From Alan and Philip Sutherland, Australia

A Test average of 39.04 for Victor Trumper - not great by today's standards but during his time, he was arguably the best batsman around © Getty Images

It is easy for those of a romantic disposition to fall for an imagined idea of a yesteryear, to dream of the great Ranji and Victor Trumper, or of SF Barnes and Tibby Cotter, and think it a Golden Age. Equally, for those of a more hard-nosed nature, it is easy to believe that with modern professionalism we are amid an even more lustrous age than has ever been seen before.

The ever-present media, in all its 21st century diversity, can easily mistake cricketers for deities and thus lead us to the conclusion that those who’ve played the game previously were never as good as those are who play it now. Yet, is this really the case? Cricket history has a habit of repeating itself, whether it is by independent tours, player strikes, financial problems or political troubles. And so too, as early as about a century ago, one saw a precursor of the media coverage we have today. In 1915, during the dark days of World War 1, Australian newspapers made ample space to headline the death of the aforementioned Trumper. Thousands turned out for his funeral, which for the time was remarkable.

It is easy to overlook the role that cricket played in an early Australia. The colonial outposts were collectively challenging England long before the Commonwealth of Australia existed. By the time of national federation in 1901, Trumper was beginning to make his mark and by 1903 he was arguably the best batsman in the game. He certainly was so on a wet “sticky dog” wicket that could have doubled for a mud-wrestler’s paradise.

Any age however, like any team, is not the sum of one player. Over a twenty-year period, entire careers can grow, flower and fade. Modern cricket crams so much into one year’s calendar, it is hard to imagine today the lengths that cricketers of previous generations went to in order to join a single tour. Who today practices on a slow boat to the UK? Cricketers of a century ago never played with a modern bat, helmet and space-age pads, to roped-in boundaries on a flat, rolled wicket. If Trumper did, he may well think the fun of it all had been taken from him. As it was, he saw himself as an entertainer, which along with the state of the pitches helps explain an average of only 39.04, which today would make him fairly ordinary indeed.

Well may we say that there are lies, damn lies and statistics that are considered out of context. The only problem is that context is a hard thing to pin down. Cricket changes (rather more slowly than we often imagine, but changes nonetheless) and we forget or simply arrive in this world too late to see much that has gone before. Lovers of the game who did see a particular era might easily be expected to wax lyrical about its virtues and with some cause. For if one looks closely at the best of any era, one is struck by how good it is and that helps explain the continuing attraction of the international game for over 120 years.

Taking a representative snapshot of the best players from periods of twenty-years length, (with the exception of the first and the last, which must be longer and shorter respectively), one can see a consistency in quality of players, to a point that it is hard to argue that one is much better than another.

The following lists are in batting order with a 12th man. The 84 players include at least one representative from each Test-playing nation and one from outside the Test world - the legendary Philadelphian swing-bowling all-rounder Bart King.

1877-1899: C.Bannerman (Aus), T.Hayward (Eng), K.Ranjitsinhji (Eng/Ind), W.Murdoch (Aus&Eng), FS.Jackson (Eng), WG.Grace {capt}(Eng), H.Trumble (Aus), J.Blackham (wk)(Aus), C.Turner (Aus), G.Lohmann (Eng), F.Spofforth (Aus); JB.King (USA).

1900-1919: J.Hobbs (Eng), H.Taylor (SAf), V.Trumper (Aus), E.Tyldesley (Eng), S.Gregory (capt) (Aus), A.Faulkner (SAf), C.Macartney (Aus), W.Rhodes (Eng), T.Ward {wk}(SAf), SF.Barnes (Eng), A.Cotter (Aus);C.Fry (Eng).

1920-1939: H.Sutcliffe (Eng), B.Mitchell (SAf), D.Bradman (Aus), G.Headley (WI), W.Hammond (Eng) W.Armstrong {capt}(Aus), J.Gregory (Aus), W.Oldfield {wk}(Aus), H.Larwood (Eng), W.OReilly (Aus), C.Grimmett (Aus);L.Constantine (WI).

