrecogniseable in the 1930s for what it is now - or what it was in the 1970s. The basic skillsets required are the same. Many attitudes have changed, but all it takes to alter an attitude is being a child of your time. If you're put somewhere that demands a certain attitude, you'll adopt it.

There's also the fact that the game changes. We don't know how Tendulkar would have played underarm bowling on unspeakably bad pitches in comparison with WG Grace.

The 1870s are indeed a different question and I've always said (as I'm sure not-a-few are aware) I'm happiest to treat the 19th-century as a bit different to the 20th (and early-21st) and not make comparisons. But from the 1930s onwards we've got enough evidence about what the game looked like to know whether we can compare players, IMO.

 

[Uppercut]

This is undeniably true. Equally, if you take a cricketer with the talent of a Hammond, Larwood, Hobbs etc. and give him a year or two to cash-in on the countless improvements that have been made to the game in the decades that have followed their retirements, there's precious little doubt that they'll make every bit as much use of them as their successors have done.

Yeah, it just makes comparisons rather awkward. How can you have a genuine debate over whether Lindwall was as good as Ambrose when Ambrose, in the literal sense, was better? You can compare how they stand amongst their contemporaries, that's probably fairer, but that has its pitfalls too- should Hadlee be penalised for happening to play in an era with four great all-rounders to compete with?

That's why i don't like cross-era comparisons- at least, not in the sense of debating who's better. Comparing styles, strengths and weaknesses or who you personally prefer is much more interesting. But such threads generally end up with something along the lines of, "muhaha, what sort of an idiot would compare Kallis to Sobers? Misguided fools!!!" instead.

 

[Richard]

You get undesireable comments in many threads, and they take many different guises. I personally think Sobers was clearly better than Kallis, but it's not a ridiculous comparison the way Tendulkar to Ramprakash, for example, would be. There's clearly some people who have an agenda for a certain thing, be it the modern era is crap, anything before X date was crap, anything which is Southern is crap, anything not from Australia is crap, etc. It annoys the heck out of me, and I generally regard patently biased posters with not-a-little disdain.

As for who was literally better, well... in terms of seam-bowlers I often think there's precious little in it. I can't see any reason why you wouldn't be able to bring Larwood or Lindwall forward 50 years and have them tear-up batting line-ups straight from ball one. There might possibly be some stamina issues but then again, there might well not be - mass fitness has certainly improved tenfold, but the best fitness I don't think really has. I think the fittest fast bowlers are precious little more fit now than they were 50 years ago - in fact, maybe, in some terms, less so.

Batsmen, the requirements have changed not-inconsiderably, and fingerspinners, well, you might as well compare Sun to Alpha Centuri as compare Laker to Croft IMO. But seam-bowlers are still seam-bowlers, and the seamer still has more control of the game than any other player, so I'm happier to compare them cross-generation than I am anyone else.

Though as I say, I think that anyone seriously perporting that Hobbs or Hammond wouldn't have been two of the best batsmen the game has seen if they'd played in the 1970s doesn't really have much of a clue what they're on about. But the question of whether Keith Fletcher or Ian Bell was better is an entirely pointless one, IMO, and I don't have the slightest interest in trying to discern it.

 

[Uppercut]

As for who was literally better, well... in terms of seam-bowlers I often think there's precious little in it. I can't see any reason why you wouldn't be able to bring Larwood or Lindwall forward 50 years and have them tear-up batting line-ups straight from ball one. There might possibly be some stamina issues but then again, there might well not be - mass fitness has certainly improved tenfold, but the best fitness I don't think really has. I think the fittest fast bowlers are precious little more fit now than they were 50 years ago - in fact, maybe, in some terms, less so.

Pace bowling will have moved up a notch due to improved fitness and technology, professionalism, full-time training, knowledge gained from previous eras (aside from technical aspects, there are practical issues like how to regularly implement reverse swing) and the simple fact that many more people play the game in every era. The same stuff that affects every other element of the game.

Sport moving forward is, by and large, something no part of any game is immune to.

 

[Richard]

You see, I think that each of those aspects you name can mean that "the crowd" is generally of a higher standard, but those at the very top aren't neccessarily affected greatly. Don't get the idea that someone like Larwood didn't have a clue what he was doing when he made the old ball swing, just because no-one had ever used the term "reverse-swing" in his day. Don't get the idea that Lindwall wasn't supremely fit just because general fitness was of a much lower standard in his day. The best seam-bowlers have always had huge attention-to-detail regardless of whether they were amateurs or pros - I've said before that this "professionalism" stuff is hopelessly overrated, and the result more of colour-TV-syndrome than anything. Etc. etc.

As I say - I've seen plenty of film of and read plenty about a few of the very best seam-bowlers from the 1940s and '50s (Larwood was pretty much the only outstanding one in the '30s) and what I've seen gives me no indication whatsoever that they'd struggle if they were pitched into a Test in 1976 or 1994. The question over whether a "good" seam-bowler like, for example, Gubby Allen, would be as good as, say, Dominic Cork if you moved him forwards directly to Cork's day is a more impossible-to-answer one, but still, as I say above, there's the fact that adaptation only takes a short time.

 

[Uppercut]

It's strange that you think batting has improved while top-class seam bowling has stayed the same, when the figures returned by those at the top has remained pretty similar. Surely Ambrose, having had to bowl to better batsmen, would not have returned figures in the same league as someone like Lindwall?

 

[Richard]

As so many people do so often, you're looking at things the wrong way around. The bowler controls the game. Batsmen have gotten better (if that's the right way of looking at it - and I'd say it's more a case of batting getting better due to improvements in available aids rather than actual batsmen making improvements to things within their own power) because they've had to repel new challenges from new bowlers and more widely excellent bowlers. What made the best bowlers oust batsmen in the 1950s has not changed. Batsmen have not acquired powers to resist the best seam-bowling, and never will do.

And in any case, as I say, I honestly don't think the best batsmen of the first 70 years of the 20th-century would out-and-out struggle in the '70s, '80s or '90s either. And I think that after a short period of adaptation, they'd soon begin to excel exactly as they did in their day as well.

 

[The Sean]

I personally think Sobers was clearly better than Kallis, but it's not a ridiculous comparison the way Tendulkar to Ramprakash, for example, would be.

Harsh on Tendulkar IMO - he's only 34 FC centuries behind, is four years younger and still batting well. The little bloke's still got a chance of closing the gap by the time his career plays out.

 

[honestbharani]

i imagine you'd be incensed. which is fair enough. but there is a real possibility that the cricketer of the future will be more accomplished simply because of advancements in technology, a fundamental change in the way cricket is played and precieved and the acquisition of better biomechanical understanding. that would, in no way, imply fellas like akram, lara et al. were chumps - merely the fact that the world has moved on.






heh @ materialistic gain. come on sanz, surely you aren't telling me that the gentlemen (for example) played cricket strictly for the love of cricket itself? the consummate pro (ehm, gentleman) grace will himself beg to disagree, if he had a conscience, that is.

beleg, if you are telling that advancements in technology etc. etc. are what contributing to players becoming better than their predecessors how does it make them any more talented than the ones that existed earlier?


In essense, you are telling the modern players are better simply because they played in this era... How does that make them better players by itself?