The futile search for the numero uno

Since time immemorial, the human mind has sought for a greater understanding of events and the circumstances that led to the birth of these events. In their quest to understand and unravel the intricacies of any event, scholars have relied heavily on comparison and more often than not these comparisons are drawn by juxtaposing similar or parallel events, either from the contemporary era or from the eras gone by.

I would like to stick only to cricket in this discussion. Are comparisons fair? This question has been plaguing my mind for quite some time now. Do we really do any sort of justice, when we arrive at conclusions based on various parameters, to either an individual or a group who either played as contemporaries or were separated by decades during which the game has undergone enormous changes.

Sir Donald Bradman once said that Alan Davidson was the best left arm seamer that he had seen in all his years as a player, an administrator and finally as a recluse with Wasim Akram coming a close second. I belong to a generation that grew up watching and idolizing Wasim Akram. Sir Donald’s verdict, which is considered by all and sundry as the ultimate say in the game of cricket, is nothing short of blasphemy to many people like me for whom Wasim Akram has assumed a God-Like status. This again raises the question, “Are comparisons really fair”?

In South Africa the debate of whether Jonathan Rhodes is as good a fielder as Colin Bland never seems to die. Moreover, that guru of modern day commentators Richie Benaud asserts that though Rhodes and Ponting field equally well, Ponting hits the wickets more often and that elevates him to a higher position than Rhodes in the fielding department!!!.

Ian Chappel regards Dennis Lillee as the complete fast bowler ever. Lillee’s performance in Pakistan has been nothing short of appalling and he was never happy touring the land of the “Brown Men”. Geoffrey Boycott, that inimitable personality, reckons that Joel “The Big Bird” Garner was the best; and ask our own Sunil Gavaskar who rattles the name of the famous calypso quartet labeling them as the best bowling attack ever.

Now, the circumstances under which each made his rating are very different from the other. So why make comparisons at all when one cannot be fair in one's assessment of the scenario.

Saying that Sachin is better than Lara or vice-versa is like comparing oranges to mangoes. Each has his own distinct identity and we should be happy enough that we are privileged to witness them bat during our lifetimes. Moreover, it is really unfair on these two men who have represented their country with flying colours for over a decade now.

I believe that it is the media who looks for answers to these very complex questions and ironically the men who grace the microphone are former players who themselves would have detested any form of comparison in their playing days. When the media hailed Warne as the best spinner in the game Arjuna Ranatunga cried hoarse saying that Murali had a better wickets per match ratio and statistically he should wear the coveted crown.

It is really sad to see that men like Arjuna Ranatunga get sucked into these trivial and trite talks. With a cool head he could have realized that Warne and Murali being entirely different could not be compared in any dimension. He was sucked by the media and made unsavory remarks about Shane Warne. Sadly, he never did justice to the talents of both men.

The debate goes on -- Waugh’s Assassins or Lloyd’s Men?? Many theories have been put forward and comparing two teams who played their cricket so differently and in different eras seems ridiculous to me. On what basis can one say that McGrath is better than Holding? Or for that matter who can you compare with Sir Viv Richards in the present baggy green squad. To say that Lloyd’s men would have floundered against the guile of Warne is rubbish as they had very easily vanquished India in India after the 83-World Cup fiasco. The theory that Viv Richards was Chandra’s bunny and in congruence with that, Warne would have had him easily is probably the most ridiculous of all arguments that has been put forward.

The debate that took the cake was the one that was to decide the best batsman the game has seen. It was all but decided that Sir Don would wear that crown, but when the Don himself expressed similarities between Sachin’s and his style of play the pundits got to work. The pundits reported that had Sir Don played in the modern day he would not have amassed so many runs due to better fielding standards or to put it more diplomatically so as to cater to the Australian sentiments, Sachin would have scored Bradmanesque runs had he played then. Not once did they consider the lack of protective gear and the uncovered pitches. They also threw the Bodyline tactics out of the window.

It served no purpose other than providing some stray thoughts for the lay readers.

The game would be better off without comparisons from men in the media who try to settle old scores and get even with players who have not been very kind to them.

But then, who is to listen to what I say. Murali reaching 400 in 72 Tests has started it all over again. In a week's time or so you will hear from the media who is the best amongst the 400 club. Till then... ciao!

Editor's note: Rediff believes that like its own editorial staffers, readers too have points of view on the many issues relating to cricket as it is played.

Therefore, Rediff provides in its editorial section space for readers to write in, with their views. The views expressed by the readers are carried as written, in order to preserve the original voice.

However, it needs mentioning that guest columns are opinion pieces, and reflect only the feelings of the individual concerned -- the fact that they are published on Rediff's cricket site does not amount to an endorsement by the editorial staff of the opinions expressed in these columns.

Mail Ganesh Krishnamurthy