How I see it is that if you take some long-playing ATGs, it's not been many handing overs of the baton between, e.g Steve Smith and the Don, or Anderson and Lindwall. Given how those players excelled over such long periods, suggests one of two things.
Firstly, if the game overall has got better, then ATG players have had to adapt so that they continually get better. While it might be that if we plucked Neil Harvey straight out of the 50s to play a game today, he might not get on that well but under this hypothesis we'd assume that if he had the same opportunities as other modern players, he'd succeed as he did way back when.
The other option is the game really doesn't move on that much. I'm less convinced by this - comparisons to other sports suggest athletes have got fitter, stronger, faster and off field coaching and support better. It also doesn't reflect how the game itself has changed.
If we believe the game evolves, then we also have to accept that over time, certain aptitudes are selected out and others for. As mentioned in my last post, the skills needed to thrive on sticky wickets have likely been lost to some degree. However, a modern great has probably got to adapt to a greater variety of pitch conditions and opponent batting/bowling skills and techniques than one who played 50+ years ago. If "Bazball" becomes de rigeur then we may never see the likes of a Dravid, Kallis or Cook in the future as the requirement to accumulate over long periods of time will have been selected out. Perhaps in that case, an ATG really is only a player who transcends eras like a Tendulkar, Imran or Anderson by continually improving and adapting.
