ICF All Time Test XI : Openers

[The Outsider]

These are not parameters of present. This is Sanatan truth that physical capabilities go down as men approach age of 39-40. The only condition in which player could continue much beyond 40 is' date=' when you don't need athletism as an important aspect of sport.[/quote'] You're making it sound like it was very common for players to play "much beyond 40" during those times. I can only think of Hobbs and Rhodes who played a significant number of matches while being much beyond 40. And how difficult is it for someone even in their 40s to have more athleticism than Ranatunga or Inzamam?

[yoda]

I guess people in the future will poke fun at likes of Tendulkar' date=' Lara, Kallis, Ponting etc. the same way since the video footage of this age in 2D will look amateurish to them, and the "modern day" batsmen of the future would look so good while batting when viewed in the hologram technology [/quote'] You see, cricket has come a looong way since those amateurish ways and it isn't going to get that much better in the future. :two_thumbs_up:

[Crookbond]

I guess people in the future will poke fun at likes of Tendulkar' date=' Lara, Kallis, Ponting etc. the same way since the video footage of this age in 2D will look amateurish to them, and the "modern day" batsmen of the future would look so good while batting when viewed in the hologram technology [/quote'] "You are arguing just for the sake of arguing" "In real life, you won't hold a straight face while saying this." "These videos prove everything" "You are making a bleedingly obvious point" "You are a Bradman Samaj member" .... anything else to add?

[The Outsider]

Exactly, I was going write up on this! Yes, say in the next century the cricket playing horizon has expanded and Test cricket is played in over 50 countries then yes comparing today's greats with those in that hypothetical scenario will be impossible and those "future" greats will take centre stage in any "future" all time XIs by the simple fact they have played in those conditions whilst Tendulkar never played on the "Mongolian" pitch conditions. I can't recall any mainstream sport (except Tennis maybe) where playing conditions have such distinctive influence on the challenges a player is expected to face.

I don't agree to that notion - yeah conditions in different countries are different, but you come across a good variety of pitches even in one country and greats of the game are greats because they've successfully shown to be able to adapt to different conditions. Just because they did not get a chance to play in some conditions where cricket expanded to later should not be held against them if they demonstrated a solid overall game in their careers. And it's not like all wickets in Australia are like Perth or all wickets in England are like Headingly. There is variety even within countries, which was more so when wickets used to uncovered. For example here is the pitch on which Laker took his 19 wickets:

[Raghav_12]

You're making it sound like it was very common for players to play "much beyond 40" during those times. I can only think of Hobbs and Rhodes who played a significant number of matches while being much beyond 40. And how difficult is it for someone even in their 40s to have more athleticism than Ranatunga or Inzamam?

I have put this stat multiple times on this forum but have been conveniently ignored. In fifteen years between 1921 to 1936 there were 45 players who played international test cricket in their 40's. In last 12 years of 2000's, we have had just one such player - Alec Stewart. While current number of test playing nations is 2-3 times than 20's and 30's so pool of players would be equally large. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?agemin1=40;ageval1=age;class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=runs;spanmax2=31+Dec+1936;spanmin2=01+Jan+1921;spanval2=span;template=results;type=batting http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?agemin1=40;ageval1=age;class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=runs;spanmax2=31+Dec+2009;spanmin2=01+Jan+2000;spanval2=span;template=results;type=batting It just shows that playing international cricket in beyond 40 was in fact a very common thing. Your point about Ranatunga and Inzamam doesn't even worth answering.

[The Outsider]

I have put this stat multiple times on this forum but have been conveniently ignored.

