Just a Theory of mine

[harsh.skm]

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?

[8ankitj]

Not just your theory, itbt.

[Migara]

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

[harsh.skm]

Originally Posted by 8ankitj

Not just your theory, itbt.

I guess I don't read up on cricket as much as you do. Actually I don't much at all. Sorry if this is a topic you guys have talked about before.

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Migara

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.

[smalishah84]

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

[Migara]

BTW, did any one notice a raw nerve being touched?

[harsh.skm]

Originally Posted by smalishah84

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

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]

Originally Posted by Migara

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.

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by harsh.skm

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

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]

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)

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]

Originally Posted by harsh.skm

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]

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..

[harsh.skm]

Originally Posted by SJS

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)

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]

Originally Posted by harsh.skm

.... 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.