"Great, but not without a helmet"

[Arjun]

Recently, Michael Atherton said in a recent column that Sachin wasn't the greatest batsman of all time, because he wore a helmet.

While it is appropriate to appreciate the guts and bravery of those batsmen who didn't wear helmets, Sachin has done the wise thing. He's opted for protection, when it is essential, and you stand to lose nothing by using it. How many will take the risk of facing a pace bowler without a helmet, these days? While Atherton is hardly a great player, he has made a point, given the absence of helmets at the time. That doesn't make someone conscious of safety a lesser player.

 

[Langeveldt]

Why is Sachin even being talked about as the greatest batsman of all time?

 

[Jono]

Viv said something similar as well.

Viv was more funny when he said it (despite being deadly serious).

Man I reckon if you weren't a typical macho man around Viv, he would have given you a pretty fair spray.

 

[honestbharani]

Recently, Michael Atherton said in a recent column that Sachin wasn't the greatest batsman of all time, because he wore a helmet.

While it is appropriate to appreciate the guts and bravery of those batsmen who didn't wear helmets, Sachin has done the wise thing. He's opted for protection, when it is essential, and you stand to lose nothing by using it. How many will take the risk of facing a pace bowler without a helmet, these days? While Atherton is hardly a great player, he has made a point, given the absence of helmets at the time. That doesn't make someone conscious of safety a lesser player.

I don't think that was Atherton's point. He is simply saying that the men who have done just as well without any protection should be rated higher, which is fair enough. I don't necessarily agree with that reasoning but the point has its merits.


He is saying that as some kind of a response to widespread regard for Sachin as the 2nd best bat since Bradman and in some cases, as the best ever, even ahead of Bradman.


Personally, I think Sachin would have done just as well had he played in the 30s and 40s and would have adapted himself. Ditto for all the greats of this era. And I think the greats of that time would have done just as well now too.

 

[Langeveldt]

Scores have generally been on the increase since the advent of helmets too, haven't they?

 

[honestbharani]

Scores have generally been on the increase since the advent of helmets too, haven't they?

I reckon.. But back in the old days, the fields were a lot more attacking and fielding standards were less. So there is always a trade off, isn't there? I don't think it was easier scoring runs then than now or now than then.. The factors sorta even out, AFAIC.

 

[Ikki]

Why is Sachin even being talked about as the greatest batsman of all time?

It's arguable whether he's even in the top 5 best batsmen of all-time so on that count it's silly from the get-go. It gets even sillier mentioning helmets as a barrier for that discussion.

 

[honestbharani]

It's arguable whether he's even in the top 5 best batsmen of all-time so on that count it's silly from the get-go. It gets even sillier mentioning helmets as a barrier for that discussion.

I am not saying he is in the top 5 or the second best.. I am juz saying that a lot of people do, and Athers' article is his response to that...


I don't even consider Sachin the clear cut best of his generation..

 

[Pratters]

I wouldn't have a problem with some one who rated Tendulkar as the best since Bradman as Benaud did if I am not wrong. The man has played 20 years in an era of constant international cricket and that is a testament to his greatness. How many times has Tendulkar been hit on the head? Not that often though I remember once he did. The man paid through pain in his initial career when he was hit against Pakistan instead of walking off. I don't think it is ridiculous for some one to rate him higher than all time greats like Gary Sobers though I don't have a firm opinion on it as it is very difficult to compare Sobers with Tendulkar.

Personally, I think he was the second best player in the 90s behind Lara because he scored less 150s. Compare the whole career of the two and I would probably tend towards Tendulkar but I am not decided. I will wait till Tendulkar's career ends.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Why is anything written by Michael Atherton being taken seriously?

 

[Cruxdude]

I do not want to say this just to support Sachin. Current batsmen started their careers with helmets. If they had not had one they would have adjusted. This whole argument of rating them higher because they played with helmet is rubbish. Current players suffer much more wear and tear than any player of the past. The number of ODIs have increased and so have the number of T20s. Scoring runs with all these around is also a big accomplishments. Every generation has things going for it and things going against it. Doing well against what is against you determines if the player will be remembered.