Nothing has been "conveniently ignored". All these things have been discussed ad nauseum across many threads - can't be bothered to rehash the same arguments, but they are all there in the 1000+ post Bradman thread and the reducing cricket to numbers thread. EDIT: Here is the link to one of the threads which has a long discussion on this age thing: http://indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=215543 One of the posts:

1. Through 70s-90s, 21 40+ year olds played. Since 2000, only 1 has played. 2. Through 70s-90s, 45 38+ year olds played. Since 2000, only 5 have played. Ergo, Tamim > Gavaskar, Agarkar > Kapil, Sami > Marshall (this one should please Imran)

[Raghav_12]

Nothing has been "conveniently ignored". All these things have been discussed ad nauseum across many threads - can't be bothered to rehash the same arguments, but they are all there in the 1000+ post Bradman thread and the reducing cricket to numbers thread. EDIT: Here is the link to one of the threads which has a long discussion on this age thing: http://indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=215543 One of the posts:

Your post corroborates my argument only. Physical standards required to play international cricket are continously improving. Standards required as late as 70's were marginally lower than what they are today while in 20' and 30's they were abysmal by current standards.

[Marut]

I guess people in the future will poke fun at likes of Tendulkar' date=' Lara, Kallis, Ponting etc. the same way since the video footage of this age in 2D will look amateurish to them, and the "modern day" batsmen of the future would look so good while batting when viewed in the hologram technology [/quote'] In 2050, the kids will probably say that cricket has come a long way since 2010 and Tendulkar, Lara etc would average below 10 if they were to play in 2050. Isn't what the argument against Bradman is? The footages of today will be quite outdated technology then, to make any reasonable conclusions.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[adi B]

In 2050' date=' the kids will probably say that cricket has come a long way since 2010 and Tendulkar, Lara etc would average below 10 if they were to play in 2050. Isn't what the argument against Bradman is? The footages of today will be quite outdated technology then, to make any reasonable conclusions.[/quote'] how would cricket bcome more competitive that this era would be joked upon? would the bowlers bowl at 150 mph, or the batsmen will run bw the wickets with the help of a spaceship or nitroboosters....or will the bats be made of metal to increase strokes or the fielders will bcome superman :ohmy:

[The Outsider]

Your post corroborates my argument only. Physical standards required to play international cricket are continously improving. Standards required as late as 70's were marginally lower than what they are today while in 20' and 30's they were abysmal by current standards.

I have no qualms if you truly believe that the standard of test cricket has been better after 2000 than in the 70s-90s. My experience has been completely the opposite - also 1 40+ player versus 21 40+ players is not marginal.

[Raghav_12]

I have no qualms if you truly believe that the standard of test cricket has been better after 2000 than in the 70s-90s. My experience has been completely the opposite - also 1 40+ player versus 21 40+ players is not marginal.

Cricket would be only sport in history of human kind where standards in 2010's are poorer than 70's. Charles Darwin would be turning in his grave after hearing this. Anyways, there is no argument I can see on how come 45 avancular players (40+) managed to play international cricket in span of 15 years between 20 to 35, if Cricket used to be as athletic as it is today. All I hear are some rhetorics and examples like Agarkar is gretaer than Kapil.

[Prakat]

Cricket would be only sport in history of human kind where standards in 2010's are poorer than 70's. Charles Darwin would be turning in his grave after hearing this. Anyways, there is no argument is coming up how come 45 avancular players (40+) managed to play international cricket in span of 15 years between 20 to 35, if Cricket used to be as athletic as it is today. All I hear are some rhetorics and examples like Agarkar is gretaer than Kapil.

I don't think it applies across the board (40s is not better than 70s etc.), but definitely the quality of cricket was way better in the era where the rules were more balanced and the bowlers had a foot in the ring AND the game had some amazing bowlers all playing at the same time. Right now it is skewed to provide maximum visceral entertainment to the audience because more people enjoy a sixer than those who enjoy a well bowled over.

[CSK Fan]

I don't think it applies across the board (40s is not better than 70s etc.)' date=' but definitely the quality of cricket was way better in the era where the rules were more balanced and the bowlers had a foot in the ring AND the game had some amazing bowlers all playing at the same time. Right now it is skewed to provide maximum visceral entertainment to the audience because more people enjoy a sixer than those who enjoy a well bowled over.[/quote'] Thats on the one hand (rules more balanced. Even that is debatable as any upcoming game takes years for all the rules to be fine-tuned and rules generally change for the better. You dont want to see bowlers bowling six bouncers completely out of the batsman's reach in a test match with few overs to go and an achievable target. this scenario also actually happened in an India-Pak match where Gavaskar led his team off the pitch. For all these reasons, the rules were changed so that the whole match didntbecome a joke) On the other hand we have the smaller pools of players and less number of nations playing cricket professionaly with cricket hardly having any monetary incentive to attract good talent into cricket. So you think a smaller pool of semi-professional players is better than a pool which combins multiple nations starting cricket at grass-root level?

