The 'better player' argument

[GIMH]

Yeah no problem with any of that.

For me, I look at things as a fan. If I think of players I fear coming to the crease, when playing against England, then I would probably put the following as the wickets I wanted most in the last 7-8 years (in no particular order):

Ponting
Clarke
Tendulkar
Amla

And then I'd include someone like Sangakarra who I didn't fear heaps because his record wasn't great against us but as a neutral I'd expect a big innings.

And then Kallis would probably be next. But for me the fear factor between Sachin and Kallis was enough to override the latter's bowling, if not by much. Same goes for Ponting etc

But at the end of the day I'm leathered. Not thought it through as much as I'd like. Would definitely have Kallis in an XI of players from my time watching cricket. As 6th bowler though because FREDDIE

But seriously. Jacques was Freddie's hero and that's good enough for me.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

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.

FWIW, i think the batting gap between Tendulkar and Kallis is smaller than the bowling gap between Broad and McGrath.

But, the gap between Tendulkar and Kallis isn't insignificant either. IMO there is no serious debate between their batting talents. A more serious contest is Kallis v Dravid - which Dravid edges (no pun intended).

But, I am aware i'm on the 'wrong' side of the debate here

 

[Cabinet96]

McGrath v Pollock is the better example I guess, and I wouldn't have an issue with people saying Pollock is a better cricketer than McGrath, even though McGrath would probably add more to an ATG side. I think that's always been Cribb's opinion.

 

[Cabinet96]

FWIW, i think the batting gap between Tendulkar and Kallis is smaller than the bowling gap between Broad and McGrath.

I also think Kallis is a much, much, much better bowler than Stuart Broad is as a batsman though. So the comparison isn't really fair at all.

 

[Prince EWS]

McGrath v Pollock is the better example I guess, and I wouldn't have an issue with people saying Pollock is a better cricketer than McGrath, even though McGrath would probably add more to an ATG side. I think that's always been Cribb's opinion.

Yeah indeed. Pollock was the better Test cricketer IMO (and I think I am in the minority on that one) but if a level above Test cricket existed then I think McGrath would've been the better player there.

 

[Prince EWS]

FWIW, i think the batting gap between Tendulkar and Kallis is smaller than the bowling gap between Broad and McGrath.

But, the gap between Tendulkar and Kallis isn't insignificant either. IMO there is no serious debate between their batting talents. A more serious contest is Kallis v Dravid - which Dravid edges (no pun intended).

But, I am aware i'm on the 'wrong' side of the debate here

Yeah but that's the point. Your issue isn't really with the better player argument; your issue is that you think Kallis's batting is over-rated on this forum. And we've done that one to death already.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

My objection is the growing, ill-informed opinion (backed up by shallow statistics) that Kallis was SRT's equal as a bat.

When the whole sane world knows it's like comparing Alan Shearer to Lionel Messi

(and i'm a huge Shearer fan)

 

[GIMH]

EWS to rage at the non-cricket analogy that doesn't have further explanation

 

[Prince EWS]

EWS to rage at the non-cricket analogy that doesn't have further explanation

I'm just going to go ahead and assume I'd probably think Shearer was as good as Messi as well if I followed football.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

It could be worse, i could be Uvelocity

 

[GIMH]

It could be worse, i could be Uvelocity

To be fair that would be the worst

 

[Jono]

My objection is the growing, ill-informed opinion (backed up by shallow statistics) that Kallis was SRT's equal as a bat.

I love Jacques, and am going to miss him dearly. Rated him extremely high as a batsman and his test vs. India in Cape Town 2010/11 is some of the best batting I have ever seen in one test match.

But I guarantee you that history will view Tendulkar as the better batsman than Kallis, just like history generally views Viv as the better batsman to Miandad, despite what statistics say. So I'd cool your jets. The great majority of people view Tendulkar as better than Kallis with the bat. Some legitimately disagree and think Kallis is better or his equal (which is fine), and others say Kallis is better or equal to Tendulkar just to try and counter-balance the world opinion because they get annoyed at Tendulkar's attention and acclaim (the worst kind of people).

If you're paranoid that Kallis is getting overrated with the bat, wait for 5 years.

 

[uvelocity]

It could be worse, i could be Uvelocity

It could be worse, you could be a **** talking oxygen thief blowin **********. Oh wait, you are that

 

[Contra]

Am I the only one who also takes into consideration other formats when determining the "better" player/cricketer? For me the better player is one who is able to produce the maximum output during the course of his career in comparison to others.

 

[Rasimione]

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.

This is a top post.

 

[Prince EWS]

Am I the only one who also takes into consideration other formats when determining the "better" player/cricketer? For me the better player is one who is able to produce the maximum output during the course of his career in comparison to others.

On CW.. yeah, you pretty much are.

However, even though I personally don't care that much about ODIs, I've raised the idea that perhaps we should take that into account more than we do here. Players devote a lot of time to developing their LO games for the good of their teams and their own careers, so in a lot of ways it's a bit silly to just ignore how successful they are at that, regardless of how much or how little we actually care about it. Much as it's a bit silly to ignore County and Sheffield Shield cricket for pre-war players.

It's why I've tried to start using the phrase "Test cricketer" more than just "cricketer"; it avoids that sort of personal conflict for me.

 

[the big bambino]

For me its who I fear as a player irrespective what individual talents they possess. A bit of a variation on the do what your opposition would like the least I'm thinking I'd hate to have my team confront McGrath. Or see SRT emerge from the pavilion. Whereas speaking from an Australian perspective, our better teams were generally able to handle both Pollock and Kallis. So I'd take the specialist skills of SRT and Pige over the AR versatility of Pollock or Kallis.

 

[uvelocity]

and that backs up cribbehs theory really

 

[silentstriker]

If I were making all time teams, Tendulkar would be in my first while Kallis wouldn't even make my second or third. Maybe fourth, or not even that. However, if I were a new Test side and I could pick one player to start a team around, I would easily pick Kallis over most others in the last twenty years (I'd probably pick a Glenn McGrath first, but Kallis would be second). But I'd definitely pick Kallis over Tendulkar for that reason. But if it was something else, e.g an established Test side with a good fast bowling attack, I'd pick Tendulkar over Kallis without a doubt. I would say that the difference in batting quality between Kallis and Tendulkar is significant, regardless of overall stats, like as Jono mentioned, the difference in batting ability between Miandad and Viv Richards. It is not, of course, Broad-McGrath level different....

Who's the better player? Who knows - it depends what you're talking about and for what purpose. I say Tendulkar because of my person way of defining greatness. But it's just that.

 

[91Jmay]

PEWS is kicking the **** out of this thread. McGrath level posting to GuyFromLancs Broad level.