Cricket fans all over the world love to compare players across eras, but while this is good for a fun debate, it’s ultimately futile.
The only batsman who escapes any such comparison is probably Sir Donald Bradman, as no one in any era has come close to what he achieved. The rest of the players though are not that privileged.
A comparison of players can never be done based on stats alone. Bowling attacks and pitch conditions are hard to replicate to make the comparisons valid.
For example, there is no way to prove if Virat Kohli would have been so successful in previous eras, in the same way we cannot definitely say that Sachin Tendulkar would been as dominant in the current era.
Until 1995-96, West Indies were still a force, easily winning a tri-series featuring a strong Pakistan and South Africa in 1993, and taking out Test series against England, Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. They had a great bowling attack even until the mid-nineties. Viv Richards averaged 47 in ODIs at a strike rate of 90, in an era when rates were in early and late 60s.
How do we quantify such things when we say AB De Villiers is the best ODI batsman ever or Steven Smith is the best batsman to play Test cricket.
Players need to be left alone and just be accepted as they are. Smith, Kohli and De Villiers are greats of the game, similar to how Brian Lara and Sachin Tendulkar were of the previous era.
There need not be one great player of all time, it can never happen and we can never say with certainty that it is the case. There are great players in every era and we need to accept that fact and move on.
Smith is definitely the best Test batsman in the present era and Kohli is probably the best limited-overs player. There is no need to bring the players of the past and crunch some numbers to suit our agenda.
Giri Subramanian
Roar Guru
Again that was my opinion and what I feel about comparing players. This does not mean fans should stop doing it or stop comparing players. Again this is just an opinion piece and the conclusion is just what I feel.
dave
Guest
Comparing superheroes is futile because some are from m Marvel comics and some are from DC comics. But Superman is definitely the Bradman.
Savage
Roar Rookie
JGK It only shows that author probably doesn't like comparing players across era(especially unfair comparisons).Main reason for this could be because In doing so we tends to Belittle Great players achievements.
JGK
Roar Guru
"Most Important point here is Author never said That Comparing player across era is WRONG or should be stopped." Actually he kind of did: "There are great players in every era and we need to accept that fact and move on." " There is no need to bring the players of the past and crunch some numbers to suit our agenda."
Giri Subramanian
Roar Guru
Thanks @savage for getting the point of this article. I guess people looked too much into the title and did not get the jist of the article at all. Probably I could have worded the title differently. Anyways it is my opinion and I stick by it.
Savage
Roar Rookie
Roarers again are missing the point.What Author said in this article is 100% accurate.Comparisons are always made between two similar or top players whether in batting or bowling.Nobody compares Chris martin and Ponting as a batsmen.Many people are already comparing Ponting and Smith or sachin and kohli.What author meant was that there is no conclusive evidence with which you can say player A(1900s era) > or < player B(2000s era) .For ex-:Even in this article you can find someone who rates Gavaskar higher than Sachin which many people here might agree or disagree. Author might or might not like comparing players across era.But again it's his opinion Most Important point here is Author never said That Comparing player across era is WRONG or should be stopped.
Linphoma
Guest
Hi Giri Cricket is a mad bat-and-ball game obsessed with stats and I love it, grown up with it. I'm also mad about baseball and you gotta experience the same comparisons between the Babe Ruths and modern day masters across a huge sample size. I have to say though baseball is more reticent about changing playing conditions and thus some batting statistics are more comparable carried across eras than cricket. A bat of 1917 will feel the same as a bat of 2017; the ball is the same; playing fields are generally LARGER (note, even the traditional cricket grounds like Lords and the MCG are now considerably SMALLER in playing area than previous); games under lights were not unheard of; ok, batters didn't wear helmets or batting gloves and fielding gloves were not as schmick as today, but that game today is ostensibly very comfortable today as it was a hundred years ago. Not so with cricket. Other-than-Bradman batting stats on uncovered pitches with different lbw rules to today's batting stalwarts with thigh-protectors, super-light equipment, batting helmets and the luxury of covered pitches, it bears just tenuous comparison.
Giri Subramanian
Roar Guru
I wrote it because people who try to compare players across eras seldom go beyond statistic. Steven Smith is ahead of his peers at the moment not only because he averages 61, he has other qualities which make him a great. If averages and stats were the only criteria, Jayawardane and Samaraweera from SL should be considered better than Gower, Dean Jones, Chappell brothers et all. Cricket is what that is played on the field, if we take into consideration all the aspects of the game, then a valid comparison can be made. We cannot say Samaraweera averages 50 so he should be better than lots of players who averaged in 40's in the 80's and 90's. I am just saying that stats alone should not be the criteria. This is just my opinion, I am not asking everyone to follow the same.
