hypothetical questions

[Spark]

Not at all. Just wondering how you could possibly contemplate such a high and mighty, verging on condescending, tone when your own argument does not have the world's soundest base. Nothing wrong with that in and of itself given the topic of discussion, but...

 

[Mike5181]

Not at all. Just wondering how you could possibly contemplate such a high and mighty, verging on condescending, tone when your own argument does not have the world's soundest base. Nothing wrong with that in and of itself given the topic of discussion, but...

Is it not logical or at least fair to think that after 90 years cricket players have improved similar to the improvements seen in almost every sport. I am not basing my opinion on a minute long youtube clip. The sound base you say i lack in my argument is actually ever present in other sports such as Athletics, rugby, boxing. We have all seen the various records broken, accomplishments of players once considered great surpassed within sports like these.That is not just a consequence of what we use to play those various sports on which in this case is the pitch itself. Why you ask? We learn from mistakes of past sportsman. Much like a young mans cricketing career as it blossoms over time into a more complete player. This is from the experience he gains over time. Individuals such as Morgan have been put through academies perfecting what has worked in the past. Kane Williamson could have turned up to domestic cricket at 25 with a technique like Peter Ingram's but he didn't because he utilised what a modern player has available to him which in his case was specialised coaches, technology analysing where he went wrong in the nets and he came out better for it. This is something players in the 1920s never had the luxury of and that is a cold hard fact. Not a loosely based assumption. The technology and experience didn't exist back then or at least to the extent we have today. That is why in my opinion modern players are able to achieve things players from back then weren't able to do. This is my argument. Now, seeing as you seem to disagree I would like to hear yours because i haven't heard it yet.

 

[bagapath]

Is it not logical or at least fair to think that after 90 years cricket players have improved similar to the improvements seen in almost every sport .

No. how many players have won the tennis grand slam after rod laver? how many batsmen average in the 90s after bradman? is there anyone in world cricket taking wickets like syd barnes, at 16 runs apiece and 7 wickets/match? why has laker's record of 19 wkts for 90 in a match not been broken even after 54 years?

there are always champions in all eras. but 90% of the rest would be your average joe anyways. you move them around between different eras. a champ will always be a champ. a joe will remain a joe.

Individuals such as Morgan have been put through academies perfecting what has worked in the past. Kane Williamson could have turned up to domestic cricket at 25 with a technique like Peter Ingram's but he didn't because he utilised what a modern player has available to him which in his case was specialised coaches, technology analysing where he went wrong in the nets and he came out better for it. This is something players in the 1920s never had the luxury of and that is a cold hard fact. Not a loosely based assumption.

both morgan and williamson, despite all the training you are boasting about, are not going to average in the 50s even in this era of covered wickets, protective gear and heavier bats. that means they are not fit enough to polish john berry hobbs' shoes.

 

[vcs]

Hmm.. bagapath, if you were to transplant modern-day cricketers into the cricket scene 70 years ago, I don't think it's too far-fetched to think they'd dominate. Yes, there might be some teething trouble with the lack of protective equipment and the occasional sticky wicket, but it's hard not to see them doing very well against cricketers who, while they might have been immensely talented for their own time, simply haven't enjoyed many of the benefits the modern-day cricketers had when they learnt the game.

There is no doubt that a champion in his era would be a champion in any era if he had the same opportunities and environment as his peers though. Hobbs >> Morgan and Bradman >> Sehwag.

 

[Hit Wicket]

No. how many players have won the tennis grand slam after rod laver?

Do you think Rod Laver would stand a chance against Federer if Federer was just put into a time capsule to 40-50 years back? Federer would absolutely demolish Laver - and that much should be clear by going to youtube and doing a search on Federer and Laver.

As far as absolute skills and athleticism is concerned, there is no doubt that any modern great would be much more evolved compared to his contemporary 50-70-90 years back.

 

[sachin200]

champions are champions in any era period

I mean there is something temperamental which makes them champions (not only skill level)

A lot of people say Federer is the greatest ever. A lot of people say it is Rod Laver. Well Rod Laver played tennis like he did because Tennis was played in that fashion in that era. Champions adapt. If Rod laver played he would play today's tennis and still dominate. Matches b/w Federer & Laver will be very close. There is not much b/w them IMO.