1940-1959: A.Morris (Aus), L.Hutton (Eng), V.Hazare (Ind), A.Melville (SAf), F.Worrell {capt}(WI), C.Walcott {wk}(WI), K.Miller (Aus), R.Benaud (Aus), R.Lindwall (Aus), H.Tayfield (SAf), F.Trueman (Eng); M.Donnelly (NZ).

1960-1979: S.Gavaskar (Ind), B.Richards (SAf), G.Chappell (Aus), G.Pollock (SAf), K.Barrington (Eng), G.Sobers (WI), Mushtaq Mohammad (capt)(Pak), A.Knott (wk) (Eng), R.Hadlee (NZ), D.Lillee (Aus), B.Bedi (Ind);B.D’ Oliviera (Eng/SAf).

1980-1999: G.Greenidge (WI), M.Crowe (NZ), V.Richards (WI), S.Waugh (Aus), A.Border (Aus), Imran Khan {capt}(Pak), Kapil Dev (Ind), I.Healy (wk) (Aus), Wasim Akram (Pak), S.Warne (Aus), M.Marshall (WI);I.Botham (Eng).

2000- Tamim Iqbal (Bang), A.Flower (Zim), S.Tendulkar (Ind), B.Lara (WI), K.Sangakarra (SL), J.Kallis (SAf), A.Gilchrist (wk) (Aus), A.Kumble (capt)(Ind), D.Steyn (SAf), G.McGrath (Aus), M.Muralitharan (SL); R.Ponting (Aus).

Certainly, there are differences in the above lists. Early batsmen were usually right-handed. Today’s era is littered with left-handers. Kumar Ranjitsinhji is the lone early sub-continental player and he had to represent England, encountering not a few objections to his right to do so in those less-enlightened times. Twelve others from the sub-continent appear later, including three who were more than sufficiently regarded as captains.

It’s possible, of course, that the current 20-year period will conclude with others having come to the fore. Tamim Iqbal’s inclusion is based on expectation, given his age and probability of continued improvement. However, as much as the current list may yet improve, it’s difficult to see how it deserves to be regarded as the very best of all.

Eras are unique and each can have its own attraction. If one prefers fast-bowling, the eras of Lillee, Hadlee, Marshall, Imran and Wasim would hold particular attraction. Yet, equally, wouldn’t one want to see, if one could, the great SF Barnes’ guile at one end and Tibby Cotter’s slingshots at the other?

From Ashok Sridharan, India

So much has been written about the quality of cricket- and I refer exclusively to Test cricket- in the 90s, that one would think it was a golden age - I remember reading the words 'the glorious 90s' in some article recently.

Truth be told, it wasn't really quite as rosy as that. I started following cricket starting from the mid-90s and by then Australia were easily the best, with South Africa the only side posing a consistent threat and Pakistan oscillating between champions and wooden spoon holders depending on their mood. Take off those three teams and all you had left, was a bunch of mediocre to poor sides. Granted that the quality of the bowling was better and the quality of the pitches back then was vastly superior, yet Test cricket back then was hardly more exciting than it is today.

If anything, the current scenario is incredibly exciting: as I write, the gap between No.1 and No.4 on the ICC test rankings is a mere 6 points, which means we're potentially looking at a situation where the No.1 position changing hands regularly- possibly every series - over the next few years. Never since the late 70s (well before most of the readers here were even born) has the field been so open. Never has there been a situation where 4-5 teams find themselves with the opportunity to making the No.1 position theirs.

The quality of cricket may be lower, but the competition is better today and the number of draws (despite the dead pitches) is at its lowest in decades. Admittedly the contest between bat and ball is ludicrously lop-sided. Even so, Test cricket today is in my opinion (contrary to popular perception) in far better health than it was a dozen years ago. Whereas we had 3-4 sides (India included) competing for the bottom slot back then, we have an equal number fighting for the top now. In short: Test cricket is in unchartered waters now.