THE DEBATE: CAN YOU COMPARE PLAYERS FROM DIFFERENT ERAS?

Let us know @TheCricketerMag

YES: Simon Hughes

The first thing to look at is a player’s record. Not only is it outstanding, but how does it compare to their peers? If they were head and shoulders above the others, that already marks them out as exceptional. You could extrapolate from that that a player would have been successful in any era. They would have been able to adapt. Would Don Bradman have been successful in T20? Of course he would. He had a peerless ability to make runs. He would have found a way.

The second criteria is how instrumental were they in their team winning matches. Again, if they played more match-turning innings than their contemporaries it marks them out as special. Kevin Pietersen stands out in this regard, perhaps more so than Joe Root at this point, though Root is more consistent. 

Third, how reliable were they – how often did they convert good starts into really big scores – and how vital were they? Jack Hobbs’ conversion rate (273 first-class fifties, 199 hundreds) is remarkable.

Of course, comparing players from different eras is somewhat subjective, but if you use the stats and reportage astutely you can still come up with a coherent argument. Anyway, it is fun. I didn’t come across too many pundits who weren’t prepared to have a go at naming their top five England batsmen (see page 40).

NO: Simon Barnes

Tell me: how would Picasso have painted the Sistine Chapel had he been born in 1475? Would Shakespeare have made the grade as an auteur-film-maker? If Bach was working today, would he have written The Well-Tempered Stratocaster?

Good pub discussions, perhaps, but not questions that could ever have meaningful – still less objective – answers.

It’s the same in cricket. Would WG Grace have made it in T20? Would Bradman have coped with bodyline in a helmet? How would Warnie have bowled on uncovered wickets? I’ll happily have a drink with you and discuss such matters, so long as you’re aware that we won’t actually settle anything.

Was WG better than Kevin Pietersen? How would Fred Trueman have bowled in the time of central contracts? How would Chris Gayle bat in a timeless Test? 

Nothing can be settled. Least of all by statistics. Bradman’s average is the best, but he faced more rubbish than Sachin Tendulkar. No one can prove that one was better than the other. Argue one side or the other, by all means, so long as you accept that nothing can ever be settled.

Cricketers don’t leave imperishable works of art. They leave a few stats, a few memories and a bit of history. They are creatures of their time: trapped in their own eras as flies in amber. They are defined by the context in which they played: opponents, playing conditions, rewards, opportunities and prevailing moralities. If you remove them from their context you misunderstand them: and you also misunderstand the ever‑changing nature of cricket. 

FROM THE ARCHIVES: Gower and the Tiger Moth