Has The Quality of Cricket Gotten Better Over Time?

Once upon a time, researchers who studied IQ trends puzzled over a paradox: studies consistently showed that identical twins (i.e., same genes) did about the same on IQ tests even when they were separated at birth. At the same time, however, studies show that IQ scores have generally risen over time. The first finding would suggest that environmental changes do not matter; the second suggests that obviously something has happened — more nutrition? Better health? Better education? — to make for smarter people.

The person who largely solved this paradox — James R. Flynn — did so by coming up with the concept of individual and social “multipliers.” Say you and your twin brother are separated at birth and grow up tall and sturdy and with a love for basketball. Once you reach P.E. class, your height may help — teams will pick you to be on their side; coaches will take an interest; you’ll start practicing more; you get better. In other words, there is a feedback loop in which your genes (height+strength) upgraded your environment (training+teams+coach+practice).

But it’s the social multiplier I’m particularly interested in. Here’s Flynn on an example:

Look at what the industrial revolution did to basketball by the invention of TV. It gave basketball a mass audience, it increased the pay a professional player could expect.  Wider and keener participation raised the general skill level, you had to shoot more and more accurately to excel.  That higher average performance fed back into play:  Those who learned to shoot with either hand became the best — and then they became the norm — which meant you had to be able to pass with either hand to excel — and then that became the norm — and so forth.  Every escalation of the average population performance raised individual performance, which escalated the average performance further, and you get a huge escalation of basketball skills in a single generation.

Fascinating, no? The obvious question for me is: will television make for better cricketers? I’d say that the first cohort that grew up with televised cricket is only now reaching international cricket (that is, people born in the mid-1980s in India). It’s entirely plausible that constantly watching cricket, slow-motion replays, commentator deconstructions, pressure situations, etc. will make cricketers more intelligent and talented than the previous generation. And it’ll be even more interesting to see how the game changes as television in India increases its penetration (according to Wikipedia, roughly 150 million Indian households had TV in 2011).

Television, of course, isn’t the only “social multiplier” — as more Indians start to make money, they may spend more on leisure or coaching for their kids, increasing the talent pool. But since I’ve spent so much time on this blog bashing the effects of TV on cricket, I’d thought I’d credit it with at least broadening the appeal and participation of the game. I put this question to you: Do you think the quality of cricket you’re watching is better now than before? And if so, in what way — is the batting demonstrably better? Has fielding changed?


2 thoughts on “Has The Quality of Cricket Gotten Better Over Time?

  1. Homer says:

    Undoubtedly it has.. From diving around and focusing on fielding to better running between the wickets and better game awareness. Also the soft points of the game – mental awareness, tip and run, hitting the stumps, all are so much better than when I started watching and playing cricket. Go to any maidan and the changes in how the game is approached and played become apparent.

  2. I think, in the area of fielding and slog hitting there has been a massive improvement. These two aspects have definitely improved and probably keep on improving. In other aspects, it is really hard to say if batting and bowling has improved or not.
    Television might help to a little extent, but it is hard to compare between eras.

    There was an article on CricInfo on the question that you raised. In that, the writer said that in athletics like running, swimming, improvements can be quantitatively compared. However, that is not possible in cricket. So, except for fielding and slog hitting, I don’t think we can say that with confidence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: