The Game Now versus Yesteryear

[Lions81]

I think in our nostalgia of the past, we try to compare players from our era to players of the past. Bradman versus Tendulkar, Lillee and Holding versus Akhtar and Lee. Fans do this in many other sports too, such as baseball, (american) football, etc. But really, is this fair?

If I were to build a time machine, go back in time to Bradman's era, kidnap him in his prime, bring him back to our era, and make him play in a test match against any International team and most county sides, he'd be back in the pavilion pretty darned quickly. He may have dominated attacks back then, but in today's world of advanced conditioning and nutrition, he'd be destroyed.

People claim that the West Indian fast bowlers of the 70s used to bowl so quickly, 90-100 mph. I think that's probably wrong, and that if anything they topped out at 80-85 mph. Here's why. People lament the fact that the West Indies can't develop any super fast bowlers like Holding, Hall, Garner, etc., but Edwards and Best bowl a good 90 mph. So why is it that a team which according to what we read (since there really is not much video footage of those guys) was once able to produce bowlers who could bowl at lightning speeds are now incapable of bringing on any? Even Ambrose and Walsh, in this era when speed guns are actually reliable, bowled 90 tops. I think we have to face the likelihood that those West Indian fast bowlers weren't so blisteringly fast as we make them out to be. I'm not fast bowling hater, quite the contrary, but this has been something on my mind for some time now!

In baseball, everyone talks about how Babe Ruth is the greatest home run hitter. Well maybe in 1929, but he'd strike out against pretty much everyone today. He was out of shape, drank too much alcohol and never faced 100 mph fastballs which are all the rage in baseball these days. Similarly Bradman, though not overweight and an alcoholic, was certainly not in anywhere near the shape batsmen are now, and never had to face these ironmen bowlers. Take one look at a bowler like Andre Nel or Shoaib Akhtar and tell me that Ray Lindwall was in a better physical condition. Not with the advances in training and medicine we have today. Frankly speaking, I believe than any all-star team comprised of stars from the beginning of cricket until the end of the 1970s would be destroyed by any modern World XI. Sure some skills transcend time, but bowlers today are just in better shape, know more about how to bowl, and devote 100% of their energies to doing so. The only reason people think its more of a batsman's game now is because batsman have advanced even more in that span of time. Batsmen are in excellent shape, have well-developed bodies and practice all the time. Playing cricket is these guys' #1 jobs and livelihoods, and that translates to on-the-field performance.

Although it's nice to imagine the greatness of Bradman and Pollock (and they were great for their time), modern players would really take them to the cleaners!

 

[Jamee999]

You can only play who is put in front of you.

Very nice post though.

To test this out watch A League for the Ages 2 and support the Basin Reserve Bears.

 

[luckyeddie]

From a point of view of fitness, there is no comparison whatsoever - players nowadays are much, much fitter for all the obvious physical reasons.

Saying that, though, I would contend that there are areas where the players of yesteryear could possibly knock spots off your 21st century cricketer - single-mindedness and mental toughness. You could probably throw in physical toughness too.

Jimmy Binks never missed a single first-class game for Yorkshire in 14 years. That is totally unheard-of for a wicket-keeper. Broken fingers meant nothing to him.
Geoff Boycott sums up some of today's players and their injuries as 'too much bottled milk' - and who am I to argue?
There are any number of stories of players who had to "get up at 5.00 am and walk 15 miles to t'nets" because there was no bus, let alone the fact that they had no car for them all to be made up.

Sure, it's a job, a profession for the modern players - but for the guys of yesteryear, it was a means of escape - to drag themselves out of the grinding, abject poverty of the coal-mining villages...

<quack> of Surrey and Kent. What alternative was there, apart from becoming a playwright or a stockbroker?

 

[Swervy]

had a talent such as Bradmans been around now (and been involved in todays game, with all the fitness etc), he would have still been without a doubt the best batsman in the world,by quite some distance.Obviously if you brought Bradman into the current day as he was,he might not done as well as back then,but then again that wouldnt have taken away his ability to pick up the flight of the ball as early as he did,and with the way pitches are these days, he would still have scored big runs.

