Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 97
Like Tree30Likes

Thread: The 'better player' argument

  1. #1
    State Regular GuyFromLancs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    937

    The 'better player' argument

    ...is what cricket economists would call garbage.

    Eg, is Stuart Broad a better player than Glenn McGrath? Of course not. Broad wouldn't make an ATG, despite having better 'allround' stats.

    This is why SRT is better than Kallis, without being 'better' than Kallis.

    Ya get me, blud?
    Last edited by GuyFromLancs; 31-12-2013 at 01:05 PM.
    World XI Since 1990 -

    1. Gooch 2. Dravid 3. Ponting 4. Tendulkar 5. Lara 6. Kallis 7. Gilchrist 8. Akram 9. Warne 10. Ambrose 11. McGrath

  2. #2
    State Regular akilana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Moon
    Posts
    984
    That's stupid. If Mcgrath and Broad were close in terms of their bowling, then Broad would be a better player. Broad is a better player than Morkel and Siddle, who have similar records to Broad in bowling.

  3. #3
    State Regular GuyFromLancs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    937
    Broad is a better allround cricketer ... that is to say a better cricketer... but we all KNOW who we'd have first

    (Glenn McGrath btw)

  4. #4
    Cricket Web Staff Member / Global Moderator Neil Pickup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Posts
    26,769
    McGrath being better than Broad has absolutely nothing to do with the argument between Kallis and Tendulkar.

    This thread is hurting my brain.


  5. #5
    International Regular Monk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,910
    I guess you compare guys on their main discipline then add on other factors.

    While I think that Tendulkar is a better batsman than Kallis, you could argue that their batting is fairly equal and you wouldn't lose much having either of them at #4 in a side. Then if you factor in Kallis' bowling and slip fielding and it's a closer run thing.

    McGrath vs Broad is a bit silly. I reckon McGrath vs Hadlee is a far more interesting debate.
    Hutton - Gavaskar - Bradman - Ten Dollar Carl - V.Richards - Sobers - Knott - Warne - Marshall - Lillee - Ambrose

  6. #6
    State Regular GuyFromLancs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    937
    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

  7. #7
    State Regular GuyFromLancs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    937
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil Pickup View Post
    McGrath being better than Broad has absolutely nothing to do with the argument between Kallis and Tendulkar.

    This thread is hurting my brain.
    Cheerio then, Staff Member

  8. #8
    International Debutant OverratedSanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Chennai, India
    Posts
    2,460
    Mcgrath - broad is not a similar comparison at all. And there is no doubt in my mind that Kallis is the better cricketer but not the greater cricketer
    Proud member of the Indian STFU: Sane Tendulkar Fanboy Union.
    Our motto: Sachin WAG, Don>>>Sachin

  9. #9
    State Regular GuyFromLancs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    937
    Very well said, actually

  10. #10
    International Regular Monk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,910
    Quote Originally Posted by GuyFromLancs View Post
    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 team need Kallis' bowling? I say not
    I disagree. When an ATG can have a fifth bowler of Kallis' or Sobers' class it's a huge advantage.

    Same as Australia wanting Watson so badly to be the allrounder, it adds a new dimension to your team and makes captaincy easier.

  11. #11
    Cricket Web Staff Member / Global Moderator Neil Pickup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Posts
    26,769
    Quote Originally Posted by GuyFromLancs View Post
    Cheerio then, Staff Member
    And that achieves...?

    Firstly, It's immensely simplistic to try reducing the question of whether an ATG batsman is more valuable to a side than a second-tier (arguably) bat with significant extra strings to their bow.

    Secondly, it's entirely intellectually dishonest to equate Kallis' achievements with Stuart Broad's, and thirdly this is without even paying lip service to the fact that it can be argued that Kallis' achievements with bat alone can be mentioned on the same page as Tendulkar's (not that I would subscribe to that view).

