This obsession with how batsmen would do against all-time great dream lineups...

[Jono]

I was more speaking in general that people assume previous greats are better than current greats at times. Not really referring to the point about pitches directly.

[Migara]

Good thread.

[GIMH]

This thread would have received no replies back when I first joined CW

[GotSpin]

Don't agree with some bits

For example:

Say you play table tennis in a competition
You do well against the players there
But then you play in another competition which is of a higher standard and therefore you don't do as well

Have you simply tailored your game to play against the lesser players and succeed at that level or does your game actually have flaws in it? Thus, it's not unreasonable to assume that (some) batsmen who play against poorer bowlers might not have done so welll against better bowlers/bowler friendly conditions, assuming that such batsmen has examples of failing in conditions during his career that would have suited bowlers of the past.

[Matt79]

Agreed, it's all your fault GIMP.

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by Got_Spin

Don't agree with some bits

For example:

Say you play table tennis in a competition
You do well against the players there
But then you play in another competition which is of a higher standard and therefore you don't do as well

Have you simply tailored your game to play against the lesser players and succeed at that level or does your game actually have flaws in it? Thus, it's not unreasonable to assume that (some) batsmen who play against poorer bowlers might not have done so welll against better bowlers/bowler friendly conditions, assuming that such batsmen has examples of failing in conditions during his career that would have suited bowlers of the past.

Not quite the same, though, is it. If the OP had come out and said that batsmen who do well in state cricket should be thought of as highly as Test cricketers, then fair enough. But clearly the point is that the top echelon of Test cricketers are always brought down with the 'was better back in the day' routine, and it's not really fair.

[GotSpin]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

Not quite the same, though, is it. If the OP had come out and said that batsmen who do well in state cricket should be thought of as highly as Test cricketers, then fair enough. But clearly the point is that the top echelon of Test cricketers are always brought down with the 'was better back in the day' routine, and it's not really fair.

I think it is fair sometimes - Regardless of whether said modern day batsmen has 'tailored' his game to score runs in the present. Technical flaws aren't going to recover themselves regardless of era.

ftr - I don't think all modern day batsmen should be brought down. I still believe (in most instances) that if you're good enough to play in one era, you'd probably be good enough in another. However, there are definitely cases where a modern day batsmen has greatly benefited from a lesser supply of quality bowling line ups and bowler friendly wickets that have covered up technical weakness that would otherwise have been exposed. Sure, said batsmen might have been able to cover these flaws up had he been forced to play in such an era, but I still think his average would have been brought down with it.

[Flem274*]

But the point is the batsmen shouldn't be brought down by designing their techniques to play on what's in front of them. If Sehwag began in a different era, being the hard worker he is (and he is, he's obviously honed his game to perfection), probably would have gone about building his technique differently.

If the wickets today were predominantly green or turners or whatever, the batsmen would change accordingly. You either adapt or fail, and batsmen are always working on new ways to make themselves better to play what's in front of them. It's why you see young players who fail initially in tests returning with some adjustments.

[GotSpin]

Originally Posted by Flem274*

But the point is the batsmen shouldn't be brought down by designing their techniques to play on what's in front of them. If Sehwag began in a different era, being the hard worker he is (and he is, he's obviously honed his game to perfection), probably would have gone about building his technique differently.

If the wickets today were predominantly green or turners or whatever, the batsmen would change accordingly. You either adapt or fail, and batsmen are always working on new ways to make themselves better to play what's in front of them. It's why you see young players who fail initially in tests returning with some adjustments.

And if a player like you mentioned had to retune his technique completely couldn't it therefore be argued that his average would drop by a couple runs because he couldn't play his naturally expansive game that rests on dominating the attack through the covers?

[Flem274*]

Originally Posted by Got_Spin

And if a player like you mentioned had to retune his technique completely couldn't it therefore be argued that his average would drop by a couple runs because he couldn't play his naturally expansive game that rests on dominating the attack through the covers?

Nah, because if he designs his technique appropriately then he should be sweet. If you're good through the covers, then you design your technique to keep that advantage while not getting out. Plenty of old schoolers were awesome through the covers, so I don't see why a modern player couldn't adjust.

Likewise plenty of old schoolers were expansive. Maybe not to the extreme extent of some players today when they have a hot streak (though Viv didn't seem to have too many issues) but they did take the attack to the bowlers and succeed. Sehwag does block the delivery when he deems it appropriate. He just doesn't deem it appropriate very often. He's a freak.

[Flem274*]

How about we reverse it? I'm pretty sure many old timers bowling averages would bump up if they had to enjoy bowling on the flat decks around today. I think there's a few bowlers around the world that, if they played in a previous era, would be seen in a better light because they got helpful conditions more often.

But it doesn't matter because it's all hypothetical. What does matter is some bowlers are much better at bowling in this era than others.

[GotSpin]

Originally Posted by Flem274*

Nah, because if he designs his technique appropriately then he should be sweet. If you're good through the covers, then you design your technique to keep that advantage while not getting out. Plenty of old schoolers were awesome through the covers, so I don't see why a modern player couldn't adjust.

Likewise plenty of old schoolers were expansive. Maybe not to the extreme extent of some players today when they have a hot streak (though Viv didn't seem to have too many issues) but they did take the attack to the bowlers and succeed. Sehwag does block the delivery when he deems it appropriate. He just doesn't deem it appropriate very often. He's a freak.

I don't really want to bring Sehwag into this tbh - ole can of worms. While players of todays game would probably be able to adjust, I think some of them - apart from the elite e.g Gillespie, Ponting and Lara - would definitely suffer an average drop of a couple runs.

-edit . This is not to say they are lesser players, they would have just played in a tougher game

[Flem274*]

Originally Posted by Got_Spin

I don't really want to bring Sehwag into this tbh - ole can of worms. While players of todays game would probably be able to adjust, I think some of them - apart from the elite e.g Gillespie, Ponting and Lara - would definitely suffer an average drop of a couple runs.

I can see the point you're trying to make, but it's so arbitrary there's not much point in trying to decide who would be affected how. For all we know...who's another hated "flat track bully"?....Herschelle Gibbs would have decided to go Mark Richardson style and end up averaging 60.

Gillespie would still be 1337 though.

[GotSpin]

Originally Posted by Flem274*

I can see the point you're trying to make, but it's so arbitrary there's not much point in trying to decide who would be affected how. For all we know...who's another hated "flat track bully"?....Herschelle Gibbs would have decided to go Mark Richardson style and end up averaging 60.

Gillespie would still be 1337 though.

Oh yeah I agree. I'm just trying to say that you can't pluck a batsmen from todays game and say if he'd simply 'tailored' his game differently he would have done just as well in another era. There's a reason why the 00s average is higher than the 90s average.

All hypothetical of course - Which really makes any discussion pointless

[Shri]

Originally Posted by Flem274*

How about we reverse it? I'm pretty sure many old timers bowling averages would bump up if they had to enjoy bowling on the flat decks around today. I think there's a few bowlers around the world that, if they played in a previous era, would be seen in a better light because they got helpful conditions more often.

But it doesn't matter because it's all hypothetical. What does matter is some bowlers are much better at bowling in this era than others.

Like Vettori regularly bowling on uncovered wickets?