Two different generations. Two different types of batsmen at the peak of their powers. New benchmarks being set and old records being broken every other day. There is bound to be comparisons sparking up. Sachin vs Lara and Virat vs ABD is justified but Sachin vs Kohli and Lara vs ABD isn't. The best batsman of the generation may very well be justified with the comparison of his contemporaries, but not one may never be able to determine the greatest batsman to ever play the game of cricket. Generation by generation, the game of cricket has transformed and is very different to what it was 10 years ago, be it the number of formats played, the bat sizes, the rules or even the techniques of batting and bowling.
At such times, when the game is constantly evolving, no one can picture what the game will be like after 50 years. Day night tests? 50 over IPLs? Test championships or Limited overs test matches perhaps? Each improvement or introduction that enhances the game demands a different physical, metal and technical skill, and the players who can develop these the most effectively will dominate the future. The skill sets required and the interpretation are definitely going to be different, and this is the case with the Virat Sachin dilemma.
One may be in awe of ABs versatility and Virat's dependability, but the times weren't as difficult as they were in Lara's era. The quality of willows used was elementary to say the least as compared to now, and T20 cricket hadn't been introduced then, ensuring that sanity mostly prevailed in that era. Sachin wasn't trained to be destructive and Bradman didn't have to adopt the aggressive aspect in his game, so no one can predict how dominating he would've been in ODIs or T20s, if at all. It would be unfair to compare ABs 360 shot capabilities to Lara's belligerence. Virat's recent consistency in T20s is an unmatchable spectacle today, but cannot be correlated to Sachin's overlying consistency in tests and ODIs, where he adapted his game according to bowling, conditions and different eras.
Just like Bradman's heriocs can't be stacked up against Sachin and Lara of the next generation, due to the dearth of ODIs in Bradman's times, AB can't be put up against Sachin, and a future AB can't be compared to a current AB De Villiers. What we can, and most definitely should do is appreciate the geniuses for their central ability and infinite capabilities. There is no doubt that an average of 99.94 is unlikely to be ever matched, or 34,000 international runs by an individual are a superhuman effort or the invincibility of a player at just 28 is commendable. However, no record is superior than the other and there is no single person who will hold all possible records as they are likely be broken somewhere down the line. Since the records hold different meanings, and magnitude, no two can be compared, and since they wouldn't be held by one person ever, no one can be pinpointed as "The Greatest of All Time"
The least that can be done is the comparisons occurring at the culmination of these modern day greats’ careers as Virat’s and Ab’s true numbers at 40 may be a better indication than their numbers at the peak of their career as sportsmen. The greatest batsmen can only be chosen according to the eras in which he belongs to, with respect to a similar sample size and similar factors. Good players adapt themselves according to the format changes, great players dominate all the possible formats in the eras they are part of. Virat and AB are those batsmen now. Sachin and Lara were the batsmen then. Bradman was the batsman originally. But no two can be compared, and for good reason.