    I cannot appreciate why there is such a desire to categorise and label in black and white when there's a deep and valid debate as to the layers of greatness, what it truly means to be great, and what exactly it will take for players to be remembered by history.

    As far as I'm concerned, the verdict is unimportant; whether the consensus is in SRT or JHK's favour, there is a wealth of opinion and argument we should be appreciating - not least memories of two wonderful careers - and certainly not reducing it to irrelevant and meaningless false analogies.

    I do think early models of Kallis and Broad had similarly questionable barnets, mind.
    NickDB likes this.

  12. #12
    International Coach HeathDavisSpeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Rummaging through Iain O'Brien's dustbins.
    Posts
    13,960
    If economists - the legitimate world's answer to Mystic Meg - think the argument is bunkum, then I'm more than ever convinced it is true.

    I can't understand why you can't get this. It's really quite simple. Kallis and Tendulkar are closely matched in batting, therefore taking Kallis' superiority in other facets into account, he's the overall better, more valuable player.

    Broad is not similar in any way to Glenn McGrath in terms of bowling record so the comparison doesn't work. Not to mention he can't bat for **** at the moment.
    >>>>>>WHHOOOOOOOOOSHHHHHHH>>>>>>
    Fascist Dictator of the Heath Davis Appreciation Society
    Supporting Petone's Finest since the very start - Iain O'Brien
    Adam Wheater - Another batsman off the Essex production line
    Also Supporting the All Time #1 Batsman of All Time Ever - Jacques Kallis and the much maligned Peter Siddle.


    Vimes tells it how it is:
    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel_Vimes View Post
    Heath worryingly quick.

  13. #13
    State Regular GuyFromLancs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    937
    Quote Originally Posted by Monk View Post
    I disagree. When an ATG can have a fifth bowler of Kallis' or Sobers' class it's a huge advantage.

    Same as Australia wanting Watson so badly to be the allrounder, it adds a new dimension to your team and makes captaincy easier.
    But is Watson's bowling essential? I suggest not.

    It may well be a distraction. It means Australia employ a top 3 bat with a 35 average

  14. #14
    State Regular GuyFromLancs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    937
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil Pickup View Post
    And that achieves...?

    Firstly, It's immensely simplistic to try reducing the question of whether an ATG batsman is more valuable to a side than a second-tier (arguably) bat with significant extra strings to their bow.

    Secondly, it's entirely intellectually dishonest to equate Kallis' achievements with Stuart Broad's, and thirdly this is without even paying lip service to the fact that it can be argued that Kallis' achievements with bat alone can be mentioned on the same page as Tendulkar's (not that I would subscribe to that view).

    I cannot appreciate why there is such a desire to categorise and label in black and white when there's a deep and valid debate as to the layers of greatness, what it truly means to be great, and what exactly it will take for players to be remembered by history.

    As far as I'm concerned, the verdict is unimportant; whether the consensus is in SRT or JHK's favour, there is a wealth of opinion and argument we should be appreciating - not least memories of two wonderful careers - and certainly not reducing it to irrelevant and meaningless false analogies.

    I do think early models of Kallis and Broad had similarly questionable barnets, mind.
    Sorry neil, people like you are responsible for setting the tone in here. You write **** like "makes my brain hurt" and the place becomes a toilet

  15. #15
    International Vice-Captain BeeGee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,224
    Quote Originally Posted by GuyFromLancs View Post
    Sorry neil, people like you are responsible for setting the tone in here. You write **** like "makes my brain hurt" and the place becomes a toilet
    Who are you to start lecturing staff members and mods on what their responsibilities are?
    Last edited by BeeGee; 31-12-2013 at 02:08 PM.

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The argument against Donald
    By OverratedSanity in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 24-10-2013, 04:45 PM
  2. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 05-12-2011, 07:07 AM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-08-2007, 06:34 PM
  4. The Agarkar Century Argument, again...
    By Mr Mxyzptlk in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 19-02-2003, 02:32 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •