The 'better player' argument

[Flem274*]

FMD do you even watch cricket?

It's really not difficult. If you have two 50+ batsmen but one can bowl to a good standard, then the one who can bat and bowl is the better player but who is the better batsman is still up for debate.

As for Twatto, he isn't a number threes arsehole but the value of a genuinely good 5th bowler can never be understated. Put him at six and he goes from a frustrating player to a bloody good one.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Then why start a new thread using that as your lone example?Nobody said that, at any point. Obviously balance between all rounders and specialists comes into the balance of an all time side (maybe picking Sobers and Kallis would allow you to play Warne and Murali...?) but that question is a classic straw man and doesn't advance the debate.

Oh, and I'll endeavour to avoid any future posts that are remotely laconic, no matter how much of a non-sequitur they follow.

Neil, would you agree that secondary skills produce diminishing returns in good teams?

And the Broad-McGrath comparison (though crude) is not lacking in validity.

In some teams (say New Zealand) Kallis would be more valuable than SRT. But that's more New Zealand's fault for being so poor

 

[GuyFromLancs]

FMD do you even watch cricket?

It's really not difficult. If you have two 50+ batsmen but one can bowl to a good standard, then the one who can bat and bowl is the better player but who is the better batsman is still up for debate.

As for Twatto, he isn't a number threes arsehole but the value of a genuinely good 5th bowler can never be understated. Put him at six and he goes from a frustrating player to a bloody good one.

If this is directed at me, yes, I've watched Cricket solidly from 1990.

And calling me an arsehole probably breaches T&Cs

 

[Flem274*]

You're kidding yourself if you don't think there is any side that has ever taken the field that Kallis wouldn't strengthen with his all time great batting, respectable bowling and excellent slip fielding.

 

[Flem274*]

If this is directed at me, yes, I've watched Cricket solidly from 1990.

And calling me an arsehole probably breaches T&Cs

If you could read better you would know I wasn't calling you an areshole.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

You're kidding yourself if you don't think there is any side that has ever taken the field that Kallis wouldn't strengthen with his all time great batting, respectable bowling and excellent slip fielding.

Kallis by my estimation is the 5th best batsman i've seen in 23 years; a very good bowler, and excellent slipper. So yeah, i largely agree

 

[GuyFromLancs]

If you could read better you would know I wasn't calling you an areshole.

Fair enough. Apologies

 

[Jassy]

Broad vs McGrath is perhaps not the greatest example ever but I see where you are coming from and to an extent, I do agree. I think two cricketers have to be very, very close in their primary discipline for the secondary skill to even merit discussion. The Broad vs McGrath example gets shot down because there is no comparison between the two as bowlers.

As far as Tendulkar and Kallis are concerned (or for that matter Lara vs Kallis or even Ponting vs Kallis), I do think there is a definite and clear difference between them as batsmen. This is not to say that it is a Bradman-Chris Martin level of difference or there is a huge gulf in class, but for me, the difference is enough to make me pick any of Tendulkar, Ponting or Lara ahead of Kallis without a moment's hesitation. I can understand and I would probably agree with views that Kallis is a better player (or a better rounded player if you want) than either of the three but if you factor in the difference in batting quality, pressure(in Tendulkar's case), captaincy(Ponting) and factors like that, it is not that clear-cut. If I had to pick between them, who I pick would depend on the bowling attack of the side they're picked for. If the team had a rubbish attack I would pick Kallis but if the bowling attack had, say, Steyn, Harris, Johnson and Ajmal, I would pick Ponting/Tendulkar over Kallis every single time.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Broad vs McGrath is perhaps not the greatest example ever but I see where you are coming from and to an extent, I do agree. I think two cricketers have to be very, very close in their primary discipline for the secondary skill to even merit discussion. The Broad vs McGrath example gets shot down because there is no comparison between the two as bowlers.

As far as Tendulkar and Kallis are concerned (or for that matter Lara vs Kallis or even Ponting vs Kallis), I do think there is a definite and clear difference between them as batsmen. This is not to say that it is a Bradman-Chris Martin level of difference or there is a huge gulf in class, but for me, the difference is enough to make me pick any of Tendulkar, Ponting or Lara ahead of Kallis without a moment's hesitation. I can understand and I would probably agree with views that Kallis is a better player (or a better rounded player if you want) than either of the three but if you factor in the difference in batting quality, pressure(in Tendulkar's case), captaincy(Ponting) and factors like that, it is not that clear-cut. If I had to pick between them, who I pick would depend on the bowling attack. If the team had a rubbish attack I would pick Kallis but if the bowling attack had, say, Steyn, Harris, Johnson and Ajmal, I would pick Ponting/Tendulkar over Kallis every single time.