 

[Langeveldt]

Then you can come up with Boyc's favourite, uncovered pitches.. Surely harder to score runs on? In my book Bradman had it harder than anyone, which makes his performances even more unbeatable..

 

[zaremba]

Why is anything written by Michael Atherton being taken seriously?

He's one of the best cricket writers out there. And obviously has a vast amount of first hand knowledge about the game.

 

[G.I.Joe]

He's one of the best cricket writers out there. And obviously has a vast amount of first hand knowledge about the game.

What does that have to do with the cricketing equivalent of suggesting that it would be insulting to the parents of yesteryears to compare them to parents nowadays who deck their kids with helmets and knee pads and elbow pads before they even get onto a bicycle?

He's talking of a man who fronted upto Waqar as a 16 year old and batted on with a broken nose and a blood stained shirt to save a test match. To suggest that he wouldn't have adjusted to any set of playing conditions, and to go on to add that ranking him ahead of the helmet deprived wonders before him would be 'insulting' to them points to either a shocking lack of common sense, or the fact that the attention whore in him realises that nothing grabs more eyeballs than throwing out a controversial statement or two.

He's all fluff and no substance here, which isn't a first for him.

 

[Furball]

Then you can come up with Boyc's favourite, uncovered pitches.. Surely harder to score runs on? In my book Bradman had it harder than anyone, which makes his performances even more unbeatable..

At the same time, a 1930s pitch unaffected by rain would probably make today's pitches look positively sporting in comparison.

 

[Richard]

He's all fluff and no substance here, which isn't a first for him.

It isn't a first for anyone - all the best writers pen rubbish pieces from time to time. Unless you can show that Atherton consistently does it and pens good pieces with irregularity (which you can't, because it doesn't happen) then I'm not entirely sure how comments like yours

Why is anything written by Michael Atherton being taken seriously?

are justified.

 

[Richard]

Scores have generally been on the increase since the advent of helmets too, haven't they?

Not really, no - helmets were first used in the late-1970s during the Packer Schism, and have gradually woven their way into the game since then. By the early-1990s it was just about unheard-of for anyone to bat without a helmet in Test cricket, and these days it's unheard-of for anyone to grow-up without it being the familiar rather than unfamiliar way to bat at any level.

Scoring in Tests exploded in 2001/02 (the previous couple of decades had been some where scoring was notably difficult by historical standards, despite the near-universal preference for helmets), which was so long after they had come in that any correlation can be dispelled as non-existant.

I don't agree at all that helmets have made run-scoring easier, they've just made avoiding injury easier. It isn't the first time I've heard Atherton suggest what he suggests in this piece and I don't agree with him, but he's still generally an excellent writer.

 

[zaremba]

What does that have to do with the cricketing equivalent of suggesting that it would be insulting to the parents of yesteryears to compare them to parents nowadays who deck their kids with helmets and knee pads and elbow pads before they even get onto a bicycle?

In your previous post, to which I was responding, you weren't talking about this particular article, you were talking generally about Atherton, and suggesting that it's not worth reading simply because it's written by Atherton.

Why is anything written by Michael Atherton being taken seriously?

It's that general comment that I was responding to.

I haven't read this piece and I'm not trying to defend it. From what others have written here it does sound like nonsense.

 

[Richard]

At the same time, a 1930s pitch unaffected by rain would probably make today's pitches look positively sporting in comparison.

Not really - a non-rain-affected deck in the English summer of, say, 1934 would be broadly exactly comparable to a typical deck in, say, the English summer of 2003.

 

[Black_Warrior]

There are always specific factors in specific times. For batsmen of that era who did not wear helmets and still managed to average over 50, thats a testament of their courage and skill. But a similar argument could be used now that batsmen nowadays play for more matches, both test and ODI and T20 and as a result suffer from far more wear and tear and injury related problems that might ultimately effect their performances.
Personally, great players of each era are great because they are able to withstand certain conditions, that others are not able to, and thats what differentiates them. These conditions change from era to era.
I think the likes of Tendulkars and Lara would still be averaging over 50 had they played back then without helmets just like I think the likes of Viv Richards would actually have 10000 runs and average 50 had he played now.