Do we tend to hype the accomplishments of past cricketers?

[putrevus]

17 hours ago, express bowling said:

 

During Roberts' playing  days ( 1974 to 1983 ), how many other good batting teams were there  apart from his own team ?

 

SA were in exile

 

Half the time, England had pathetic batting lineups.  Gooch became good only from 1990. Gower was there from 1978. Boycott was there. Others were pathetic.

 

India had 3 top batters. 

 

Pakistan had Miandad. Can't think of any other top names apart from Zaheer Abbas who was not that good against genuine pace.

 

Australia was ok.

 

That was about it.

 

 

 

 

 

Roberts was the pioneer of fast bowlers in WI (Wes Hall was there but Roberts is greater than him) and in those 9 years, he lost 2 plus years for Packer series. WI became good only after his arrival.That WI team is  still the best team in history of world cricket, no team could/will stand against them. It does not mean other teams were/are bad it just means they are that WI team is far superior.

 

Roach is not even patch on Andy Roberts. 

 

 

[express bowling]

2 hours ago, putrevus said:

Roberts was the pioneer of fast bowlers in WI (Wes Hall was there but Roberts is greater than him) and in those 9 years, he lost 2 plus years for Packer series. WI became good only after his arrival.That WI team is  still the best team in history of world cricket, no team could/will stand against them. It does not mean other teams were/are bad it just means they are that WI team is far superior.

 

Roach is not even patch on Andy Roberts. 

 

 

While I agree with many of the points above, that does not alter the fact that most batsmen in the 1974 to 1983 period were very mediocre. 

 

Just 5 other teams.

 

India, Pakistan and NZ were still developing teams.

 

England had many batsmen averaging in the 20s. 

 

Australia was the only worthy opponent.

 

[MechEng]

21 hours ago, maniac said:

It’s interesting. As someone who grew up in the 90s  I  feel quality of cricket was better in that era. Don’t want to generalize but in my personal

life and on this forum a lot of people in my age group feel the same way based on what I have seen.

 

However at the same time when someone hypes sobers in the 60s or quality of cricket from the 70s and early 80s or maybe go even further back into the Bradman era, I immediately feel it is ridiculous the amount of hype that era gets.

 

I guess in conclusion- people feel the era during their formative years be it music, movies or sports was the best. May be it is natural to think the next gen is having it too easy or the previous gen was not so intense and competitive

 

 

The game was more natural before T20 era. Batting talent and fast bowling were natural as well, no fad diets cricketers enjoyed food like us common folks. Cricketers were more human and flaws were accepted.

[putrevus]

9 hours ago, rkt.india said:

That is just a perception.

 

Lets compare Jaddu and Bedi. Bedi had oveaseas averaage of 33, jaddu 36 while he has only played 15 tests and is easily going to improve those numbers.  There is not a huge difference but if you see home numbers, jaddu averages 19, Bedi 23.  now compare Ashwin with Prasanna.  Prasanna averages 33 with 94 wickets in 27 games.  Ashwin 31 with 108 wickets in 27 games.

 

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/32357.html?class=1;home_or_away=2;template=results;type=allround

 

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/26421.html?class=1;home_or_away=2;template=results;type=allround

The LBW rule was far diiferent , no front foot LBWs were given.That said Bhajji/Ashwin are far better than than Prassana.Bedi had better loop  and variety than Jadeja but Jadeja is deadlier on helpful piktches.

[putrevus]

57 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

While I agree with many of the points above, that does not alter the fact that most batsmen in the 1974 to 1983 period were very mediocre. 

 

Just 5 other teams.

 

India, Pakistan and NZ were still developing teams.

 

England had many batsmen averaging in the 20s. 

 

Australia was the only worthy opponent.

 

Roberts would make any batsmen in any era look silly, he was that good. No matter what protection you have, when ball in thudding onto body and head, you would look silly as batsmen.

 

It is no contest, Roach is not even in the same ball park as Roberts.

 

Averages don't tell full story.Thilan Samerweera has better average than Gordon Greenidge but reality is he is not even patch on Greendige as a batsman.

 

Great players will remain great in any era.They will adapt to any conditions.Sachin if he played in 1970s would not become a useless player.

 

No one in their right mind would classify Sunil Gavaskar as a better batsman than Sachin. Sachin could do everything Sunny could do but Sunny could never play like Sachin even if he wanted to play like him.

