Does the skill level in a sport go up with time?

[Ram]

I was inspired to bring this one up by the Gary Sober's post that Bradman would have scored more now than had in his playing times. I aint too sure about this , but i for one think that Sportspersons of any sport get better and better as the time/generations goes on. For example, lets take the 100 m dash. The times have gotten faster and faster over the years. What causes this to happen is something that is debatable. The Athletes have better training equipment than they used to have before. There is more science involved. More technology. Though there are players that trancend age and times ( pele , bradman etc ) , i get the feeling that if the top 10 tennis players of lets say 1940 were to form a team and play against a team of top 10 tennis players of 2007 , the 1940's team would be hammered.

[CC1981]

Yes. The mean average skill level, like in any profession/endavour, only increases with time.

[Predator_05]

Absolutely. The advent of technology and the vast improvements witnessed in the field of pharmaceuticals/medicine enables athletes to maximise their performance like never before. Medicinal supplements are a major part of any athletic set-up, especially when we talk of sports such as track and field, swimming, cycling, etc. The records for such sports have been set in contemporary times and older records have been shattered. Bill Sweetenham, the Aussie coach of British swimming team once claimed that the most successful swimmers of today are the ones who have the best chemists. 30 years ago, this wasn't a factor as it was all grind and hard work. In cricket, i'd say the same holds true. Although we like to hark back to the days of Bradman and Sobers, putting them on a pedestal and what not - who is to say that they would have been exemplary achievers in this era ? With all the constant travelling involved, a strenuous calender including too many pointless ODI's, and opposition who are fitter than ever before in the field - would they really have been as successful ? I seriously doubt it.

[Ram]

If so , statistical comparisons arent even worth the paper they are printed on. And the whole idea of " all time ODI/test eleven" is contentious. That is coz the best opener 1940 , who averaged 53/54 isnt neccessarily as good as the opener of 2007 who averages 45/46....

[The Outsider]

Its about how you perform compared to your contemporaries. Moreover, marris, in sports like cricket where you are directly competing with the opposition remember if the quality of batsmen has improved so has the quality of bowlers. Its not like swimming or athletics where you are not in direct competition with your opponents.

[CC1981]

If so , statistical comparisons arent even worth the paper they are printed on. And the whole idea of " all time ODI/test eleven" is contentious. That is coz the best opener 1940 , who averaged 53/54 isnt neccessarily as good as the opener of 2007 who averages 45/46....

I wouldnt go that far. I consider 2001- current period as the easiest batting time ever in test history. But a 50 average opener in the 40s & 50s would be equivalent to a mid-high 40s opener in 70s/80s/90s.

[Ram]

I Moreover' date=' marris, in sports like cricket where you are directly competing with the opposition remember if the quality of batsmen [b']has improved so has the quality of bowlers. Its not like swimming or athletics where you are not in direct competition with your opponents.

Exactly... That is the reason i claim today's batsman are better than players of any previous era...

I wouldnt go that far. I consider 2001- current period as the easiest batting time ever in test history. But a 50 average opener in the 40s & 50s would be equivalent to a mid-high 40s opener in 70s/80s/90s.

Current time is the easiest batting time in history? How do you say that ? Nowadays, the fielding has got better. There are more run-outs and fielders diving to stop boundaries. I kinda cant envisage a W.G Grace running behind a ball and diving near the boundary like Kaif does. And there is this whole new paradigm of third umpire. I wonder how many "outs" were given in favour of batsman in the older times simply because they didnt know what the decision was.

[Lurker]

I aint too sure about this , but i for one think that Sportspersons of any sport get better and better as the time/generations goes on. For example, lets take the 100 m dash. The times have gotten faster and faster over the years. What causes this to happen is something that is debatable. The Athletes have better training equipment than they used to have before. There is more science involved. More technology.

That science & technology gets better with times only proves one thing - that sportsmen of yore were more hardcore in their skills, they did not need any help. Let me illustrate this with an example from gym. If you work out there is a modern gym where you have machines of every kind, and then there are what are defined as "hardcore" gyms. These are gyms which rely on moving solid weight without any machines. The age-old exerices like Squats, Deadlifts, Bench Press rule..and all free hand weight. Modern cricketers are like those that go to modern gym with modern machines, they would think they are good but throw them back in a hardcore gym and see them panting. This is true not only in cricket but most fields. What happened to the music industry? Why, inspite of all the advances in music technology, have we not been able to create a Kishore Kumar, a Mohammed Rafi or a Lata Mangeshkar? Inspite of modern tools like internet why do our authors suck as compared to the days of Tagore/Bankim Chandra? Why are the best Indian journalists still N Ram and Raju Bharatan? No I am not suggesting everything was great in good old world. No. But it is greatly unfair and downright ridiculous to suggest that skills increase over a period of time and that players of today would easily beat down a team of 40s-50s. A good fair judgement call should be allowed to those who have seen both generation(like Benaud or Sobers) and guess what do they think of modern cricketers. xxx

[Predator_05]

Current time is the easiest batting time in history? How do you say that .

Pitches have become flatter almost everywhere in the world. The bowlers in this decade aren't anywhere near as good as what we saw in the 90's.

[CC1981]

Current time is the easiest batting time in history? How do you say that ? Nowadays, the fielding has got better. There are more run-outs and fielders diving to stop boundaries.

