C_C said:
I think Bradman is the greatest simply because the stats he achieved are mindboggling.
It doesnt matter what era you play in or how the intangiables go - if you got stats like Bradman/Pele/Gretsky/Kasparov etc. , you got genuine claims to be considered 'the greatest of alltime'.
As per the rest- many people hold them in high regard as not only were most of them early pioneers, there is a lot of favourable commentary on them from the past. I however, dont rate any of those guys very highly. They were either untested extensively in Test cricket or achieved similar standards to many modern-day greats while playing in an amatuer era of psuedo-professionalism and much higher gaps in quality. As such, my view is, the level of play displayed by them ( which i've seen SOME of from old time tapes and BBC shows in the past) is much inferior to the level of play seen since the 60s until maybe the last few years of several great/good bowlers retiring at once. The pro-oldies camp argue that had those oldies been born in the professional era, they would've adapted but i see that as just guessing - it is NEVER a garantee that someone, no-matter how illustrious- would succeed just as well- even with proper training-if the bar is suddenly raised a few magnitudes.
I'll reply to this, and the question from adharcric that prompted it.
Obviously, as I acknowledged, most of these people played cricket before I was old enough to appreciate them, if I was born at all. So, speaking purely personally, my inclusion of them is based on a combination of their stats, and the testimonials of eye-witnesses. Obviously any stat, or any eye-witness account can and will mislead in isolation. Like any historical research, the challenge is to review as many divergent sources as possible to arrive at as much of the truth as you can.
As to your points, which I think can be summarised as: the standard of play was much lower previously, say before WWI or between the wars, for instance, than in the last 20 years. I don't think this is a valid argument, though really there's no way to prove it. I think the qualities of hand-eye coordination, concentration, and desire to excell haven't changed over the last 200 years. I think somebody with those qualities would do well whenever in time you relocated them. Obviously there is a degree of luck in any successful career, in terms of getting a big break, or meeting a particular mentor, but I think for the purposes of this kind of list its only fair to make the assumption that those things stay constant. I think you need to also assume that Trumper, Grace, Hobbs, etc would today have coaching, training, and a professional fitness regime. Otherwise, you can ponder how Lara would go having to work as a bank clerk 50 hours a week, and negotiate with his boss to have time off to practice and compete, on uncovered pitches.
As to your specific point regarding the 'raising of the bar', I guess regarding the improvements in fitness, the more intensive training and coaching, and the wider varieties of venues and teams, I don't think these make cricket harder than it used to be. If anything, the situation is the reverse, if you look at things like uncovered pitches and the feeble protective equipment by today's standards. The norm is in fact to mentally adjust both batting and bowling averages upwards, recognising that batting generally was harder. Not many people have opted for old time bowlers I note.
You might be right, we'll never know, but I'll continue to have some of the old-timers in the team.