Tendulkar's strength v Kallis is destroying elite attacks.

But I agree with the fundamentals of your post (and signature)

 

[ohnoitsyou]

cricket economists

lololololol

 

[akilana]

Broad vs McGrath is perhaps not the greatest example ever but I see where you are coming from and to an extent, I do agree. I think two cricketers have to be very, very close in their primary discipline for the secondary skill to even merit discussion. The Broad vs McGrath example gets shot down because there is no comparison between the two as bowlers.

As far as Tendulkar and Kallis are concerned (or for that matter Lara vs Kallis or even Ponting vs Kallis), I do think there is a definite and clear difference between them as batsmen. This is not to say that it is a Bradman-Chris Martin level of difference or there is a huge gulf in class, but for me, the difference is enough to make me pick any of Tendulkar, Ponting or Lara ahead of Kallis without a moment's hesitation. I can understand and I would probably agree with views that Kallis is a better player (or a better rounded player if you want) than either of the three but if you factor in the difference in batting quality, pressure(in Tendulkar's case), captaincy(Ponting) and factors like that, it is not that clear-cut. If I had to pick between them, who I pick would depend on the bowling attack of the side they're picked for. If the team had a rubbish attack I would pick Kallis but if the bowling attack had, say, Steyn, Harris, Johnson and Ajmal, I would pick Ponting/Tendulkar over Kallis every single time.

Against strong attacks, Sachin will bat only marginally better than Kallis.

 

[Jassy]

Against strong attacks, Sachin will bat only marginally better than Kallis.

I've told you many times mate, read properly before you respond. I was talking about bowling attacks of the teams you were picking them for FFS.

 

[akilana]

pot kettle.. but ya I misread this time. Very contagious.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Against strong attacks, Sachin will bat only marginally better than Kallis.

Not marginally. Kallis averaged 38? against Warne/McGrath era Australia. Tendulkar averaged 55 in tests against them, and about 45 in ODIs IIRC.

Anyway, even beyond those stats, SRT in his prime way ++ good ole JK

 

[Jassy]

I think you will find that Tendulkar's overall average in matches involving McGrath isn't particularly flash...primarily because of the 2004 series where he was rushed back from his tennis elbow injury (and also because McGrath was a frikkin genius obv), but if you want to make a statistical argument in favour of Tendy vs Kallis, it'd have to be his more complete record. Kallis has poor averages in England and SL doesn't he? Tendulkar has a 40+ average everywhere,definitely a more complete record. Throw in his considerably superior record against Australia and in Australia - the overwhelmingly dominant team for the majority their careers - and the fact that Tendulkar had to face Steyn, Donald, Pollock, Morkel(he went okay against them too) and Kallis Ishant Sharma, Zaheer Khan, Jaydev Unadkat and the likes....I think the statistical case for Kallis becomes harder.

To be very honest though, I think a Kallis vs Tendulkar or a Kallis vs Lara comparison purely on their batting skills really doesn't need any statistics. Lara and Tendulkar were just better (Ponting could be added too), statistics be damned.

 

[kyear2]

I agree that the better argument is McGrath vs Hadlee. For me, McGrath was the better bowler but as an overall package Hadlee was the better all round cricketer. With a team with a a weak batting line up, Hadlee would have to be preferred, for for the team that McGrath played or even an ATG team with Imran (or even just Marshall and Warne behind Gilchrist) I would go with McGrath.

One also have to question the secondary roles of players when it is not to a high standard. While Hadlee's/ Imran's batting and Sobers bowling were critically important to their teams it was made more important due to the frailty of Pakistan's and New Zealand's batting and the periodic weakness of the W.I attack. Marshall was seen as a handy and talented batsman, probably at least the equal of Hadlee, but because of the strength of the W.I batting, he didn't always take it as seriously as Hadlee and Imran had to (especially after Imran's injury) but when it was required, he stood up and performed.

In an ATG setting, Sobers/ Kallis bowling would be handy even useful and required (might even snag a wicket or two, but hardly match winning. Similarly Imran/Hadlee batting, If Bradman, Sobers, Hobbs ect failed and collapsed, don't see what Hadlee (his two hundreds came vs Sri Lanka and in a umpire tainted match vs W.I where even he admitted they gave up and it didn't mean as much) or even Imran would really be able to do. I have previously argued that secondary skills that are ATG quality, Sobers, Hammond, Chappell, Kallis slip fielding for example would be of greater value in an ATG team than their bowling or Imran/ Hadlee batting as they would be required to take any/all chances and even create chances from half chances. I acknowledge that argument is scoffed at here, but growing up watching the great W.I teams and then the Aussie units, the cordons were more consistently important to the teams success than the bowling of Richards, Border, Waugh etc (though a Kallis or Sobers would have definitely been a welcome plus) or the tail wagging of the lower orders. The only time the tail collapsing came into focus was when the top order was much weaker and left the burden to the tail to pull them out of the fire.

