Shez
Neither can one assume the opposite.
Logic says that you have to assume talent/genius/ability as the rating by which you multiply the present state of the sport.
Soldiers are a good example. If he was efficient and succesful 500 years ago, then it really doesn't matter if he's in a bow and arrow or machine gun battle, he'd likely be just as effective across the board/time. Because he possesses the necessary traits.
Of cours there are some outliers. Like if he was a nine foot giant and literally too dumb to understand how a machine gun works. But that situation would be an exception and you can't reasonably estimate in its favor.
In Gerber's instance you could argue that the less space there is in front, the more space there is at the back. Chasing chip kicks isn't something we saw him do often. However, his turn of pace, good hands and eye for the game could just as easily see him score tons of tries in the modern game.
That's the problem. Unless you have a very solid reason, like Bradman giving himself not out, then there are too many factors that force you keep the skill multiplier unchanged.
Do you have a specific factor, outside of "space"?
I don't know the stats but whenever I look at older game's scores, they always seem relatively low as compared to the modern game.
If the above is correct, what does that say about space and the potential for scoring points?
Do 13s these days score on average less than they did 40 years ago?
Has attack developed as much as defence over time? Logic says it must have.
See what I'm saying?
Let me just add - I'm just debating. Please don't take this as insult, sexism, piss taking or anything else negative and/or unnecessary.
