a celebration of modern cricketing icons

[bagapath]

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?

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.

hey. i wont cry if you dont me take me seriously. what you think of me is no big deal. may be you should control your overblown ego.

now why dont you stop this aggro talk and get to the point and justify the title of the thread? lets hear about the modern greats you want to write about. i'll also join the discussion whenever i have a point.

 

[fredfertang]

If you could transport modern test players, with their heavy bats and 21st century nouse, back to 1920's Australia and those perfect shirtfront wickets, the old lbw law and the prevailing fielding standards then I have no doubt they'd eclipse Bradman, Ponsford et al without difficulty ...... but they'd still be made to look like schoolboys if the wicket got sticky

Those that say you can't make realistic comparisons across generations have a very good argument in favour of that proposition but that argument will never change the fact that some people find it fascinating to attempt to make those comparisons - if you don't like it leave us to it - if you want to criticise then fine but i can't see there is a need to be offensive.

 

[honestbharani]

If you could transport modern test players, with their heavy bats and 21st century nouse, back to 1920's Australia and those perfect shirtfront wickets, the old lbw law and the prevailing fielding standards then I have no doubt they'd eclipse Bradman, Ponsford et al without difficulty ...... but they'd still be made to look like schoolboys if the wicket got sticky

Those that say you can't make realistic comparisons across generations have a very good argument in favour of that proposition but that argument will never change the fact that some people find it fascinating to attempt to make those comparisons - if you don't like it leave us to it - if you want to criticise then fine but i can't see there is a need to be offensive.

AWTA fully.

 

[Fusion]

It’s a flawed argument to say that the older generation of players will not be able to succeed in today’s game (or the reverse that an ordinary bowler of today could dominate the past). We all know that today’s players are bigger, faster, and better trained. So comparing cross-generation players as they are is flawed. What you need to consider is what if Bradman was born today? What if he had access to the same nutrition, training, and money that today’s players do. Would he then be able to play at the same level? I’m guessing that perhaps he won’t be as overwhelmingly dominant, but he’ll still be the best batsman by a mile. Conversely, if a modern player was born in the times of WG Grace, he would not have the same nutrition/training/time/money as he does today. I’m thinking that he would then be on par with that era’s cricketers and not be able to dominate.

 

[Xuhaib]

It’s a flawed argument to say that the older generation of players will not be able to succeed in today’s game (or the reverse that an ordinary bowler of today could dominate the past). We all know that today’s players are bigger, faster, and better trained. So comparing cross-generation players as they are is flawed. What you need to consider is what if Bradman was born today? What if he had access to the same nutrition, training, and money that today’s players do. Would he then be able to play at the same level? I’m guessing that perhaps he won’t be as overwhelmingly dominant, but he’ll still be the best batsman by a mile. Conversely, if a modern player was born in the times of WG Grace, he would not have the same nutrition/training/time/money as he does today. I’m thinking that he would then be on par with that era’s cricketers and not be able to dominate.

best post in this thread, exactly my thoughts its just that you have conveyed them in a much more efficient manner then I would have.

 

[Richard]

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?

"Better" and "more talented" aren't the same thing. Though clearly there is more often than not some amount of correlation.

 

[Richard]

If you could transport modern test players, with their heavy bats and 21st century nouse, back to 1920's Australia and those perfect shirtfront wickets, the old lbw law and the prevailing fielding standards then I have no doubt they'd eclipse Bradman, Ponsford et al without difficulty ...... but they'd still be made to look like schoolboys if the wicket got sticky

I really don't know about "eclipse without difficulty", and certainly not in the case of Bradman, but yes, it's more than conceivable that the very best (Tendulkar, Lara et al) would indeed better the Ponsfords, Woodfulls, McCabes etc. under such circumstances.

Ditto, of course, as I've mentioned, that if you transport the Ponsfords, Woodfulls, McCabes etc. forward to the post-2001 World, give them the heavy bats, helmets, chestpads, and get them sorted on the changed lbw law, they could dominate as easily as have the Pontings, Dravids, Kallises etc.

Those that say you can't make realistic comparisons across generations have a very good argument in favour of that proposition but that argument will never change the fact that some people find it fascinating to attempt to make those comparisons - if you don't like it leave us to it - if you want to criticise then fine but i can't see there is a need to be offensive.