[jairamesh]

Well, then bring back uncovered pitches and suddenly we will have world class bowlers in all teams.

[Raghav_12]

I don't think it applies across the board (40s is not better than 70s etc.)' date=' but definitely the quality of cricket was way better in the era where the rules were more balanced and the bowlers had a foot in the ring AND the game had some amazing bowlers all playing at the same time. Right now it is skewed to provide maximum visceral entertainment to the audience because more people enjoy a sixer than those who enjoy a well bowled over.[/quote'] What you are talking about is competitiveness not about standards of sports. Standard of sports dictated by level of skills and level of athletism. I played some very interesting, close cricket matches in gully cricket. That doesn't mean quality of cricket I played was of high standard. You have two set of numbers below: In 20's and 30's, during a span of 15 years there were 45 players who played international cricket beyond age of 40 when pool of international cricketers was very limited. In 2000's, during span of 13 years, there have been just one player to play cricket beyond age of 40. Pool of international cricketers for this sample would be around 4 times of earlier sample. What would be your honest conclusion on comparison of athletism and professionalism between these two samples?

[Prakat]

Thats on the one hand (rules more balanced. Even that is debatable as any upcoming game takes years for all the rules to be fine-tuned and rules generally change for the better. You dont want to see bowlers bowling six bouncers completely out of the batsman's reach in a test match with few overs to go and an achievable target. this scenario also actually happened in an India-Pak match where Gavaskar led his team off the pitch. For all these reasons, the rules were changed so that the whole match didntbecome a joke) On the other hand we have the smaller pools of players and less number of nations playing cricket professionaly with cricket hardly having any monetary incentive to attract good talent into cricket. So you think a smaller pool of semi-professional players is better than a pool which combins multiple nations starting cricket at grass-root level?

Where is this coming from?

[Prakat]

What you are talking about is competitiveness not about standards of sports. Standard of sports dictated by level of skills and level of athletism. I played some very interesting, close cricket matches in gully cricket. That doesn't mean quality of cricket I played was of high standard. You have two set of numbers: In 20's and 30's, during a span of 15 years there were 45 players who played international cricket beyond age of 40 when pool of international cricketers was very limited. In 2000's, during span of 13 years, there have been just one player to play cricket beyond age of 40. Pool of international cricketers for this sample would be around 4 times of earlier sample. What would be your honest conclusion on comparison of athletism and professionalism between these two samples?

You are right. If I were to point a fine point to it, I was talking about the general decrease in competitiveness in the central duel between batsman and bowler. The fielding now is miles ahead of what was there before, the players are on the whole fitter and more athletic than any other time in the past. The pads are lighter and the guards are better. Professionalism is on the rise, no doubt because a successful career in cricket will support a player's family more than adequately at least in the major cricketing nations. The competitiveness I was mentioning is down not because the bowlers have gotten bad but because the conditions (both in the rule book and on the ground) are against them.

[The Outsider]

Cricket would be only sport in history of human kind where standards in 2010's are poorer than 70's. Charles Darwin would be turning in his grave after hearing this.

Human beings have genetically mutated as a species in 20-30 years? And I am the one causing poor Darwin discomfort in his grave?

[Mariyam]

Human beings have genetically mutated as a species in 20-30 years? And I am the one causing poor Darwin discomfort in his grave?

Cricket talk aside, serious scholastic studies by scientists of repute have shown huge mutations in the generation of humans in their teens and twenties now as compared to the generations before them. This set of people generally have a cellular device of some sort always attached to their person causing some scientists to think that it might as well be an extension of their hands. All this mutated growth just in a span of 30 years.:((

Edit: Just saw that this wasn't in chit chat. Ignore if irrelevant to topic