DaveJ
Guest
So why did you write it? Comparing can be fun for cricket tragics. And can we analyse the stats to factor in different eras? Eg might there be a way of quantifying the fact that boundaries are shorter and bats bigger in the last 15 years or so? Or subtract scores against Zimbabwe from modern players like Matthew Hayden which would put him closer to Arthur Morris’s average? Or that the Windies are now so useless? Maybe a pointless activity compared to finding the cure for cancer or seeking world peace but not necessarily futile for those who indulge in it.
Duncan Smith
Guest
I largely agree, and I think the real point you make is that statistics alone are highly misleading. Compare the averages of batsmen who played against West Indies 1975-95 to those who played against them 2000-2015. Totally different. Today, Dave Warner uses a super bat very different to what, say, Bill Ponsford in the 1930s used. These are the real variables people should consider, not averages.
Rellum
Roar Guru
Yes it does.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
For great batsmen extreme and hostile pace is that great leveller I think. Anyone who did well against the West Indies in their great era from 76 to 95 is one helluva batsman. Lillee and Thomson 1974 - 1976. An experience that shattered many and made a certain I V A Richards. Hall and Griffiths weren't too shabby either. Also Adcock, Heine, Peter Pollock, Proctor of SA. Tyson, Trueman, Statham, Snow. Lindwall and Miller Bodyline of course. So anyone who stuck it out in very hostile circumstances crosses the ages I reckon. I rate Steve Waugh's consecutive 90s in lost causes against the WIs in 1988/89 at Brissie and Perth as my two favourite innings,. A couple of Englishmen need to do something similar to make the series a fight as it threatens to be one sided series.
JGK
Roar Guru
Yes you talk about comparisons between eras being impossible but Wars aside we do have the advantage of a relatively unbroken chain of players so we can compare A with B because they played at the same time and then you can compare B with C because they played at the same time and C with D and so on. You can also use the historical ICC rankings as a guide as well. In my time, I can't think of someone who has stood out with the bat as much as Smith is at the moment. That's not to say that he's better than Ponting, Lara, Tendulkar etc but none of those were as far ahead of each other as Smith is now (in Tests).
JGK
Roar Guru
Does that make Batman the greatest superhero?
Giri Subramanian
Roar Guru
Yes I agree and I am not saying people should not compare. My argument was only that it is difficult to compare them based on only stats as there are lots of other things involved in the game which needs to be taken into account. How do we even begin to compare a 80 odd of a player in the 90's against Ambrose, Walsh and Bishop to the 104 no scored by Rohit against SL. If someone says that Rohit is better than Player A because he averages 50 and the former only 40. This is the kind of comparisons I am talking about. If people are comparing playing styles and technique and bring valid conversations to the table to put their point across then there can be a nice debate and discussion. I used the word futile because it is difficult to prove someone is better than the other if the playing field is not same.
Duncan Smith
Guest
The Roar is composed almost entirely of opinions. People who don't have opinions have nothing to contribute here. Your opinion is welcome, Giri. But saying that it is futile comparing players from different eras ... it is only futile in the sense that it is ultimately unprovable. But surely we know that, and no one is confusing their opinions with facts.
Rellum
Roar Guru
I don't care. A great bat is a great bat.
paul
Guest
as is the case with any discussion/argument, you need to have people willing to express an informed view, listen to another's opinion with an open mind, then propose counter claims with some factual basis. Very often these discussions degenerate to the equivalent of "my dad's bigger than your dad", generally because people don't listen or have no facts to back up their point. For sure, there's no fun in that.
Savage
Roar Rookie
There has already been lots of debate about Sachin vs kohli.Mainly because kohli is india's best batsmen right now like tendulkar was before and he is only batsmen ever to average 50+ in all 3 formats.Similarly there are lots of people who are already saying that Smith is 2nd best Australian batsmen after Bradman. Regarding Sachin vs kohli,I agree with you that ATM Tendulkar is way in front.
Giri Subramanian
Roar Guru
Yup that is how I would like to remember cricket as well. There have been amazing legendary players who have played the game over the years and all of them have had fantastic careers.