The 'better player' argument

[GuyFromLancs]

...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?

 

[akilana]

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.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

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)

 

[Neil Pickup]

McGrath being better than Broad has absolutely nothing to do with the argument between Kallis and Tendulkar.

This thread is hurting my brain.

 

[Red]

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.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

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

 

[GuyFromLancs]

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

 

[OverratedSanity]

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

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Very well said, actually

 

[Red]

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.

 

[Neil Pickup]

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.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

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.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

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

 

[GuyFromLancs]

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

 

[BeeGee]

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?

 

[GuyFromLancs]

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.

Forget Broad v McGrath, that was just a crude example.

Quick question, would you employ a full XI of allrounders?

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Who are you to start lecturing staff members and mods on what what their jobs are?

A guy with a right to speak his mind. Who the hell are you?

 

[GIMH]

Broad batting like McGrath atm

 

[Neil Pickup]

Forget Broad v McGrath, that was just a crude example.

Then why start a new thread using that as your lone example?

Quick question, would you employ a full XI of allrounders?

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.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Well yeah but in general

(to GIMH)