The way to look at it is,the average number of runs per wicket these days is roughly the same as it was back in the 30's, and yet Bradman still averaged almost a hundred.

and about the fast bowling..i can tell you that Holding at his peak bowled well into the 90's, Lillee was probably up into the 90's quite a bit (he became a better bowler when he slowed down),Marshall was definatly in the 90's quite a bit (again became a better bowler when he slowed down a tad), Imran was that fast as well (there were others,Wayne daniel was damned quick,Garner was a bit slower(upper 80's at his fastest)...and then you have Thomson, who bowled well into the 90's (and when measured bowled at almost 100mph). By all accounts Thomo was only a bit quicker than Tyson in the 50's, so one can assume that Tyson bowled in the 90 mph range as well....and then you have to take into consideration that pitches werent as good for batting then, so anyone in say the 1950's who averaged over even 40 with the bat would probably averaged over 50 now.

And also,those older players had to contend with uncovered pitches.

The traditional benchmark for greatness was to average over 50,the benchmark for a good batsman was over 40...that has changed now as so many players now average over 50 (and again bear in mind Bradman averaged almost 100).Ponting (who even by his own admission wouldnt be considered yet as an all time great) has averaged around 80 in his last 30 odd tests....

Without a doubt batting has got a lot easier..bowling isnt as accurate as it used to be, the emphisis seems to be on 'speed will take wickets', when obviously it doesnt, hence your real accurate bowlers of today (Pollock,McGrath,Gillespie) are the ones who will consistantly get you wickets,almost what ever the conditions...Shoaib etc, will only get wickets when the conditions suit.

it would appear that bowlers from yesteryear were probably a bit more clued up on what will actually take wickets...speed isnt everything,putting the ball on the spot is much more

 

[bennyr]

I agree with pretty much everything Swervy has said.

Lions81 has made much of the fitness of today's players, but I don't think you can use this to put today's players that far above yesteryear - have a look at Boof Lehmann and Shane Warne. They aren't perfect specimens.

I would think that Ray Lindwall would be classed as very fit if he were brought here in the time machine. He played Rugby League in an era where there were no namby-pamby 12 replacements during the game - the players stayed on for the full game. I would think that Shoaib Akhtar and Andre Nel would not be much fitter than Lindwall at his peak.

 

[Langeveldt]

Well to be honest I think the players are far more "tuned" and effective then they used to be, but IMO the standard of International cricket as a whole has taken a massive down turn recently.. In fact i have never seen it so poor in my short time of watching it..

1. Its a batsmans game.. Thats great for some "thrill seekers" who get high of 20/20.. But to be honest, i dont want to see guys hitting massive scores without much of a fight from the bowlers.. Its happening everywhere, from Sehwag's 309 to Haydens 380.. Great achievements, but not so great viewing for the neutral..

2. The best bowler in world cricket is undoutebly Muttiah Muralitharan, and he is being investigated for a dodgy action.. That isnt great for international cricket...

3. Australia cannot lose a match, and Bangladesh cannot win a match. We are about to lose our first test playing nation from the face of the earth (Zimbabwe), the Administration for the most part is spineless, and your telling me Kenya want a piece of the action?? Since when have they ever been dominant in the longer form of the game?? They hardly play it!

4. Massive drains on players, from meaningless ODI's in Guwahati and Potchefstroom to long flights on long tours.. Who needs such huge amounts of cricket? Its bad for players and its bad for the health of the game. No wonder batsmen are scoring such massive amounts of runs, the bowlers must be absolutely shattered.. You shouldnt have to "rest" players at the top of the game...

 

[Swervy]

I agree with pretty much everything Swervy has said.

Lions81 has made much of the fitness of today's players, but I don't think you can use this to put today's players that far above yesteryear - have a look at Boof Lehmann and Shane Warne. They aren't perfect specimens.

I would think that Ray Lindwall would be classed as very fit if he were brought here in the time machine. He played Rugby League in an era where there were no namby-pamby 12 replacements during the game - the players stayed on for the full game. I would think that Shoaib Akhtar and Andre Nel would not be much fitter than Lindwall at his peak.

Shoaib looks like he smokes 40 a day and has had a lung removed after he has bowled 5 overs.

If you look at Shoaibs stats throughout his career, he has bowled over 20 overs in an innings on just a handful of occasions..in an era of 90 over days.

Compare that with some of the old fast bowlers (lillee often bowled over 40 overs in an innings)