Adam Gilchrist announces his retirement

Originally posted by Crowley
Please don't try to use these childish tactics - "thanks for further clarifying my point! 😉" - it's something boarman would do...

What I'm highlighting is that the game changes. Kallis probably wouldn't have done well if we put him in a time machine back to in Sobers' era, and vice-versa.


The video analysis is mostly used to work out batsmen. Differ ...[text shortened]...
Sobers: http://content-rsa.cricinfo.com/westindies/content/player/52946.html

Go back 3 posts and you will see that you did say "runs dont come as easily"

You really have lost it old boy.

Originally posted by boarman
Go back 3 posts and you will see that you did say "runs dont come as easily"

You really have lost it old boy.

Ah, it seems I did say that 😳
BUT
Read the whole paragraph in context, then you'll see what I meant though - I was talking more about runs - as in running between the wickets, not boundaries.
Runs ARE more difficult to come by as fielders are more aggressive and are also overall better drilled, fitter and faster.

LOL, once people start nit-picking like this, I know I've won the 'argument'.
YAY!!

Originally posted by Crowley
Ah, it seems I did say that 😳
BUT
Read the whole paragraph in context, then you'll see what I meant though - I was talking more about runs - as in running between the wickets, not boundaries.
Runs ARE more difficult to come by as fielders are more aggressive and are also overall better drilled, fitter and faster.

LOL, once people start nit-picking like this, I know I've won the 'argument'.
YAY!!

Your comments are nit-picked coz of the flaws in your argument.

You make out that cricket from the past is a completely different game to today. Sure, I know there are some small differences but not as big as you make out. Kallis and Sobers would have done well in either era - why wouldn't they? The game isn't THAT different. Not like tennis, for example.. where players used wooden racquets in the past vs the advanced racquets of today. That makes a significant difference in eras. A player using a wooden racquet could not compete with a player using todays racquet. Cricket doesn't have such a major difference in equipment like that.

Todays bats are better than before - I reckon you could agree with that? That being the case, I would say that the improved bats would make up for any minor fielding improvements made through extra fitness and drills. Speaking of improved fielding... I really couldn't say that the general standard of fielding today is that great. There are many dropped catches and mis-fields.. slow response times in the field. So for all the drills and fitness in the world, the standard still isn't that great. And while I've got nothing to base this on, I really can't see that the overal standard of fielding through the years has really changed that significantly... certainly not as much as you make out.

I read your paragraph about scoring runs and I still see that you were talking about runs in general. Anyway.. batsmen don't need to "work" any harder to score boundries that before. For one, the ropes are brought into most grounds so the boundries are closer! And batsmen can score boundries just as 'easily' as any other time. If the batsman is any good, he can score a boundry.. no more work required.
Also, running between wickets is a skill too.. that good batsmen, good teams can do well if they're good enough. Too many teams don't take the short single.. and inevitably, can cost them. One of the reasons for Australia's domination of test and one-day cricket is that they take the short singles.. to keep the scoreboard moving and allows the batsmen to get on and off strike.

This is a skill of cricket which hasn't changed too much over the years too..

It's funny how you think you've won the 'argument'! I feel there are flaws with what you say.. as I try to point out. But these are opinions and we all have them - sure makes for fun discussion!

Originally posted by AussieG
Your comments are nit-picked coz of the flaws in your argument.

You make out that cricket from the past is a completely different game to today. Sure, I know there are some small differences but not as big as you make out. Kallis and Sobers would have done well in either era - why wouldn't they? The game isn't THAT different. Not like tennis, for example ...[text shortened]... But these are opinions and we all have them - sure makes for fun discussion!

You are the one who stated that the game was different in Sobers' era.
If people were to believe you and boarman et al, one would come to the conclusion that cricket was played on gravel roads and batsmen had to face super humans flinging a piece of leather so fast at batsmen it had re-entry flames coming off it and all a batsman had to defend himself was a stick of pine. 😕


OK, what it all boils down to is:

Pitches behaved slightly differently in Sobers' era and you didn't have much protection, so in general, batting was definitely more difficult.
Fact. Everybody accepts this.

Fielding is generally much better now, with many boundaries curtailed byt good fielding.
Fact. Everybody accepts this.


What I've been saying all along is: Whatever factors you work into your thinking - there are equal factors that balance out.

Sooo, let's look at the stats.
Kallis is right up there with Sobers. Even though some parts of the game is different now, I believe it is canceled out by yet other parts that have changed...

This is the point I've been trying to get across all along.

Originally posted by Crowley
Ah, it seems I did say that 😳
BUT
Read the whole paragraph in context, then you'll see what I meant though - I was talking more about runs - as in running between the wickets, not boundaries.
Runs ARE more difficult to come by as fielders are more aggressive and are also overall better drilled, fitter and faster.

LOL, once people start nit-picking like this, I know I've won the 'argument'.
YAY!!

LOL

I know what you meant,its still a difficult subject though.

What we havent included is player comforts.
Players of today get flown around,stay at the best hotels ,ie this all adds up to better preparation and rest.The player doesnt have the huge time to travel to places today than they did in Sobers or Bradmans eras.

Pitches are covered today also whereas in the past they werent.

There are just so many factors involved and i tend to agree with Aussie that cricket was slightly harder for batsmen in Sobers and Bradmans eras.