Fack fielding. Thats about the only thing that's improved. And if i had a choice of batting today, on super-flat pitche with huge bulky bats bowled by Malingas and Lees of the world with 10 Jontys on the field vs batting on the barbdos pitch of the 80s with Marshall bowling and 10 Anil Kumbles fielding,i'd choose the first option 10 times out of 10. In the first scenario, the bowler isnt good enough to get my edge consistently. All 10 jontys can save half my boundary-hitting shots but in the latter instance, Marshall's gonna kill me on the pitch. Yes, fielding has improved but bowling quality & pitches have become so much more batsmen friendly and bats are gigantic these days.

[The Outsider]

Exactly... That is the reason i claim today's batsman are better than players of any previous era...

Both batsmen and bowlers have improved so how can you say that a higher average earlier is equal to a lower average today. If both batting and bowling is lousy then the best among them would average 50 with the bat and 20 with the ball, on the other hand if both bowling and batting are top notch the result would still be roughly the same.

[Ram]

Its kinda amusing that ANYBODY who is in support of the theme of " Old times were harder" always refer to the West-Indian pace attack of the 1980's , like almost there is no other era to refer to. We are talking about comparing different generations here and using the windies era as reference for every bloddy damn arguement isnt fair... Cricket of today is much more competitive ,With the players having to face so many different attacks in so diverse conditions in so many different grounds.

[CC1981]

Its kinda amusing that ANYBODY who is in support of the theme of " Old times were harder" always refer to the West-Indian pace attack of the 1980's , like almost there is no other era to refer to. We are talking about comparing different generations here and using the windies era as reference for every bloddy damn arguement isnt fair... Cricket of today is much more competitive ,With the players having to face so many different attacks in so diverse conditions in so many different grounds.

Okk...basically, what i am saying is, cricket from 1960 - 2000/2001 = higher quality than cricket today.

[Predator_05]

Cricket of today is much more competitive ' date='With the players having to face so many different attacks in so diverse conditions in so many different grounds.[/quote'] Diverse conditions, my @ss. You have nothing but flat tracks all over the world now. Look at the pitches India played on during their tour of SA and compare them with what they had to face on their '97 tour. The difference was like night and day

[Ram]

Flat tracks ??? In the first test, SA got bowled out for 80 odd in their first innings and the match was over in three days. And there was only ONE centurion in the entire series. And what is this talk about pitches getting flatter and flatter ? How did this happen ? Did all of the guys who are incharge of making pitches do a conference on a fine friday afteroon and decided -- " This is it.. we are making the pitches flat from now on.. ".. Though i have to agree , maybe the pitches are being prepared bettr now. So we dont get crumblers like the Motera of 96 anymore. In that sense , the pitches have gone flatter...

[Lurker]

Its kinda amusing that ANYBODY who is in support of the theme of " Old times were harder" always refer to the West-Indian pace attack of the 1980's ' date= like almost there is no other era to refer to. We are talking about comparing different generations here and using the windies era as reference for every bloddy damn arguement isnt fair...

That maybe because the West Indies attack of 80's is aknowledged as the greatest bowling attack of all times. There have been great bowling attacks, including Australia and Pakistan of 90's, but West Indies of 80's were far and away the best. xxx

[CC1981]

In the first test, SA got bowled out for 80 odd in their first innings and the match was over in three days. And there was only ONE centurion in the entire serie

How common are series like that in the new millenium ? The SA series was about the 'average' series by the 70s/80s/90s standard !

And what is this talk about pitches getting flatter and flatter ? How did this happen ? Did all of the guys who are incharge of making pitches held a conference on a fine friday afteroon and decide -- " This is it.. we are making the pitches flat from now on.. "..

Pretty much. They started using GLUE in pitches in the last 5-6 years so that it doesnt 'break up' as easily. They started shaving off any grass on the grassier pitches. Have you seen much cricket from the 80s/90s and can you remember those pitches ? Far far harder to bat on than most pitches today.

[Predator_05]

And what is this talk about pitches getting flatter and flatter ? How did this happen ? Did all of the guys who are incharge of making pitches had a conference on a fine friday afteroon and decide -- " This is it.. we are making the pitches flat from now on.. ".. ..

The biggest factor has been money. The game has gone commercial and the figures involved for telecasting rights have reached levels never witnessed before. Sample the deal between Sky and Channel 4 in the UK, for instance. The sponsors also pay top dollar to endorse matches as well, so playing the full 100 overs in ODI's and the full 5 days in Test cricket is in their best interests. That is why you have flat tracks everywhere. The conditions aren't diverse like they were in the 90's, when you would have fast pitches in the southern hemisphere, pitches which aided swing in England, and pitches which always turned in India.

[Ram]

The biggest factor has been money. The game has gone commercial and the figures involved for telecasting rights have reached levels never witnessed before. Sample the deal between Sky and Channel 4 in the UK' date=' for instance. The sponsors also pay top dollar to endorse matches as well, so playing the full 100 overs in ODI's and the full 5 days in Test cricket is in their best interests. That is why you have flat tracks everywhere. The conditions aren't diverse like they were in the 90's, when you would have fast pitches in the southern hemisphere, pitches which aided swing in England, and pitches which always turned in India.[/quote'] This kinda seems to suggest as though it is the countrys' boards that have actually instructed the pitches to be made flat , bowing to corporate pressure. I thought BCCI wanted faster/bouncier pitches in India.. or this is what they have been saying publically atleast.. so i am kinda left confused now..

[The Outsider]

There have been great bowling attacks, including Australia and Pakistan of 90's, but West Indies of 80's were far and away the best.

I think an attack of McGrath, Warne, Gillespie, and Lee/Kasprowich/Fleming would outperform Marshall, Holding, Roberts, and Garner in more varied conditions with Warne being the deciding factor. Of course, on a fast track the WI attack would trump anything.