1) Footage is not evidence. Like others I've seen a lot of old footage from sports, war, cinema or people just walking in the streets. People have never moved as jerkily as old film makes them appear. Your comments could be more accurately directed to the std of cinematography. (Btw you've fallen for that old Mold clip. Its just a net mate. He's bowling to a 50 yo and is 38 himself).
The footage is fine. It doesn't have to be super-HD quality for one to notice (what I would consider to be) very obvious differences in batting/bowling standards. I was perfectly aware of the context of the Mold clip. I included because it is off particularly good quality, and still provides useful insight into the game in that era (there's no need to just cherry pick that one anyway).
1)
2) Modern batting techniques were laid down by Grace along while ago. Bowling improved via the development of over arm then seam, swerve and the wrong'un. All well entrenched by WW1. Since then there may have been the flipper (credited to Grimmett), the doosra and reverse swing. Well that's not a lot over 100 yrs and old stagers might look on reverse swing as old fashioned inswing. The kids may have thought they invented it just like a boy band reprising an old Elvis song. However if someone revolutionised technique like basketball did in its shot making or high jumpers did then you could identify an improvement in stds. Cricket underwent its revolutions quite early and its fundamentals stayed much the same ever since. Hence it is hard to attribute an improved std, albeit subjectively, by revolutions in the fundamentals of batting and bowling. Also the game was pro from an early stage.
How do you explain a famous video like this then
Don Bradman - YouTube (Bradman demonstrating some shots at the 3-ish mark)? Or, even if you assume what you said is true, batsmen in the vast majority of footage from that era (including the stuff I posted before) simply don't possess technique similar to modern batsmen. Either the principles of batting technique were not immutable, or they were simply not executed properly by batsmen. Once again, if you want to claim that batsmen in those eras used modern technique, I simply disagree. You don't have to completely remodel (or revolutionize) something for there to be significant changes to it over time; the basic principles were probably largely in place, but gradual changes and improved execution over many decades have lead to what it looks like today.
1)
3) It can...or it can't. Even your comment is speculative which is an admission the game doesn't have an objective measure. Now think of it this way. What if the consistency in averages is a result of the settled batting/bowling fundamentals mentioned above? To my eye that is certainly possible. After all bowling did dominate originally. Then batting caught up. Improved pitches being the catalyst I believe and there is certainly evidence for that. Batting and bowling has remained in a war of attrition decade by decade ever since. The only time the averages have gone up or down has coincided with pitch preparation (low in the poor wkt era of the 50s and high in the road era on the noughties). There has not been a documented improvement in batting or bowling fundamentals to explain the outcome.
4) I'm glad you believe that talent isn't a preserve of modern players. I don't either. I believe that if there has been an improvement in stds it is down to the advantages available to a modern generation. If you could transport golden oldie to the modern world then he could also better exploit his talent. Still I don't think you understood my comment when you replied to it. Did you notice it was a question? If you don't have an objective measure, if the batting and bowling fundamentals are basically the same, if the impact of fitness can't be assessed then how srsly can we take the assertion that stds have improved on nothing more than a belief that they must have. We all might believe it but we can't actually measure it.
I just don't think this is a viable argument. Footage doesn't suggest that, and neither does common sense.
Why would it stay the same? I think it's almost an insult to the history of the sport to suggest that over a century of progression, there hasn't been any significant changes to the technical approaches used by batsmen and bowlers. What exactly has the massively expanded coaching staff, infrastructure, technology etc. etc. etc. actually achieved then, nothing?
On point 4, who cares about measuring it? You don't need to objectively measure something to know it has changed from previous state. Just use your eyes. If your eyes tell you that it hasn't changed, well then so be it, I think it has. And if you don't value footage enough to make a judgement, then you are basically relying on some statistical trends in justifying your belief that it hasn't changed, which is flimsy evidence at best.
