Do we romanticize with the past too much?

[Streetwise]

Haha, very interesting, because most of the older friends I have can't stop raving about the fielding of Pataudi, Solkar and Gary Sobers, and talk about how people don't put their bodies on the line today.

Also thanks for all the insights guys, Always good to know wiser POVs. and I'm delighted ya'll like my posts.

The amount of third umpire reviews of players sliding and diving to save boundries makes me think players are more than willing to put their bodies on the line, Harris only in the last ODI smashed into the fence trying to save a run.

 

[King Pietersen]

Having watched cricket since the mid 70's I find teams get better all the time as they get more and more quality players. The only difference now is you have 7-9 top quality players in one team as compared to only 3-5. You need to be talented and fit to play cricket qualities that players like Hadlee had a natural abundunce of and he stood out but today nearly all players are as fit as Hadlee.

Dennis Lillee probably deserved the mention ahead of Hadlee for my money. Lillee managed to recover from what would have been a career-ending injury for most fast bowlers, with 4 stress fractures of his back. Lillee dedicated himself over an 18 month period to improving not only his action, but put together a training regime that became a blue-print for fast bowling fitness. There's no doubt in my mind that he'd have been one of the premier fast bowlers in the world today if he was from this era, as well as one of the fittest.

 

[SJS]

I agree Today's Batsmen have it easier due to helmets, flatter tracks et al., but do we exaggerate the difference between the times too much and romanticize and icon-ize the batsmen of yesteryears too much? They too had a few advantages compared to today's Batsmen such as lack of spin-bowling of the highest quality, more casual fielding and so on. I agree flatter pitches do contribute to monumental increase in the number of runs scored but it is also due to many other factors such as developments in technology aiding better coaching, physios, and most importantly a different psychological(more aggressive) approach towards batting.

It gets even worse when Bowling is concerned as the same people who say pitches have become flatter aiding batting refuse to acknowledge bowlers who are taking heaps of wickets in the very same flatter wickets and continue to romanticize about the Lilees and Hadlees and mourn the supposed death of good bowling. Aren't Steyn, Asif, Bond, Akthar in their peaks as good or maybe slightly worse off compared to the the greats in the 70s and 80s?

First post btw.

Very Interesting and welcome to CW I would like to ask you a few things before I respond.

Why do you think people romanticize the past, if a large number do? Is it, for example, because they think players of their times (when they were learning cricket, when they were playing cricket etc) were better or is it just a general infatuation of the past which makes them romanticize about cricketers who had even stopped playing before they (those that romanticize) were perhaps born?

At what level do you think coaching really makes a difference to the making of better cricketers? At the earlier levels when the youngster is learning the ropes and then coming through the lower ranks or when he has started playing top level cricket?

Do you think physios contribute to better cricket or just better fitness levels?

You really think that spin bowling resources, overall, are more today that they were in many earlier periods or are you just referring to one particular 'spinner-drought' era with the Warne-Murali-Kumble era ?

PS : And do you think I am one of those who romaticise the past ?

That last bit was in jest you dont have to answer that but it would be fun if you did

 

[Streetwise]

A good comparision is Symonds and Rod Marsh, Rod famous for drinking 18 stubbies on the plane over for the ashes and symonds dumped for having beers with mates.

 

[andyc]

PS : And do you think I am one of those who romaticise the past ?

That last bit was in jest you dont have to answer that but it would be fun if you did

He only started posting tonight so it might be a bit hard for him to say

 

[SJS]

He only started posting tonight so it might be a bit hard for him to say

Point

though I got the impression from his post that he has been coming to the forum for long but has decided to post only now.

 

[andyc]

A good comparision is Symonds and Rod Marsh, Rod famous for drinking 18 stubbies on the plane over for the ashes and symonds dumped for having beers with mates.

To be honest I don't think that's really relevant to what's being discussed here. We're talking about players from one generation being seen as more talented than those of another, not different disciplinary approaches. And besides, Symonds was sacked for breaching his contract, not just for having beers with mates.

 

[GotSpin]

A good comparision is Symonds and Rod Marsh, Rod famous for drinking 18 stubbies on the plane over for the ashes and symonds dumped for having beers with mates.

Didn't he have 52 cans

 

[Maximus0723]

PS : And do you think I am one of those who romaticise the past ?

Yes. So do many others. Especially bowlers...

Still you are the best poster, so above was in no part to offend your feeling on wrong purposes.

 

[GotSpin]

Anyway, in regards to the question, I think so to an extent, but its the same with a lot of things. The legends of the yesterday-day game, who excelled head and shoulders above others, are always put upon pedestals, with the current players being constantly compared to the feats of those that have come before them. Also, a lot of players don't tend to get enough recognition while they're playing, both by the public and on the forums like these.

Ceteris Paribus, but I cannot imagine what the legend of Shane Warne and other big name players will be like in thirty years in Australia. Obviously Warne is recognised as one of the greatest spinners but these legacies grow tenfold over time. Same with the elite of the 70s and 80s. Whenever I read about the West Indian pace bowlers all I can imagine is huge thundering and threatening giants running in and destroying batsmen on wickets that zipped around, and at the same time wishing I could have watched them.

