Erm, no. In life, not getting blown up is more important than blowing someone else up. In sport, winning is more important than not losing.
Feel the need to repeat this.
As a complete package are you saying that Tendulkar is more useful than Gilchrist?
I noticed it, and you are of course right, but i don't think that's how it works. The amount of times a bowler turns a draw or defeat into a win>>>the amount of times a batsman turns a draw or defeat into a win.
I know, I said it wasn't perfect. Well, how are the bowlers going to win matches for you if all they keep getting is 100 runs to defend? You could keep picking up 20 wickets a match, but you still don't win unless you've scored one run more than your opponent.
Kallis? Scored as many runs as all three and took a shedload of wickets to go with it. I think it's an absolute wonder that he's been as good as he has in three disciplines for SO long.
Kallis is the first guy I picked.
It's getting very theoretical. An average batting lineup can do a job for you better than an average bowling attack. I'll give a shot at an example.
Kallis criminally overrated by many forumers. Always is found lacking when his team needs him the most and is a selfish player.
Sweet, another victory for proponents of the Big Lie theory. I've never in my life heard someone give even one half-decent example of Kallis being selfish. But it's repeated by critics so often that it's almost become an accepted "fact".
You're going about it the wrong way, apples and oranges etc. Its like asking someone to compare the guy who installs the plumbing and waste disposal with the guy who installs the electricity and fixtures. You could try and argue in favour of one over the other, but if you do so, you're either taking a crap in the dark or making regular visits to the nearest stream. These attempts at trying to argue that one major aspect of the game is more important than the other to the degree you guys are painting the difference between bowlers and batsmen as, are thwarted by the very framework of the game.
I didn't really believe it too much but Kallis changed my mind with his innings against Australia in their opening match of the 2007 World Cup. A selfish player in one form is a selfish player in another.
No we're not, we're giving an opinion on something that it's 100% reasonable to have an opinion on. We're not doing anything that's not relevant, because these are the decisions FC sides have to make all the time with regards to who to sign. Nor are we doing anything that can't be judged, as research into Pitchers vs. Hitters in baseball described in Moneyball demonstrates. You can disagree if you so wish, but for me top-quality bowlers are generally quite a bit better than top-quality batsmen. And you asked me to explain that opinion, and I did.
Gah, that's just wrong on so many levels. Kallis is specifically asked to play that role for the team. His job was to bat through the innings and let the rest of the side hit out at the end. There's been plenty of times where he's done a different job under instructions- bowling a defensive line to slow down scoring in tests, for example. In ODIs, his job is to try to bat through. If you don't agree with that tactic- and a lot of the time, I certainly don't- it's a problem with the captaincy or team management. It's not Kallis being a selfish player, because he just does the job the team tells him to do.
Did you watch the game?
Of course, you're entitled to your opinions on it, justified or not. But as I've mentioned, I think its unreasonable to claim the difference between the two to the extent SS has for example, by picking 5 quicks among the modern day greats. I also think it is not possible to compare the two quantifiably or otherwise without making some base assumptions, which would put any such research into the realm of circular logic.
