ReallyCrazy said:
In any sport, records are always meant to be broken. Id you look at running or swimming..you get an idea of how records are broken. Same with cricket.
This is simply untrue because cricket is not purely a contest of physical ability. You can assume that in time with changes in technology, advances in training methods and increased levels of overall professionalism that things like stamina, speed, strength etc will rise. This is why in pure athletic contests performance levels increase over time, and while a truly great athlete may be well ahead of the pack in their own time and increase the time gap before their records are finally broken, it is basically inevitable that they will be eventually surpassed.
Cricket however involves other things than simply athletic ability. Take other Olympic sports which take more things into account... like say archery. There is no reason at all to assume automatically that someone who is an Olympic archer today is significantly better than their predeccessors. The physical requirements of archery are reasonably limited and being stronger or putting more time in at the gym will have a minimal effect on your performance. It is a sport of hand-eye coordination and concentration, and if someone was a brilliant archer 100 years ago they would be just as good today, and if they absolutely dominated archery and were miles ahead of the competition 100 years ago they would most likely also be today.
There are more purely physical elements involved in cricket of course, but given that a) it is a game which involves cerebral, non-physical elements and b) it is a direct contest between individuals and teams and not simply a contest against the clock, increased levels of professionalism, training and fitness would have a minimal impact on the overall playing ability compared to sports like athletics and swimming.
Some elements of the game may well have changed. Fielding is probably sharper and greater efforts are made in that area, express bowlers might be a little quicker... and players are paid more and therefore might dedicate more time to improving their game. However, there is absolutely no reason to think that a batsman's concentration or hand-eye coordination would be better today than in Bradman's era, nor would one automatically assume that your average pace bowler would know more about how to swing the ball or get it to move off the seam than say Larwood or Davidson. Why would a slip fielder automatically have better reflexes today than in say the 50s? What leads you to believe that your everyday leg spinner knows more about how to decieve the batsman than they did when Grimmett was bowling? It's just ludicrous to suggest that every skill in cricket can be so clearly measured and improved over time. Some things are based on inherent ability and dedication to your craft, and those things are based on individuals and how they play and not on training regimen or big paychecks.