As to whether the players of the by-gone era were better than todays players - LET THE STAT WARS BEGIN!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Teja.]

Very Interesting and welcome to CW I would like to ask you a few things before I respond.

Why do you think people romanticize the past, if a large number do? Is it, for example, because they think players of their times (when they were learning cricket, when they were playing cricket etc) were better or is it just a general infatuation of the past which makes them romanticize about cricketers who had even stopped playing before they (those that romanticize) were perhaps born?

At what level do you think coaching really makes a difference to the making of better cricketers? At the earlier levels when the youngster is learning the ropes and then coming through the lower ranks or when he has started playing top level cricket?

Do you think physios contribute to better cricket or just better fitness levels?

You really think that spin bowling resources, overall, are more today that they were in many earlier periods or are you just referring to one particular 'spinner-drought' era with the Warne-Murali-Kumble era ?

PS : And do you think I am one of those who romaticise the past ?

That last bit was in jest you dont have to answer that but it would be fun if you did

IMHO,

I think it's general human tendency to think things of the past/their youth are much better than they actually were. It happens to everyone, It is due to the fact that positive emotions leave a stronger mental impact than negative emotions and we tend to associate the past with all the pleasant things that happened and forget a majority of the ordinary/negative things. However, we analyze the present objectively leading to critique and admire it equally. This sometimes leads to biased thinking. However people below the ages of 14-15/ and or are very excited do not yet develop/temporarily lose hypothetical deductive reasoning and hence blow up the image of present players and consider them to be obviously better than the past. Both are bad for good debate, but both are also human nature. Sorry for the vague explanation.

I think Coaching is most important at the teenage/late teenage levels to build a foundation for the game of a player but is also important throughout the career of the player as the coach will generally have playing experience and help the player out when he develops flaws.

Physio's help in fitness which directly affects the performance of a player, for instance a fitter bowler might be able to bowl an odd 3k-5k faster than a non-fit player, also fitter batsmen will able to take the cheeky two more often than the opposite. Their importance in fielding and averting injuries cannot be stressed enough.

I am referring purely to the 1970 and 1980s, the 'speed demon' eras, while the batsmen back then had to face extremely accurate AND fast bowling, they did not have to face spinners of the same class as we have had in the 90s-00s or the war eras. This is in no way to undermine the spin quartet, but 4 world class spinners bowling for one country is very different from having such great talent spread out.

and as for the last tid bit, I have been lurking on these forums for only the past 2 days, and your posts have been top class wherever I see them , but the romanticizing bit is true for most of the elders in India and it was not particularly you I referred to. :P

 

[SJS]

IMHO,

I think it's general human tendency to think things of the past/their youth are much better than they actually were. It happens to everyone, It is due to positive emotions leave a stronger mental impact than negative emotions and we tend to associate the past with all the pleasant things that happened and forget a majority of the ordinary/negative things. However, we analyze the present objectively leading to critique and admire it equally. This sometimes leads to biased thinking. However people below the ages of 14-15/ and or are very excited do not yet develop/temporarily lose hypothetical deductive reasoning and hence blow up the image of present players and consider them to be obviously better than the past. Both are bad for good debate, but both are also human nature. Sorry for the vague explanation.

I think Coaching is most important at the teenage/late teenage levels to build a foundation for the game of a player but is also important throughout the career of the player as the coach will generally have playing experience and help the player out when he develops flaws.

Physio's help in fitness which directly affects the performance of a player, for instance a fitter bowler might be able to bowl an odd 3k-5k faster than a non-fit player, also fitter batsmen will able to take the cheeky two more often than the opposite. Their importance in fielding and averting injuries cannot be stressed enough.

I am referring purely to the 1970 and 1980s, the 'speed demon' eras, while the batsmen back then had to face extremely accurate AND fast bowling, they did not have to face spinners of the same class as we have had in the 90s-00s or the war eras. This is in no way to undermine the spin quartet, but 4 world class spinners bowling for one country is very different from having such great talent spread out.

and as for the last tid bit, I have been lurking on these forums for only the past 2 days, and your posts have been top class wherever I see them , but the romanticizing bit is true for most of the elders in India and it was not particularly you I referred to. :P

Good although I wish you had answered the first one more clearly - from one's youth or from the dead and gone ??

Just one more thing. You too like all cricket lovers, must be making your own all time great sides. Can I ask you to do a bit of an exercise please. Just think (off the cuff and without stats - this is important and I trust you will) and list the ten greatest

• - Opening batsman of all time
• - Middle order batsmen
• - Fast bowlers
• - Medium pacers (all those not really fast and not spinners)
• - Spinners
• - Wicket Keepers

I know I am making this tedious but trust me I am not doing this to get into any big argument with you. I really find this fascinating (the subject you have raised) and will post on the subject only.

