• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Just a Theory of mine

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The cricketing expert elite of today (here I refer to the expert panels, commentary panels, and so on) come more or less straight from the 70s and 80s. It seems to me that people of a certain era (any era) rate the players from that era, and that of the era just preceding it, more highly than players of other eras, be them bygone ones or later ones.

Since the experts today come from the 70s and 80s, I often find myself wondering whether the greats of that era are slightly exaggerated in our heads because of the relentless expert fawning on their qualities (great though they undoubtedly were). I too started watching cricket in the late 70s. I guess I have some rose tinted glasses too. But I find it grossly unjust that the players from recent times are not considered as highly as some in the past. Could it be that the intellectual material being supplied to fuel the current cricketing debates is being tilted towards the era of the 70s and 80s?

It may seem trivial, but then, what doesn't?
 

Migara

Cricketer Of The Year
Well known fact. That's why opinions should be rated lower than the data we have (or stats)
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Well known fact. That's why opinions should be rated lower than the data we have (or stats)
So your opinion about the opinions of others is now a fact, eh?

Wow.

I'll just let that one sit there for a while, I think. Let it breathe.
 

smash84

The Tiger King
I think that in the bygone eras the celebrities had a certain aura of mystery (inclcuding sportsmen) that is hard to find with the media explosion of the last decade or so the celebrities have lost that aura that they had and have lost their "larger than life" image. Just a theory that I have too :)
 

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I think that in the bygone eras the celebrities had a certain aura of mystery (inclcuding sportsmen) that is hard to find with the media explosion of the last decade or so the celebrities have lost that aura that they had and have lost their "larger than life" image. Just a theory that I have too :)
If you didn't have Imran Khan's pic as your avatar, I might have had to wonder where you were coming from here :laugh:

Kidding aside, this may apply to a very few individuals, like Imran and Viv. On the other hand we have "Curtly talk to no man" Amby.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
BTW, did any one notice a raw nerve being touched?
Nope, saw some shyte being spouted tho.

Look, it's human nature to harken back to what piqued our interest in any sport in the first place and view one takes may be rose-tinted, but to call it a "well known fact" is to either misrepresent or be ignorant of what facts are.
 

smash84

The Tiger King
If you didn't have Imran Khan's pic as your avatar, I might have had to wonder where you were coming from here :laugh:

Kidding aside, this may apply to a very few individuals, like Imran and Viv. On the other hand we have "Curtly talk to no man" Amby.
Not really.....I am pretty sure that if Muhammad Ali was around in these days he probably wouldn't have quite the aura that he had in the 1970s

The high supply of media has certainly impacted the value of celebrities in people's eyes.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
It is not something one can generalize. How does one decide such things? Look at Benaud's all time world XI to take one example.

It reads (The figures in brackets are the year of Test debut for each player)

Code:
Hobbs (1908)          -44
Gavaskar (1971)        	19
Bradman (1928)         	-24
Richards (1974)  	22
Tendulkar (1989)	37
Sobers (1954)    	2
Imran (1971)      	19
Gilchrist (1999)	47
Warne (1992)     	40
Lillee (1970)       	18
Barnes (1901)    	-51
Benaud himself made his debut in 1952. The second column gives the number of years, between the player's debut and Benaud's. Test your theory :o)

Only Sobers is from Benaud's generation.

Three players, Hobbs, Bradman and Barnes are from generations before him.

All others are much younger - four of them are between 40 and 50 years after Benaud. I would like to say that Benaud is enamoured by people who came after him and it shows. Of course, I would be wrong as well.

Yes some people are biased but generally that bias exists at the fan's level much more than at the level of those who are students of the game and make a profession out of writing about it.

Needless to say there are always exceptions. By the way if you want more examples like Benaud I will be glad to provide but next time you have to pay for it :o))

Kidding.
 

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The cricketing expert elite of today (here I refer to the expert panels, commentary panels, and so on) come more or less straight from the 70s and 80s. It seems to me that people of a certain era (any era) rate the players from that era, and that of the era just preceding it, more highly than players of other eras, be them bygone ones or later ones.

Since the experts today come from the 70s and 80s, I often find myself wondering whether the greats of that era are slightly exaggerated in our heads because of the relentless expert fawning on their qualities (great though they undoubtedly were). I too started watching cricket in the late 70s. I guess I have some rose tinted glasses too. But I find it grossly unjust that the players from recent times are not considered as highly as some in the past. Could it be that the intellectual material being supplied to fuel the current cricketing debates is being tilted towards the era of the 70s and 80s?

It may seem trivial, but then, what doesn't?
Could you give some specific examples?

Most of the people I choose to listen to, and have in the past, generally don't conduct themselves like that.