Ind33d.

 

[Sanz]

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.

There is a possibility that generation of my grandchildren will be better than the likes of Akram, Lara etc But your initial post doesn't leave a room for that possibility, it just assumes that they are going to be better by virtue of being from a future generation and that I have hard time accepting.

Just because there are technological and other enhancements doesn't mean the best of today is better than the best of the past.

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.

May be there was some materialistic gain, I am ignorant about their time anyway, but let's face it, it was not their primary profession, they still had to do other jobs unlike today's cricketers. My Grandfather worked in the Army and he did get paid for what he did and with that money he bought land, educated his children , built a house for his family, which his children and Grandchildren managed to maintain and infact made it much bigger. The house is much bigger, looks much more beautiful than it did when my Grandfather built and the building is a money making machine as well. But please do not tell me that my contribution is to that house bigger than that of my Grandpa's merely because it is bigger or looks better .

 

[Evermind]

May be there was some materialistic gain, I am ignorant about their time anyway, but let's face it, it was not their primary profession, they still had to do other jobs unlike today's cricketers. My Grandfather worked in the Army and he did get paid for what he did and with that money he bought land, educated his children , built a house for his family, which his children and Grandchildren managed to maintain and infact made it much bigger. The house is much bigger, looks much more beautiful than it did when my Grandfather built and the building is a money making machine as well. But please do not tell me that my contribution is to that house bigger than that of my Grandpa's merely because it is bigger or looks better .

Sure, but that's not the point here. The point is: "which house looks better?" - and the answer is definitely the one you have today. Sure your grandpa's contribution to it was just as much, but speaking in a very absolute sense, the house today is bigger and better.

I think we're losing sight of the point here. When we rank batsmen from older eras with those from today's, what are we essentially saying? That there exists a way to compare them. When Trumper is ranked higher than Kirsten, for example, we're putting a lot of hypotheticals into play - that he would've played all countries other than SA and England just as well as he played them, that he would've been as athletic and as fit as Kirsten were he to be transported to this era, etc etc. On a simpler, more absolute level, Kirsten is better. To favour modern batsmen over those from earlier times requires less speculation and less extrapolation than the other way 'round - mostly because the game today is more diverse, more broad, and incorporates a greater range of skills.

Personally, I simply wouldn't put Grace and Tendulkar on the same ranked list of batsmen. They're playing a completely different game. There cannot be any basis for comparison other than the absolutely subjective, and one must throw stats and all quatitative evaluations out of the window. If you want to compare in terms of average, Trumper's was under 40, so he won't make the top 50 batsmen of all time.

 

[Richard]

When we rank batsmen from older eras with those from today's, what are we essentially saying? That there exists a way to compare them. When Trumper is ranked higher than Kirsten, for example, we're putting a lot of hypotheticals into play - that he would've played all countries other than SA and England just as well as he played them, that he would've been as athletic and as fit as Kirsten were he to be transported to this era, etc etc. On a simpler, more absolute level, Kirsten is better.

This simply misunderstands things, as it assumes that some aspects of the game have always remained the same. Trumper (and those of his time) played against all sorts of teams as well - counties, states, and international teams. The game has changed, and these days international cricket is the obvious benchmark of excellence, but it was not always so.

Since when has being fit and athletic been an important component in opening the batting, incidentally? Kirsten was not remotely remarkable in this regard, nor was Trumper remarkably poor.

Trumper is a bad example for all sorts of reasons anyway, because there was much that was special about him besides how fundamentally good he was (ie, how adept he was at scoring runs). Run-scoring is only half of the charm of Victor Trumper.

Personally, I simply wouldn't put Grace and Tendulkar on the same ranked list of batsmen. They're playing a completely different game. There cannot be any basis for comparison other than the absolutely subjective, and one must throw stats and all quatitative evaluations out of the window. If you want to compare in terms of average, Trumper's was under 40, so he won't make the top 50 batsmen of all time.

