Thanks for that ...
No disrespect to anyone, but we have to be realistic & logical here.
Cricket & Tennis started similar time at International level, though Tennis actually is an older game in modern format, (thanks to the Brits, more preciously Victorian age) and by 1900s it was well established global sports, much more than cricket (French Open started in 1891, last of the 4 majors Austral Open in 1905). And, both games are similar in one aspect - both bat-ball game, it needs hand-eye coordination, footwork, reflex & timing.
Tennis reached it's first golden era between the 2 wars - Borotra, Lacoste, Cochet, Tilden, Budge, Riggs, Crawford and off course Fred Perry - let's keep Ladies of those days out of this discussion. Still, I don't want to disrespect anyone, but truth is this guys won't win a single game against the lovely young lady Muguruza, who won the last Wimbledon. May be, some points from unforced errors or double faults, but forget the Williams brothers
, it's bang 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 against any other top 10 Ladies now days - wood, metal, titanium, optic fibre .... raquet doesn't matter here, as long as both are playing with same.
Now, as I said Tennis is a global game unlike cricket - it's not a niche game like Cricket, which actually is followed only in few countries where British went - Tennis is the most popular global racquet/bat-ball sports where every first world/developed country has focused for centuries - apart from the Brits (& it's colonies), the Yanks & Canadians were there always, French were even better at times, Germans, Russians, East Europeans, Latins .... everyone had Tennis among their top 2/3 games .......... and the money was there in 1930s as well, much more than cricket, professionals were there, top amateurs were paid higher than Pros like cricket and there were global tournaments, where top tennis stars used to play year long cycle, there were professional coaches - still, if this the height of transition in just 50 years, then why should I take that Cricket is the only sports where those days players had superior or equal skills & techniques? Why shouldn't I believe that it'll be similar in contest between Muguruza - Perry or Pom Ladies vs All-conquering Brandmas' team?
It won't be that one sided for sure - one reason is that, Tennis was an established Ladies game even in 1880s, while Ladies cricket seriously started in last 40-50 years, and Cricket is never perceived as a ladies game, just like Soccer won't ever be a popular ladies game. But, still that question is valid.
As I said many times - that great war changed the world by couple of millennium. Colonial ruling started to end, middle class started to dominate consumer market, national policies started serve mass and world sports went into a new dimension - competition, rather than spirit. Sports became a profession than passion, and it moved from the pass time recreation of elites (or soldiers), to a serious career for middle class. That took every game to a multiple level jump in quality, professionalism, skill, endurance ....... money.
First sports that was hit by this new world was obviously soccer - Germans won the WC within 8 years of demolition of Berlin, Japanese hosted Olympic in 18 years of Hiroshima - that was the standard set - you have to run for your life, not for your fun. Gradually other major sports went to that route - enough is enough, players are to entertain for money, not to fulfill their passion, so there should be quality enough for a value for money. In that regard, Jack Nicklus, Arnold Palmar in Golf, Rod Laver in tennis, Ali in Boxing .... were the first batch of modern world sportsman. Cricket, obviously being a niche sports, took further time to reach that stage.
I never disrespect any former greats, and you ask me - Jack Hobbs is the 1st man in any of my Test XI, Bradman'll always bat at the most coveted no. 3 spot while Sobers at the premium All-rounder's spot on No. 6 - and I'll never argue on their greatness - but it becomes nauseating to compare speed, technique, skills .... because before 70s, or late 60s, I give a damn ..... on what they did there. I study cricket from 1876, as part of a history - also, it's number, so a 170* out of 353 is equally great in 1876 or 1976 or a 35-12-91-8 is always great against anyone, any era - I am happy to keep it that way.
