|
By The Outsider at 11/22/2009 - 03:53
|
There is a concept in Cosmology used to measure distances to far, really far away objects like other galaxies. It goes by the name of the Cosmic distance ladder. There is constant debate in cricket, in fact all sports, about comparing modern day greats and achievements to the ones from the years gone by. It's a tough one in the absence of good video footage and possibly affected writings. I'll attempt to bring about an argument in this blog to look at the debate from a different perspective.
Measuring distances is a crucial aspect of Cosmology - for one of the basic questions that Cosmology aims to answer is how big is the universe? There is only a certain extent that regular physical measurements will help out. We possibly cannot construct a measuring tape for the exercise and we cannot possibly travel around freely in the universe. The oldest and one of the most robust methods to measure distances is parallax - the simple idea that if you close your eyes one by one and focus on an object it appears at a different distance.
The earth moves around the sun, so a star that you see on Dec. 21 in the sky is going to be at a slightly different place than when you see it on Jun. 21. This induces a parallax and from some basic observations and trignometry one can calculate the exact distance to the star. But, one runs into problems very soon. There is only objects up to a certain distance which will show any measurable parallax, so we need to come up with something new to measure objects further away.
At this point, Cosmology introduces the concept of a "standard candle". There are certain objects in the universe which seem to have the same inherent brightness whether they are found very close to our sun, or millions of light years away. The trick is then to locate a "standard candle" in the region you can physically measure the distance and then search for that "standard candle" further away. Since you know the inherent brightness, a pretty straightforward calculation can give you the distance of that second object.
So, that's how distances are measure in Cosmology - a standard candle is located in our immediate neighborhood where we can also get the physical distance, then we move on to the next rung in the ladder and find another standard candle to take us to the next rung. If I've lost you that's okay, hopefully when I move to cricket in the next paragraph things might be more apparent.
We have Tendulkar, who has just completed 20 years of international cricket and there have been scores of articles written about it, many trying to compare and contrast him with a lot of past day greats. Is that a valid comparison? Perhaps, the cosmic ladder argument can shed some light on it. Many things have changed in cricket over the last 20 years - there is state of the art computer analysis, international schedules are going through the roof, the bouncer limiting rule has been introduced, pads have changed, pitches have changed, the manner in which test cricket is played itself has changed. But Tendulkar was amongst the best then and is amongst the best now. So he can be our cricketing "standard candle" for this time.
Now, let's look at some of the players Tendulkar played with in his early years - Imran Khan, Akram, Crowe, McDermott, Kapil Dev - they date back to quite a few years back and all were performing quite well when Tendulkar debuted and started scoring good runs at the international level. Let's make Imran Khan as our next "standard candle" - he debuted in '71. Granted, he did not have a particularly hot start to his career, but most would agree that his success a few years later had nothing to do with any changes in the rules of the game, but rather his improvement as a bowler.
Sobers, another all time great retired in '74, well into Imran Khan's debut, so he can quite easily serve as our next "standard candle". He played some scintillating innings in the early 70s like the 150* at Lords' in '73 which had Wisden writing platitudes on his stroke play yet again. But, it's instructive to remember that Sobers made his debut in '54 and was a superb all rounder even then. He easily qualifies as our next "standard candle". The change in rules, strategies, bowling etc. etc. did not seem to make any difference to the performance of these three players whose individual careers spanned 2 decades - they were earmarked for greatness at the start and retired as greats.
From hereon, it's just a matter of picking Len Hutton who featured in Sobers' debut test (and scored a double hundred) and tracing him back to '37. He is easily our next "standard candle". Hutton was acknowledged as a great cricketer soon after debut and retired as a great, albeit hampered by a few injuries in the war. Hutton was comfortably Bradman's contemporary, and Bradman was in a league of his own at that time. If Hutton was an acceptable standard candle then so was Bradman. He was a great towering above his contemporaries. Would he have averaged 99.94 today? Probably not, but he would still have been distinctly better than anyone today.
There are the average and very good cricketers who fade away if playing conditions and rules are tweaked slightly, but the true greats of an era have the sporting ability to transcend and adapt to these changes. Bradman would have been great today, so would Hutton, Sobers, and Imran as Tendulkar would have been a great in the 30s. A comparison can be made across eras by using a ladder and standard candles - not a perfect one, but enough to say and conclude that great sportsmen have something in them which can cut across time and imprint their genius on anyone following the game.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
|
|
|
But then people may differ with your choice of 'standard candles'. Some may ask, it should be Lara, Warne or someone else instead of Tendulkar, few might not agree with Imran either.
What to do in that case?
Though I do agree in principle that the best players of a particular generation would have prospered in any other generation, I do also think that all sporting disciplines have gotten more and more competitive/professional as years gone by. This is to take nothing away from the guys past, but i think its critical to recognize the sea of changes that have happened, resulting in making that much harder for anyone to be among the best in any sport.
Irrespective, this is a great article!
And MM, the game has got more competitive and intense but the players of this era also enjoy certain better facilities, better medical treatments, better playing equipments and so on. So it, kind of, even out. Players of past might have been equally good this this with these enhanced facilities.
Maybe it is worth actually putting numbers and averages of these standard candles to the sword and conduct an actual study to find out who glitters the most? Pun intended. :)
Personally I think Tendulkar may have had issues with coping up in that era as would most modern batsmen today. The helmet issue is the biggest stick in the mud. The number of times Sachin has been struck on the head, it would have been very difficult for him to handle the West Indies quicks in their pomp. Not to say that he would not have played his shots and had his fame. Only saying that there might have been some real bodily risk attached that he may not have been able to come out of unscathed.
Of course everything is a what-if when we are talking about putting present cricketers in the past or vice versa.
________
HotLatinBear live