Who is the greatest of them all?

A never-ending debate was reignited a few days ago, when Griffith University Professor Dr. Nicholas Rohde used economic theory to compare batsmen across different eras, and concluded that India’s star batsman Sachin Tendulkar was the greatest batsman of all time. Immediately statistics were thrown around by passionate fans – some agreeing with the research while some questioning the application of economic theory to sports.

Cricket has undergone a lot of change since the first Test match, which was played between Australia and England on 15 March 1877 at the Melbourne Cricket Ground. Pitches have changed, so have the outfields, the equipment and the level of the game. From timeless Tests to Twenty20, cricket has come full circle. When the game has changed so much, can we really compare players across different eras?

Every player is a product of his generation. Thus it’s a bit ridiculous to say that had ‘X’ been playing during the 40s, he would have struggled on bowler friendly pitches. And were pitches really as bowler friendly as we often assume them to be? Uncovered pitches produced some of the highest scores – 6 of the top 10 Test match aggregates of all time were scored before 1960. If we compare the batting averages of the top seven batsmen by decade, the 1940s stand as the best era for batting with an average of 41.13. Yes, Bradman never had the luxury of playing with super bats and protective equipment, but he also had the luxury of not very high standards of fielding, limited opposition and lax lbw rules – in Bradman’s time you could only be given out if the ball pitched and hit in line with the stumps and then went on to hit them. This ruled out the in-swinger, the off-cutter, and the off-spinning deliveries that pitch outside but come in enough to hit in line.

Thus, every era had its pros and cons. We really can’t say that with an average of 99.94, Bradman was a “better” batsman than Sachin or Lara or Richards - statistically yes, but stats reveal very little. Here we must make a distinction between the “best” and the “greatest”. When calling some “better” than the other you can only compare players from the same era. Greatness on the other hand spans across eras. It is, however, very subjective. One person’s criteria of judging greatness may be vastly different from another’s. For some, Bradman may be the greatest for being way ahead of his contemporaries, while for some, Sachin, with his longevity and completeness, may be a greater player than the Don. We don’t need any research to prove who is right. It is a fan’s personal preference.

In a game that has changed by leaps and bounds, we only do disservice to players by blindly comparing one with the other. Let each have his favorite. Let Bradman be the greatest for one. Let Sachin be the greatest for another. Let Cricket be the uniting factor for both.