Originally Posted by MrPrez
I understand it's an opinion, but so too is "club cricket is more enjoyable to watch than Test cricket" - if you're of this opinion, it is due to the lower quality that you enjoy it. If that makes sense. Likewise, I reckon anyone who prefers olden cricket aesthetics to the modern parallel feels that way because of the less aesthetic nature of the game due to inferior technique, power etc.
I realize the above doesn't really make sense but I hope people can understand what I'm trying to say.
I get what you are saying.
I think there have always been the "club the ball" types, with "lesser" techniques than those who look aesthetically pleasing. And in each era there are the more elegant players, the ones who play the late cuts and the cover drives and the leg glances.
In older days the big hitters were called "forcing batsmen". Vic Richardson was introduced as one by Bill Woodful. So not all olden days cricket was aesthetically pleasing to the purist.
But I do think there is a tendency to look upon those older day players who were elegant as something very special, when there are many today who would rival them in aesthetics. Mike Hussey has as good a cover drive as I've seen, and I can't imagine Hammond's would've been a lot better, if it was better at all...