It will be interesting to know how old you are please.

 

[vcs]

Interesting question. I have been watching cricket since '91, but I don't find myself thinking that the standard of cricket played in the '90s was necessarily higher, or that players who peaked in the '90s are better than the ones who are at their peak right now. Maybe that's because the playing conditions haven't changed drastically, and many of the greats of the '90s are still fresh in memory - Waugh, Lara, Inzamam, McGrath, Warne have only retired recently and Sachin, Jayasuriya, Murali etc. are still around.

 

[SJS]

Yes. So do many others. Especially bowlers...

Still you are the best poster, so above was in no part to offend your feeling on wrong purposes.

Thanks but trust me there are some others who are very very good. I just happen to have more time to write long detailed posts

 

[Teja.]

Good although I wish you had answered the first one more clearly - from one's youth or from the dead and gone ??

Just one more thing. You too like all cricket lovers, must be making your own all time great sides. Can I ask you to do a bit of an exercise please. Just think (off the cuff and without stats - this is important and I trust you will) and list the ten greatest

• - Opening batsman of all time
• - Middle order batsmen
• - Fast bowlers
• - Medium pacers (all those not really fast and not spinners)
• - Spinners
• - Wicket Keepers

I know I am making this tedious but trust me I am not doing this to get into any big argument with you. I really find this fascinating (the subject you have raised) and will post on the subject only.

It will be interesting to know how old you are please.

The first point was purely what I learned in a psychology book I read maybe 4 or five years ago, The positive happenings around you leave a bigger mental imprint than the negative ones, hence the past appears rosy because we can recollect most of the past while subconciously ignoring the negative things that happened. Embarrassing happenings leave the biggest imprints. This is the reason for romanticizing the past IMO. Similarly Hypothetical deductive reasoning is ability to analyze things objectively, it is ignored in times of adrenalin rushes and develops fully by about 15 years of age. This is the reason for 'fanboy-ism' IMO.

About the ten players, I'm now running short of time and will reply with 10 each later, however I'll tell my opinionated best for each category.


[*]- Opening batsman of all time- Sunil Gavaskar
[*]- Middle order batsmen- Donald Bradman
[*]- Fast bowlers- Waqar Younis
[*]- Medium pacers (all those not really fast and not spinners)- Sydney Barnes
[*]- Spinners- Muttaih Muralitharan
[*]- Wicket Keepers-Ian Healy

This is either from watching them live/on old videos on TV/Youtube or reading about them.

21.

 

[Uppercut]

To be honest I don't think that's really relevant to what's being discussed here. We're talking about players from one generation being seen as more talented than those of another, not different disciplinary approaches. And besides, Symonds was sacked for breaching his contract, not just for having beers with mates.

I think it is relevant though. When we hear about a legendary wicket keeper drinking obscene amounts of alcohol it somehow adds to his aura. What a character. When someone does it today he's booted off the team unceremoniously and treated with widespread contempt.

 

[Furball]

As opposed to romanticising the past, I think there's a tendency to talk down the present.

If you look at the batting records from the decade just past, a lot of people will say "ah, but X is a flat track bully, Y feasted on minnows, Z wouldn't have scored as many if we had bowlers of the calibre of A, B and C still playing."

How many people who criticise the likes of Hayden and Mohammad Yousuf would talk down the records of the greats of the 1930s like Hammond and Headley, who also played in an era of flat pitches, minnows and poor bowling attacks?

 

[GotSpin]

As opposed to romanticising the past, I think there's a tendency to talk down the present.

If you look at the batting records from the decade just past, a lot of people will say "ah, but X is a flat track bully, Y feasted on minnows, Z wouldn't have scored as many if we had bowlers of the calibre of A, B and C still playing."

How many people who criticise the likes of Hayden and Mohammad Yousuf would talk down the records of the greats of the 1930s like Hammond and Headley, who also played in an era of flat pitches, minnows and poor bowling attacks?

Still a massive amount of reasons why batting would have been harder in the 1930s than now

 

[Teja.]

As opposed to romanticising the past, I think there's a tendency to talk down the present.

If you look at the batting records from the decade just past, a lot of people will say "ah, but X is a flat track bully, Y feasted on minnows, Z wouldn't have scored as many if we had bowlers of the calibre of A, B and C still playing."

How many people who criticise the likes of Hayden and Mohammad Yousuf would talk down the records of the greats of the 1930s like Hammond and Headley, who also played in an era of flat pitches, minnows and poor bowling attacks?

I think both equate to the same thing, the lack of objectivity while analyzing the past as opposed to the present.

 

[Streetwise]

I think it is relevant though. When we hear about a legendary wicket keeper drinking obscene amounts of alcohol it somehow adds to his aura. What a character. When someone does it today he's booted off the team unceremoniously and treated with widespread contempt.

That was my point, I thik it was Botham that punched I Chappel in a bar, now imagine Dhoni punching Vettori in a bar. Its like comparing apples and carrots.