Edited August 31, 2019 by putrevus

[Yoda-esque]

Yes

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[maniac]

45 minutes ago, MechEng said:

The game was more natural before T20 era. Batting talent and fast bowling were natural as well, no fad diets cricketers enjoyed food like us common folks. Cricketers were more human and flaws were accepted.

There are 2 upgrades from the previous era.

 

Technology- I mean a brilliant innings getting cut short due to a human error or a brilliant spell of bowling not getting rewarded has been neutered to some extent. I mean still umpiring has been pretty pathetic in recent times but can you imagine the decision making  that might have happened back then. In fact third umpire introduced in the 90s itself brought a lot to cricket leave alone Hawkeye,DRS,Hotspot etc.

 

Fitness- watching these new era cricketers bar 1-2 exceptions like Sarfaraz or Cornwall etc cut like stone and have incredible fitness levels is amazing. They bring in the same intensity in over no.90 that they bring during the first ball of the test match.

 

However the aspects that have vanished are:

Decline in concentration levels- Gavaskar might have been stockily built but playing a whole day or 2 of the test match meant incredible powers of concentration on tough pitches without proper protective gear which can also be physically exhausting if you think about it.

 

Things made a little easier for commercial purposes- the rise of bowling friendly pitches in recent times has a lot to do with trying to make test matches more exciting for the fans. These days if you get a flat surface even the best of the bowlers give up and struggle. Atleast back in the day, someone could produce an inspired spell from nowhere. Add to that the T20 generation,This generates a lot more attacking batting and bowling but also means decline in temperament of the players or atleast they are not tested as much as they used to be. Once in a while you get exceptions like Pujara or Cook.

 

Thats why I said it is not easy to compare across eras. However it is a fact that things you grew up with are a lot more closer to your heart. For me even if Kohli scores 100 odi 100s, I will not rate him above Lara leave alone Sachin.

[velu]

4 minutes ago, maniac said:

Thats why I said it is not easy to compare across eras. However it is a fact that things you grew up with are a lot more closer to your heart. For me even if Kohli scores 100 odi 100s, I will not rate him above Lara leave alone Sachin.

 

can understand that

hope you rate dhoni above pant even if pant wins few wc finals with a six  

[Straight Drive]

1 hour ago, putrevus said:

Roberts would make any batsmen in any era look silly, he was that good. No matter what protection you have, when ball in thudding onto body and head, you would look silly as batsmen.

 

It is no contest, Roach is not even in the same ball park as Roberts.

 

Averages don't tell full story.Thilan Samerweera has better average than Gordon Greenidge but reality is he is not even patch on Greendige as a batsman.

 

Great players will remain great in any era.They will adapt to any conditions.Sachin if he played in 1970s would not become a useless player.

 

No one in their right mind would classify Sunil Gavaskar as a better batsman than Sachin. Sachin could do everything Sunny could do but Sunny could never play like Sachin even if he wanted to play like him.

Sunny and Sachin cannot be compared as both were totally different type of players and both had totally different quality of batsmen playing around them. The era too was significantly different with too many different factors to be considered on a tour. Both are games greats.

[putrevus]

19 minutes ago, Straight Drive said:

Sunny and Sachin cannot be compared as both were totally different type of players and both had totally different quality of batsmen playing around them. The era too was significantly different with too many different factors to be considered on a tour. Both are games greats.

I never said Sunny was not great.Sachin is greater than Sunny , even Sunny would agree to it.

[maniac]

26 minutes ago, velu said:

 

can understand that

hope you rate dhoni above pant even if pant wins few wc finals with a six  

Dhoni is actually an example of someone who couldn’t adapt to the modern change. When he was at his best there was no power play rule from 30-40 so he could maintain a good strike rate even early on by rotating the strike. Once the mandatory fielders in the circle from 30-40 started, it forced teams to have more players in the circle and Dhoni struggled due to which his tuk- tuk. No strategy and other bs. He plain failed to adapt. 

[Straight Drive]

8 minutes ago, putrevus said:

I never said Sunny was not great.Sachin is greater than Sunny , even Sunny would agree to it.

Quite possible both will say other one is greater as both are very humble and sporting in nature.

[express bowling]

1 hour ago, putrevus said:

Roberts would make any batsmen in any era look silly, he was that good. No matter what protection you have, when ball in thudding onto body and head, you would look silly as batsmen.