Nos suggesting you're wrong for one moment, just think its a bit of a sweeping statement
 

doesitmatter

U19 Cricketer
it is also called Romanticism or Nostalgia ..Ask a 40 year old he would say 80's was the best..ask a 30 year old he would say 90's was the best and so on..some experts probably display this trait..
 
Last edited:

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
It is not something one can generalize. How does one decide such things? Look at Benaud's all time world XI to take one example.

It reads (The figures in brackets are the year of Test debut for each player)

Code:
Hobbs (1908)          -44
Gavaskar (1971)        	19
Bradman (1928)         	-24
Richards (1974)  	22
Tendulkar (1989)	37
Sobers (1954)    	2
Imran (1971)      	19
Gilchrist (1999)	47
Warne (1992)     	40
Lillee (1970)       	18
Barnes (1901)    	-51
Benaud himself made his debut in 1952. The second column gives the number of years, between the player's debut and Benaud's. Test your theory :o)

Only Sobers is from Benaud's generation.

Three players, Hobbs, Bradman and Barnes are from generations before him.

All others are much younger - four of them are between 40 and 50 years after Benaud. I would like to say that Benaud is enamoured by people who came after him and it shows. Of course, I would be wrong as well.

Yes some people are biased but generally that bias exists at the fan's level much more than at the level of those who are students of the game and make a profession out of writing about it.

Needless to say there are always exceptions. By the way if you want more examples like Benaud I will be glad to provide but next time you have to pay for it :o))

Kidding.
I was actually about to add in my first comment that I think Benaud does not do so at all. Then I thought maybe that was superfluous since he is not from the 70s and 80s era.
 

IamSpartacus

Cricket Spectator
.... I find it grossly unjust that the players from recent times are not considered as highly as some in the past.
On the other hand in 60 years time there will be a lot of people putting forward the "fact"
that Ambrose and McGrath were 130km/h trundlers and Sachin Tendular was rubbish
because [insert pet theory] and that their current hero is the best because in modern
times [insert stuff about fitness and technology] ... this may also be grossly unjust but
it's just what happens.
 

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Could you give some specific examples?

Most of the people I choose to listen to, and have in the past, generally don't conduct themselves like that.

Nos suggesting you're wrong for one moment, just think its a bit of a sweeping statement
I guess what I am trying to say is that perhaps even I think in slightly the same way because all I get to hear is how marvelous the players from the 70s and 80s were everywhere I turn. Plus I do have rose tinted glasses myself as I confessed.

However, I think that some examples do come to mind. For me, a glaring example would be how the Barry Richards and Graeme Pollock generation continues to deny Jacques Kallis his place as the greatest SA batsman. Their short career span, however magnificent, only offered a glimpse into what could have been. Many great starts have turned into mediocrity later on.

Similarly, with respect to Ponting. Chappell continues his ascendancy over the brilliant Tasmanian in expert circles. Ponting's record is arguably the best ever after the Don, especially his peak. Even Border is hailed as being better by many.

Same goes for Sangakkara. He has not been admitted into the pantheon of great batsmen yet. Glen McGrath is a bowler ranked below many 80s bowlers by most commentators, for the life of me I can't figure out why. The word metronome is thrown around for a bowler who had enough variations in his bowling to dominate Tendulkar and Lara in Australia, the sub continent and the Caribbean.
 

burr

State Vice-Captain
Yeah, it's a fair point, but understandable. We always get nostalgic for memories from earlier periods in our life - childhood in particular. I do think the 70s and 80s though was a particularly special time in cricket - with people like Viv and Lillee, who had charisma in bag loads. I've no doubt in 20 years Australians at least will be looking back at the 90s/00s period and that crop of talent that rose from the Shield into the test arena and the current players - whomever they be - will be rated severely against those greats.

As for Ponting, surely no one thinks Border is a better batsman?!
 

smash84

The Tiger King
:laugh:

Yeah, it's a fair point, but understandable. We always get nostalgic for memories from earlier periods in our life - childhood in particular. I do think the 70s and 80s though was a particularly special time in cricket - with people like Viv and Lillee, who had charisma in bag loads. I've no doubt in 20 years Australians at least will be looking back at the 90s/00s period and that crop of talent that rose from the Shield into the test arena and the current players - whomever they be - will be rated severely against those greats.

As for Ponting, surely no one thinks Border is a better batsman?!
:thumbup:
 

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
it is also called Romanticism or Nostalgia ..Ask a 40 year old he would say 80's was the best..ask a 30 year old he would say 90's was the best and so on..some experts probably display this trait..
Haha. I was shocked when I caught myself saying that things were so good and pure in my times i.e. 90's. When in 90's though, I was constantly annoyed by the older generation constantly praising the world as it existed 70's.

These things that I am talking about had nothing to do with cricket but with music. But even with cricket, I seem to fondly remember 90's even though the Indian team was quite **** back then.
 
Last edited:

Top