Do we romanticize with the past too much?

[Furball]

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

Like what.

 

[Maximus0723]

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 agree. But ****, Sir Gilly just got out. ****in a.

 

[Uppercut]

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

Also a massive amount of reasons why batting would be harder now. Always fun to see threads degrade into "but they didn't/don't have to deal with blah blah blah".

 

[andyc]

I agree. But ****, Sir Gilly just got out. ****in a.

If you're going to swear Maximus, just use the whole word and let the filter take care of it, please don't avoid it.

 

[Furball]

wrong thread.

 

[Maximus0723]

If you're going to swear Maximus, just use the whole word and let the filter take care of it, please don't avoid it.

Dam, I keep forgetting this. This is third time a mod has told me this.

I am sorry, it was genuine mistake. Thanks for correcting me.

 

[Furball]

nm, didn't realise andyc had edited the post.

 

[Pratters]

Warm welcome, Teja.

I think we romanticise the past but we exaggerate the present far more. In the world of Tendulkar and Dhoni, not many rememember what a phenom Kapil Dev was back in the day.

All the days of glorifying the past are greatly reduced. We have TV cameras now, so people cannot fabricate, however beautiful it might sound fabricating like say Neville Cardus. We are getting the the core truth of every thing in as indepth way as we can. Bodyline Autopsy is the finest example I can think of from the recent past which shows that we are more intent on finding the truth about the past now than romanticising it.

 

[Cevno]

I completely agree with the opening post.

There is certainly a tendency of forgetting the deficiencies of the past as the time goes by, and only listening to fable like stories(whcih do not contain the lows and faliures) and exaggerating the performances.

 

[GotSpin]

Like what.

tbh I don't have a massive list of reasons but I imagine batting equipment would be a major factor. Bats and protective equipment have advanced in leaps and bounds since the 1930s. Surely that would be of great benefit for batsmen

 

[GotSpin]

Also a massive amount of reasons why batting would be harder now. Always fun to see threads degrade into "but they didn't/don't have to deal with blah blah blah".

Yeah I know that line of argument usually degrades into a trade of remarks about generations but I can only think that that batting with a piece of washed up sea wood and gloves that a soccer keeper wouldn't want to use would surely have a significant factor in determining the difficulty of batting in the 1930s.

 

[honestbharani]

Yes both cases when done in the extreme are bad, but the problem is the second person is immediately associated with fanboy-ism and not taken with the much weight which is ideal but the first person is looked onto as someone with knowledge rather than bias because of the common past-is-better perception.

not really.. At least in these forums, there are enough of "you are simply a guy who can't accept that the present player is better than past and are hence being biased to the past"... Take a look at Viv Vs Sachin thread for starters... Some of the arguments put up, from both sides, were absolute stinkers..

 

[slippyslip]

I know in Australia we romanticise the past, especially if Richie Benaud says so. If Richie says X was much better 50 years ago then people will just go along with it.

Theres always factors out of players control. Bowlers werent as fit, fielding wasnt as good but then again batsmen werent as fit and running between wickets wasnt as good.

The 1970's and 80's were definitely the decades of the bowlers. So many factors tipped the scales in favour of blowlers. TV footage became a lot better and with things like VCR's it was easy to play back footage for bowlers to study. Game started to become more professional but without the insane schedules we have now. Pitches werent boring flat tracks everywhere.

Between 1970-1989 every country had a great bowler. Australia had Lillee. England had Botham and Willis. NZ had Hadless, India had Kapil Dev, Pakistan had Imran Khan. West Indies had lots and if South Africa had played during that time they would have had world class bowlers.

In many ways the dominance of the ball during the 70's and 80's is an not the norm.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah I know that line of argument usually degrades into a trade of remarks about generations but I can only think that that batting with a piece of washed up sea wood and gloves that a soccer keeper wouldn't want to use would surely have a significant factor in determining the difficulty of batting in the 1930s.

Yeah, but so would a vast number of other things such as the lolzworthy fielding.

Realistically you can either conclude that the differences between generations ultimately cancel each other out, or conclude that the differences are so great that you can't really compare between the eras at all. Personally I prefer to do the former with anything post-1914 and the latter with anything before that.

 

[Burgey]

Probably, but I'm too old to consider the 1990s "the past" .

If you took a test wicket or made 10 test runs in the 90s, it is well known you are better than anyone who laced up a boot post-2001. Fact.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

The short answer to the question is "yes".

Sport in genral has evolved in the past 20 years alone. Last year I read the footballer Roy Keane's autobiography and in it he talks at reasonable length about the revolution in football, and among some of his cricket playing pals, in the early 90s. Gone were the days in which a sportsman could clock off training and veg in the pub for the rest of the day, eat what he wanted and do as he pleased.

Now the games are run by fitness and performance gurus. The money involved in sport means that no ground can be conceded to opponants and unfit players are fewer and further between. People like Jesse Ryder and Shane Warne are now clearly the exceptions to the rule, the latter "getting away with it" because he is a spinner not requiring the intense fitness of a quick, or a full-time batsman for that matter.

So yes, the overall standard of cricket was probably poorer in years gone by. That is not to say there weren't a great number of very talented players in the past who would make it in any era, it's just that chinks in the armour such as poor fitness and lazy fielding etc are not tolerated like they were way back when.

 

[archie mac]

I know in Australia we romanticise the past, especially if Richie Benaud says so. If Richie says X was much better 50 years ago then people will just go along with it.

Theres always factors out of players control. Bowlers werent as fit, fielding wasnt as good but then again batsmen werent as fit and running between wickets wasnt as good.

.

I don't think everyone agrees with Richie, but his opinion should always be respected. He played Test cricket, was considered to be one of the best ever captains, and I imagine that he has watched more Tests than anyother person now living

Bowlers were match fit, but not as fit in general terms, and I agree fielding has improved greatly, but I am not so sure about catching