 

It is no contest, Roach is not even in the same ball park as Roberts.

 

I am not saying that Roach is as good as Roberts.  

 

What I said was that there were too many mediocre teams and mediocre batsmen in Roberts' era. 

 

1 hour ago, putrevus said:

Averages don't tell full story.Thilan Samerweera has better average than Gordon Greenidge but reality is he is not even patch on Greendige as a batsman.

 

Great players will remain great in any era.They will adapt to any conditions.Sachin if he played in 1970s would not become a useless player.

 

Agree

 

1 hour ago, putrevus said:

No one in their right mind would classify Sunil Gavaskar as a better batsman than Sachin. Sachin could do everything Sunny could do

 

There are lots of top international crickets, who played in the 1970s and 1980s, who have said on record that they rate Gavaskar way above Tendulkar because he could score loads of runs against fast bowlers without any helmet.

 

This includes Richards, Imran etc.

[Straight Drive]

1 minute ago, express bowling said:

 

I am not saying that Roach is as good as Roberts.  

 

What I said was that there were too many mediocre teams and mediocre batsmen in Roberts' era. 

 

 

Agree

 

 

There are lots of top international crickets, who played in the 1970s and 1980s, who have said on record that they rate Gavaskar way above Tendulkar because he could score loads of runs against fast bowlers without any helmet.

 

This includes Richards, Imran etc.

If only test format is considered I would rate Sunny higher than Sachin. Having said that IMO Sachin was a better batsman overall as he could adapt to different needs of the different formats. Sunny struggled to cope with shorter format.

[putrevus]

9 minutes ago, Straight Drive said:

Quite possible both will say other one is greater as both are very humble and sporting in nature.

Sachin could do everything Sunny did against any opponent Sunny faced during his era.Great players in any era will be great in other eras too.

 

 

[Straight Drive]

2 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Sachin could do everything Sunny did against any opponent Sunny faced during his era.Great players in any era will be great in other eras too.

 

 

Yup, Sachin would have been a great batsman even if he had played in the years during which Sunny played.

[putrevus]

11 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

I am not saying that Roach is as good as Roberts.  

 

What I said was that there were too many mediocre teams and mediocre batsmen in Roberts' era. 

 

 

Agree

 

 

There are lots of top international crickets, who played in the 1970s and 1980s, who have said on record that they rate Gavaskar way above Tendulkar because he could score loads of runs against fast bowlers without any helmet.

 

This includes Richards, Imran etc.

That is utter nonsense Sachin would have adapted without helmet with ease, he was not tall either.That is their bias speaking.When did Sunny face four paced attack from WI. Sunny was an utter flop against WI in 1983 in WI and again during the return series only scored runs on flat decks.I am not diminishing Sunny but his  most of his 100s against WI were not against their four prong pace attack.

 

If I am not wrong only 3 100s were against WI four prong pace attack.

[express bowling]

Just now, putrevus said:

That is utter nonsense Sachin would have adapted without helmet with ease, he was not tall either.That is their bias speaking.

 

Whether it is their bias or not ... you said that no one in his right mind would say that  ... I just pointed out that that is not the case. Luminaries of the game say it. 

[Rightarmfast]

25 minutes ago, Straight Drive said:

If only test format is considered I would rate Sunny higher than Sachin. Having said that IMO Sachin was a better batsman overall as he could adapt to different needs of the different formats. Sunny struggled to cope with shorter format.

You rate him higher in Test, is acceptable. However, no. Sunny wasnt better than Sachin. A case could be made on the basis of their batting order. Sunny is arguable, or inarguably the best opener in history. But in every respect, Sachin was better than Sunny. And yes, I have seen both of them bat. Have infact seen Sachin bat from the day he made his debut!

[putrevus]

11 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

Whether it is their bias or not ... you said that no one in his right mind would say that  ... I just pointed out that that is not the case. Luminaries of the game say it. 

They are giving those statements without realizing the fact that Sunny never did well against full force WI teams.That is not a knock on Sunny nobody did well against those monsters. 13 100s against WI in 1970s and 80s, people automatically assume that Sunny scored all those 100s against WI fast bowlers.

 

Viv Richards was talking yesterday about 1976 Sabina Park test with Sunny and complementing on his 13 100s too.There is no way Sunny is better than Sachin.

Edited August 31, 2019 by putrevus