Well another recent tennis example would be Federer winning wimbledon in 2003 & 2009. He played differently. He served & volleyed to win in 2003 and played mostly from the baseline in 2009 and still won. He adapted. You cannot find any better example than this.

 

[vcs]

I have played with some of the old wooden racquets, and you only have to watch 5 minutes or so of Laver on youtube to realize what an unbelievable talent he was to play the way he did with that kind of equipment.

 

[Hit Wicket]

champions are champions in any era period

I mean there is something temperamental which makes them champions (not only skill level)

A lot of people say Federer is the greatest ever. A lot of people say it is Rod Laver. Well Rod Laver played tennis like he did because Tennis was played in that fashion in that era. Champions adapt. If Rod laver played he would play today's tennis and still dominate. Matches b/w Federer & Laver will be very close. There is not much b/w them IMO.

Well another recent tennis example would be Federer winning wimbledon in 2003 & 2009. He played differently. He served & volleyed to win in 2003 and played mostly from the baseline in 2009 and still won. He adapted. You cannot find any better example than this.

Agree, but that is not what the OP is asking and what some other posters are saying - putting someone like Federer or Sehwag in a time capsule and have them just start playing. Their opponents would be using training techniques, equipments, and fitness regimens from half a century or more back while these guys would have all the benefits of the evolution of the sport over decades.

In this scenario it would not even be a competition. Federer would ease past even the best competition of those times 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 and Sehwag would have multiple instances when he would score 500 runs in a day just off his own bat.

 

[bagapath]

Do you think Rod Laver would stand a chance against Federer if Federer was just put into a time capsule to 40-50 years back? Federer would absolutely demolish Laver - and that much should be clear by going to youtube and doing a search on Federer and Laver.

As far as absolute skills and athleticism is concerned, there is no doubt that any modern great would be much more evolved compared to his contemporary 50-70-90 years back.

Disagree. With similar rackets it would be 50-50 on grass. And on clay it will be 55-45 in favor of laver. There is no difference between the skill levels of these champs.

 

[vcs]

If we are assuming the 00's player uses a 60s racquet, there's no way that's happening (a one-sided scoreline).. purely in fitness and athleticism, there's nothing Laver or Borg lacked compared to the guys today.

As for cricket, I daresay Sehwag might take a while to get used to the old bats which might restrict his range of strokes a bit but it won't be such a radical difference as for a tennis player. So he might average a few points higher, presumably taking advantage of the fielding standards back in the day. Also, the bowlers did not have that many variations up their sleeve so there's that as well.

 

[Hit Wicket]

Disagree. With similar rackets it would be 50-50 on grass. And on clay it will be 55-45 in favor of laver. There is no difference between the skill levels of these champs.

Firstly, why similar rackets when we are talking of time travel? Federer and Laver would play with their respective rackets - no ***ual innuendo intended.

Secondly, can't you see the difference between the court speed and power between Federer and Laver? It's a result of a completely different fitness, training, nutritional regime followed by them - all backed up by advances in science and a better understanding of the human body over the past 50 years. To summit 8000+ meter peaks without Oxygen was a huge thing 30 years back, but with a better understanding of how a human body functions and optimizing it, many people do it today.

 

[Hit Wicket]

If we are assuming the 00's player uses a 60s racquet, there's no way that's happening (a one-sided scoreline).. purely in fitness and athleticism, there's nothing Laver or Borg lacked compared to the guys today.

Completely disagree. With advancement in science fitness regimes, diets, and training methods have evolved to bring out a much better result from the human body. As a consequence Bolt is able to cover 100 meters far quicker than Owens and many people summit 8000+ meter peaks without Oxygen than 30 years back, even though they inherently might have similar physical characteristics.

Just look at the court speed of Laver and compare it to any top modern player - the difference is huge.

 

[vcs]

It's completely meaningless to expect a guy to hold his own with a 60's racket against someone armed with a 95 sq. inch Wilson that is practically one big sweet spot, and strings that can impart amazing spin on the ball. We have to assume they use the same equipment.

 

[vcs]

Completely disagree. With advancement in science fitness regimes, diets, and training methods have evolved to bring out a much better result from the human body. As a consequence Bolt is able to cover 100 meters far quicker than Owens and many people summit 8000+ meter peaks without Oxygen than 30 years back, even though they inherently might have similar physical characteristics.