Finally for all of the great performances of the great (bowling) all rounders of the '80's the best team didn't have one, similarly for the Aussies that followed them. Handy yes, more so though a great batting all rounder to spell your primary attack, keep the run rate low and sneak out wickets if the batsmen relax but not to the extent that their virtues (in particular the bowling all rounders) are extolled.

Just my two cents worth.

 

[Prince EWS]

If one would make an ATG and one would not ... well that says a lot. Factoring in second skills can be a distraction if those skills are surplus.

Would an ATG need Kallis' bowling? I say not

There's no such thing as an ATG team in reality though. Cricketers base the development of their skills on the desire to maximise their utility to the teams they're actually going to play in; not hypothetical teams we dream up on forums.

Broad is a better "allround cricketer" than McGrath was but he wasn't a better Test player because McGrath had more utility at that level. Broad could well have been a better player in a local A grade comp where the difference in their bowling impact would negligible (ie. they'd both dominate) and Broad's batting would be far superior, but at Test level McGrath's superior bowling far outweighs the added value of Broad's batting.

The further up the chain the go, the more tiny differences in specialist skills matter and the less secondary skills do. So yeah, at theoretical ATG level after we find the fountain of youth and start digging up corpses, Tendulkar probably would be a better player than Kallis. At the highest level of the game that actually exists in reality, though, Kallis was definitely the better player. The difference in their batting was negligible - quite unlike your Broad/McGrath example - and Kallis's bowling is definitely worth more than that gap at that level.

Honestly, it's not that difficult a concept. It's just about value to the team. Test teams would get more value out of Kallis than they would Tendulkar; that makes him better. Test teams would get more value out of McGrath than Broad; that makes him better.

 

[GIMH]

Agree with the theory, think the grade cricket example or whatever it was works well.

Not convinced that Kallis would have a better effect on a Test side than Tendulkar but that's neither here nor there as far as your general point is concerned, alas it does mean I agree with GFL on that much at least - Kallis was incredible but Tendulkar was a better cricketer.

 

[Prince EWS]

Agree with the theory, think the grade cricket example or whatever it was works well.

Not convinced that Kallis would have a better effect on a Test side than Tendulkar but that's neither here nor there as far as your general point is concerned, alas it does mean I agree with GFL on that much at least - Kallis was incredible but Tendulkar was a better cricketer.

At the end of the day, I don't think his problem really is with this logic. His issue isn't with the "better player" argument; his issue is with the fact that he rates Kallis's batting less than most on this forum do. He's just going to have to make your peace with that, like I have with all the minority opinions I hold on here. I'm secure enough in my own opinion to not go around screaming until I'm blue in the face that I think Kallis was a better Test batsman than Ponting; I know most people disagree and that's cool.

People say Kallis is the better player not because of the Broad/McGrath-like situation, but the fact that they consider the batting of the two players pretty close (even for a lot of those who think Tendulkar was definitely better as a batsman) for the extra bowling/catching to be the deciding factor. The very fact that he used Broad/McGrath as an example speaks volumes in a way. If he thinks the batting difference between Kallis and Tendulkar is similar to the bowling difference between Broad and McGrath then of course he won't think Kallis adds more value to a Test side than Tendulkar. Most people here disagree though, I think, and while that certainly doesn't make his or your opinion wrong, he's going to have to come to terms with being in a minority there.

 

[kyear2]

There's no such thing as an ATG team in reality though. Cricketers base the development of their skills on the desire to maximise their utility to the teams they're actually going to play in; not hypothetical teams we dream up on forums.

Broad is a better "allround cricketer" than McGrath was but he wasn't a better Test player because McGrath had more utility at that level. Broad could well have been a better player in a local A grade comp where the difference in their bowling impact would negligible (ie. they'd both dominate) and Broad's batting would be far superior, but at Test level McGrath's superior bowling far outweighs the added value of Broad's batting.

The further up the chain the go, the more tiny differences in specialist skills matter and the less secondary skills do. So yeah, at theoretical ATG level after we find the fountain of youth and start digging up corpses, Tendulkar probably would be a better player than Kallis. At the highest level of the game that actually exists in reality, though, Kallis was definitely the better player. The difference in their batting was negligible - quite unlike your Broad/McGrath example - and Kallis's bowling is definitely worth more than that gap at that level.

Honestly, it's not that difficult a concept. It's just about value to the team. Test teams would get more value out of Kallis than they would Tendulkar; that makes him better. Test teams would get more value out of McGrath than Broad; that makes him better.

Some good points in there.