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?