Again, you convey a misunderstanding of how and when the game changed. Yes, Grace is indeed incomparable to many of his excellent successors, because (amongst many other factors) in his heyday overarm bowling had only just been legalised. However, to state that those of the 1930s and those of the 1980s were "playing a different game" is completely and totally wrong. The rules were not manifestly different, and the game was broadly exactly recogniseable for what it was in both decades. With a little introduction and familiarisation, anyone with a basic aptitude for either could very easily excel every bit as much in one as the other.

 

[Sanz]

Sure, but that's not the point here. The point is: "which house looks better?" - and the answer is definitely the one you have today.

Not really, the objection was made to some of the celebration threads that are started by SJS and may be others. I personally would take the contribution of those that laid the foundations of the game anyday ahead of the stars of today.

In any case you can not say which one is better unless you have seen the old ones. If you have not then you also take into account what was written by their contemporaries and not just mere statistics. You can't just take into account that those men that played 100 years ago were inferior by virtue of playing in that era.

Raw Statistics do not suggest anything. Because according to the Raw Statistics a Hayden would be declared better than a Gavaskar, Richards etc, A Mcgrath, Akram etc would automatically be considered better than the likes of Lillee etc (may be not by the generation that saw them both but by the generation that saw one and not the other) .

 

[GIMH]

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.

 

[zaremba]

I tend to accept that sport and sportsmen tend generally to improve over time, and this goes for cricket as much as any game. If you parachuted Denis Compton and Ray Lindwall in their prime into Test cricket in 2009 they might not find themselves all at sea but I think they would find the overall quality higher than they were accustomed to. New skills and techniques have developed, tactics are much more sophisticated, and fitness, preparation etc have all improved vastly.

We should also beware the rose-coloured spectacles. They tend to distort our vision too much to be reliable.

And very rarely do you find a cricket writer who considers that the stars of the present (whenever that present may be) are quite as bright as the stars of his own younger days. This is human nature, of course. The rotten spells where Marshall bowled at half pace and didn't move the ball at all have faded completely from the memory while the vicious late inswingers remain, and such memories are unassailable, not least because we have a strong emotional attachment to them.

One day when I'm at a very loose end I intend to prove, by reference to the rose-tinted writings of a succession of reputable cricket writers, that some nondescript nobody from the 1860s was better than the finest players in recent history (on the basis that player A was compared unfavourably to player B, who another writer compared unfavourably to player C, and so on). I can't imagine it would be difficult.

Having said all that, I don't see why the greats of the past need to be done down in order to build up the greats of the present.

And don't forget that we would not have a Ponting if we had not had a Grace. Modern players are standing on the shoulders of giants.

Personally, I simply wouldn't put Grace and Tendulkar on the same ranked list of batsmen. They're playing a completely different game. There cannot be any basis for comparison other than the absolutely subjective, and one must throw stats and all quatitative evaluations out of the window.

You can compare them to their contemporaries. And that's the criterion which shows Grace to be as outstanding a player as was Bradman - arguably even more so.

 

[fredfertang]

The rotten spells where Marshall bowled at half pace and didn't move the ball at all have faded completely from the memory while the vicious late inswingers remain, and such memories are unassailable, not least because we have a strong emotional attachment to them.

This is very true - less than 20 years on I remember nothing about the frustration and annoyance David Gower caused - I just remember as gifted a batsman as I ever saw

 

[Richard]

I very much agree with you in a sense, but it disappoints me that anyone would think I am incapable of recalling the days - few though they were - when Allan Donald sent it through gun-barrel straight from halfway down the pitch. For sure, we are all guilty - each and every one of us on this forum - of some amount of misty-eyed glancing back at that with which we were only partially familiar with at the time. But I'd like to think some of us can force our eyes past that. In fact, I know I can, and I know some others can as well.

 

[bagapath]

when are we starting the celebrations?

 

[zaremba]

I very much agree with you in a sense, but it disappoints me that anyone would think I am incapable of recalling the days - few though they were - when Allan Donald sent it through gun-barrel straight from halfway down the pitch.

FTR my comments were not directed at you or at anyone on this forum.

 

[Richard]

I didn't think for a second they were - exclusively, that is - but there are some on here who do believe me to be incapable of seeing anything but Purple Rain and Rain Rainbows when cricket between 1990 and 2001 is concerned.