Just look at the court speed of Laver and compare it to any top modern player - the difference is huge.

Nah, that's not true. No one had the athleticism or endurance of Borg until Nadal came along, and that includes some amazing athletes like McEnroe, Connors, Sampras, Federer etc. You just have to have watched some of his youtube videos to realize that. And Borg's career overlapped with the latter end of Laver's. He played some exhibition matches with a 40+ yr old Laver and it was very close. Usain Bolt running the 100m 0.3 seconds or so quicker than Owens is not relevant to that debate, because there is a lot more to being a great mover on a tennis court than raw foot-speed.

 

[Hit Wicket]

Nah, that's not true. No one had the athleticism or endurance of Borg until Nadal came along, and that includes some amazing athletes like McEnroe, Connors, Sampras, Federer etc. You just have to have watched some of his youtube videos to realize that. And Borg's career overlapped with the latter end of Laver's. He played some exhibition matches with a 40+ yr old Laver and it was very close. Usain Bolt running the 100m 0.3 seconds or so quicker than Owens is not relevant to that debate, because there is a lot more to being a great mover on a tennis court than raw foot-speed.

I am making my statements after having actually watched the end of Borg's career. There is much more to speed and endurance than just natural talent. The training methods, equipments, and diet all play a huge role and all have advanced over the years.

Becker's initial success was down to his quick and accurate service for example. His service speeds of the mid 80s would not even be in the top 25% of today's game.

The current Indian record holder for a 100 meter race has a speed like Owens. It certainly cannot be put down to inherent ability only.

 

[xanderbiscuits]

very interesting read guys

do you think malinga would be called a chucker in 1928?

 

[Hurricane]

what are the links to the other historic footage you found Mike (or anyone else)?

 

[vcs]

I am making my statements after having actually watched the end of Borg's career. There is much more to speed and endurance than just natural talent. The training methods, equipments, and diet all play a huge role and all have advanced over the years.

Becker's initial success was down to his quick and accurate service for example. His service speeds of the mid 80s would not even be in the top 25% of today's game.

The current Indian record holder for a 100 meter race has a speed like Owens. It certainly cannot be put down to inherent ability only.

Agree to disagree I guess. From what I've read and seen of Borg he was a supreme athlete, one of the best in history. Don't think the training methods and nourishment would make such a big difference, that he would be just an average athlete in today's game. The art of footwork and movement on a tennis court have been well-established since the times of Laver, and the fundamentals haven't really changed. Also there were guys like Roscoe Tanner hitting serves at speeds that are very close to world record times, even today. Becker's service speeds would be above the average today, BTW. On average, it was harder to blast winners from the baseline because the racquets and strings of the time just did not allow you to do that without shanking the ball or sending it into orbit. That's why it seems they weren't hitting the ball hard back then.

 

[Mike5181]

what are the links to the other historic footage you found Mike (or anyone else)?

Its a bit earlier but I found this one quite interesting YouTube - Arthur Mold Bowling to A.N. Hornby (1901). The guy apparently chucks it . It gives us a decent look at how they played in the nets early on anyway.

This one is in the 40s. There seems to be quite a few on that site.
( CRICKET 2ND TEST VARIOUS DAYS PLAY ) - British Pathe

 

[Mike5181]

Agree to disagree I guess. From what I've read and seen of Borg he was a supreme athlete, one of the best in history. Don't think the training methods and nourishment would make such a big difference, that he would be just an average athlete in today's game. The art of footwork and movement on a tennis court have been well-established since the times of Laver, and the fundamentals haven't really changed. Also there were guys like Roscoe Tanner hitting serves at speeds that are very close to world record times, even today. Becker's service speeds would be above the average today, BTW. On average, it was harder to blast winners from the baseline because the racquets and strings of the time just did not allow you to do that without shanking the ball or sending it into orbit. That's why it seems they weren't hitting the ball hard back then.

Do you think the variety of todays sportsman is greater than 50 years ago? Different styles accompany people who grow up in different areas across the globe. In cricket we have the likes of Sri Lanka and Bangladesh etc now. They all have unique playing styles and bowlers/batsman have to accommodate them in their skill set.