Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
What are your opinions on the various eras of cricket.
Also, changes the game has went through (like lobs have been banned for instance).
More than that I am looking at statistical analysis and perspectives on the eras.
I have thought on them and am researching from pre test periods though I would even be happy if 1876 onward discussion is done.
This post by SJS - http://forum.cricketweb.net/showpost.php?p=435326&postcount=152 can be a good start on the discussion..
Also, changes the game has went through (like lobs have been banned for instance).
More than that I am looking at statistical analysis and perspectives on the eras.
I have thought on them and am researching from pre test periods though I would even be happy if 1876 onward discussion is done.
This post by SJS - http://forum.cricketweb.net/showpost.php?p=435326&postcount=152 can be a good start on the discussion..
SJS said:In have done something like that for the batsmen's eras.
Grace Era
Hobbs Era
Bradman Era
Sobers Era
Richards Era
Tendulkar Era
These virtually cover the entire test cricket period with negligible overlap.
It may be better, as well as convenient to have.
19th century
1900-!st WW
Between Wars
2nd WW to Packer Era
Packer Era to date.
I think the late division is better in a few respects.
1. The wars always brought a massive change in all stats. Batting boomed after both wards. I think it is because the top bowlers of the world aged during the five odd years the WW's lasted. Batsmen with longer career spans survived and made merry with weaker bowling. This is particularly true for the faster bowlers who have even shorter career peaks.
Secondly, I think, the wickets may have become better with no use for so long and may have been better prepared. This needs verification though.
Thirdly, there are naturally fewer bowlers than batsmen in cricket so there was greater "bench strength" as it were amongst batsmen.
2. It divides careers a bit better and many players like George Headley for example, should really be judged on his career between the wars rather than what he played after the war. West Indies played only in 1946 and then in 1948. Thus virtually no cricket for a decade. The performance of an ageing Headley after the war in these few tests do no credit to the collassus that he was before the war. For someone who played only 20 tests in all, these few tests unnecessarily bring down his figures which are still magnificient , by the way.
3. It removes the individualist slant given to eras by naming them after cricketers and , of course, there may be some disputes (why Tendulkar) for more recent eras
I have figures for these eras and could share them if anyone wants.
Last edited: