Do we tend to hype the accomplishments of past cricketers?

[Straight Drive]

2 minutes ago, Rightarmfast said:

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!

Fair enough and perfectly fine to have difference of opinion.

[Rightarmfast]

11 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

And from a different perspective, the spin quartet you are talking of, never had a penetrative fast or medium fast bowler with them. These bowlers were the stock and the shock bowlers. Compared with Ashwin and Bhajji, and to some extent Kumble, they had a tougher task. Now, bowlers like Bhajji and Ashwin have had their career when pitches were more conducive to spin. Whereas the previous set of bowlers were bowling in an era which supported fast and swing bowling. You cannot exclude such facts when making comparisons. 

[express bowling]

2 minutes ago, putrevus said:

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.

 

I am not talking about whether they are right or not.  

 

Just pointing out that there are many such people. 

[Straight Drive]

6 minutes ago, Rightarmfast said:

And from a different perspective, the spin quartet you are talking of, never had a penetrative fast or medium fast bowler with them. These bowlers were the stock and the shock bowlers. Compared with Ashwin and Bhajji, and to some extent Kumble, they had a tougher task. Now, bowlers like Bhajji and Ashwin have had their career when pitches were more conducive to spin. Whereas the previous set of bowlers were bowling in an era which supported fast and swing bowling. You cannot exclude such facts when making comparisons. 

That is because Pataudi realized India did not have quality pavers and he decided to build a team on basis of what we were good at - having the  world's best spin bowling attack ever. And to compliment that he added Solkar who was a great close fielder.  Without Pataudi a normal captain would have played couple of pacers and India would have never produces the best spin attack ever. Pataudi went with atleast 3 spinners in most of matches. Pataudi knew who the best available bowlers were and rest is history

Edited August 31, 2019 by Straight Drive

[Rightarmfast]

2 minutes ago, Straight Drive said:

That is because Pataudi realized India did not have quality pavers and he decided to build a team on basis of what we were good at - having the  world's best spin bowling attack ever. And to compliment that he added Solkar who was a great close fielder.  Without Pataudi a normal captain would have played couple of pacers and India would have never produces the best spin attack ever. Pataudi went with atleast 3 spinners in most of matches. Pataudi knew who the best available bowlers were and rest is history

Yes, the point I was making was about Bhajji and Ashwin being better than Bedi and co. And I dont think so.

[kirkutfan]

41 minutes ago, putrevus said:

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

Sunny would “agree” to it out of courtesy. I doubt Sachin would come out in public and say he was greater than Gavaskar’s either. Different eras and also players in different positions (opener v middle order bat in tests). In some respects a contrast between Sehwag and Gavaskar would be a fun one. Both were kind of like pioneers in their positions. Gavaskar was probably the first Indian to figure out the quicks and play consistently well at the opening spot for a long time. Sehwag showed that it was possible to attack and still score big at the same spot. In both cases, India has struggled to find decent replacements after they left the scene.

[Vijy]

8 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. 

 

 

WI had Hall, griffith, martindale, constantine, gilchrist, etc. before roberts. most of them have records that are only slightly worse than roberts despite playing for weaker WI bowling attacks and in home pitches that were not so favourable. Of the WI pace battery, my own belief is that Marshall was a cut above the rest, closely followed by croft, garner and holding in tests.

[SUMO]

I believe test cricket has never been easy. We can certainly compare stats (+/- 5% margin) across era especially after 1970s.

Its the ODIs which has changed drastically.

 

[Trichromatic]

Test cricket has been same for last 40 years or so. 

[Vijy]

6 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

Test cricket has been same for last 40 years or so. 

My personal belief is that it was close to its best from the late 80s to 2001-02 (around 15 yr period): Oz and SA were excellent during most of the period, Pak was mostly excellent to very good, some teams were difficult to beat at home (e.g., Ind and SL), WI was still a strong force, and even the "weaker" teams like NZ and Zim were competitive to some degree. There was also good balance between bat and ball in terms of pitches, bats, etc. In the late 70s to late 80s, I feel it was too bowling centric and the number of good teams was too few (WI dominance with some competition from oz and pak). From the 00s onward, I think Oz dominance grew too much until about 2007-08, the balance between bat & ball became skewed, etc. But, I am happy that in the past 2-3 yrs we are witnessing more of an even distribution, although this is partly due to the loss of defensive techniques.

[Straight Drive]

3 hours ago, Vijy said:

My personal belief is that it was close to its best from the late 80s to 2001-02 (around 15 yr period): Oz and SA were excellent during most of the period, Pak was mostly excellent to very good, some teams were difficult to beat at home (e.g., Ind and SL), WI was still a strong force, and even the "weaker" teams like NZ and Zim were competitive to some degree. There was also good balance between bat and ball in terms of pitches, bats, etc. In the late 70s to late 80s, I feel it was too bowling centric and the number of good teams was too few (WI dominance with some competition from oz and pak). From the 00s onward, I think Oz dominance grew too much until about 2007-08, the balance between bat & ball became skewed, etc. But, I am happy that in the past 2-3 yrs we are witnessing more of an even distribution, although this is partly due to the loss of defensive techniques.

The T20 format has screwed the technique of some players for sure. The impact of T20 is going to be more severe in upcoming generation of cricketers. IMO bowlers will benefit from this for obvious reasons.A well left delivery is fished at unnecessarily by many a batsmen nowadays.

[MechEng]

12 hours ago, maniac said:

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.

Agree on most but I must mention on the fitness part that too much gym has reduced playing careers of many due to stresses on body. Wasim Akram never went to a gym, his exercises were running and stretching to warm up for nets, and he still managed to remain fit for 19 years in both tests and ODIs. In hist last ODI he could still clock 85 mph with lovely inswingers. Players today tend to retire early.

[rkt.india]

2 hours ago, MechEng said:

Agree on most but I must mention on the fitness part that too much gym has reduced playing careers of many due to stresses on body. Wasim Akram never went to a gym, his exercises were running and stretching to warm up for nets, and he still managed to remain fit for 19 years in both tests and ODIs. In hist last ODI he could still clock 85 mph with lovely inswingers. Players today tend to retire early.

Because players today play far more intensive cricket, are under far more scrutiny. They have to give 100% all the time. Likes Akram would reduce their effort and intensity when things went flat for them. It's by his own admission. This is the only way to have a long career for a fast bowler. Wasim Akram hovered around 85 mph most of his career. He wasn't genuine fast like Waqar.

Edited September 1, 2019 by rkt.india

[someone]

On 9/1/2019 at 1:19 PM, Straight Drive said:

The T20 format has screwed the technique of some players for sure. The impact of T20 is going to be more severe in upcoming generation of cricketers. IMO bowlers will benefit from this for obvious reasons.A well left delivery is fished at unnecessarily by many a batsmen nowadays.

It's the other way around, T20 has enhanced the technique, as more all round game both in terms of scoring areas, and innovation. You don't call repetition as technique.