I'd love him to be but I can't see it. He was 14 last time and I reckon the voting population has changed enough to drop him a few spots - expect to see Nugget in the 15-20 range.
By the same logic, Cairns and McGrath will be comparable cricketers. What about Mankad and Tendulkar? Isn't the difference between Mankad's and Tendulkar's bowling same as the difference between their batting? I think so. If you don't think so, take Mankad and Dravid as example
Yeah I'd make a similar argument. Cricketing utility doesn't stack across disciplines.By the same logic, Cairns and McGrath will be comparable cricketers. What about Mankad and Tendulkar? Isn't the difference between Mankad's and Tendulkar's bowling same as the difference between their batting? I think so. If you don't think so, take Mankad and Dravid as example
I always rate cricketers primarily based on their first discipline. Only when it's too hard to split based on that, I take into account the weaker discipline. For that reason, Botham and Kapil re way behind Hadlee and Imran (or for that matter Sobers and Kallis too) in my book. They are not comparable IMO.
But people are rating allrounders higher this time. New names like Faulkner, Rhodes (you can say even Procter) have been introduced into the list.
Haha I agree with you about so many things when it comes to ranking cricketers over time, in particular the processes and what's important, but that's one thing we'll always differ greatly on.
The difference between, for example, Miller's batting and McGrath's batting is always going to be a lot bigger than the difference between their bowling. I think in all our hair-splitting and personal preferences, we lose sight of just how little difference there is between the quality of two great bowlers or two great batsmen; if you can split them by something that's an obvious point of difference like lower order batting or useful change bowling, then you should. We have a natural bias against doing that though IMO in our efforts to rate the greatest at each discipline in order.
It's a different thing altogether when picking all-time teams because of diminishing returns, diseconomies of scale or whatever you want to call it - and I think this is another thing that biases us, because the quest to pick the greatest XI is always there - but when just rating players in order I think it's something we have a natural inclination not to do.
In skill level? Yes. In actual utility at Test level? No.By the same logic, Cairns and McGrath will be comparable cricketers. What about Mankad and Tendulkar? Isn't the difference between Mankad's and Tendulkar's bowling same as the difference between their batting? I think so. If you don't think so, take Mankad and Dravid as example
Economics, isn't he?
sometimes I do wonder if you were a philosophy major.
I think you missed PEWS's point (or maybe I misunderstood)By the same logic, Cairns and McGrath will be comparable cricketers. What about Mankad and Tendulkar? Isn't the difference between Mankad's and Tendulkar's bowling same as the difference between their batting? I think so. If you don't think so, take Mankad and Dravid as example
.
Now what is that?
Fair enough. I make my lists on actual utility at test level.
Yeah; he Cevno'd the debate though. Instead of actually addressing the merits of the point he chose to draw a false comparison and shift the debate away from the point and towards whether or not what he said and what I said are actually the same thing or not. Cevno does it all the time, hence the name. Ever since I noticed Cevno doing it I notice it all the time though and I avoid such debates whenever it appears.
Yep, so do I. My point was that I think we over-rate the difference in Test utility between great bowlers and great batsmen though. There's **** all in it, regardless of our methodologies in arriving at it, and part-time bowling/lower order batting is IMO more of a valid way to split two great bowlers or two great batsmen as cricketers than that one extra season or longevity, that third decimal place on their averages or that one extra country they did well in.
See barring arguments about impact/influence on the wider game as a whole (which pretty obviously doesn't apply here), I don't see this as particularly logical.Yeah; he Cevno'd the debate though. Instead of actually addressing the merits of the point he chose to draw a false comparison and shift the debate away from the point and towards whether or not what he said and what I said are actually the same thing or not. Cevno does it all the time, hence the name. Ever since I noticed Cevno doing it I notice it all the time though and I avoid such debates whenever it appears.
To be fair, in this instance I was the one who originally gave an example, and weldone's a good bloke, so fair enough.
The point though isn't to compare batting and bowling on skill level, but on actual impact. If Player A averages 30 with the bat and 90 with the ball at Test level and Player B averages 31 with the bat and 3000 with the ball at Test level, Player A's combined skill level is higher (and he'll even be the better player at a really low level of cricket where his bowling would be a factor) but at Test level their bowling is completely irrelevant as they'll both never bowl, hence Player B is a more useful Test player. I accept that; my point was not that Player A is more useful here.
My point is that we, in our own minds, tend to blow out the difference in skils between greats. The more we form opinions on them and the more we argue these opinions, the further away from each other the qualities of two players grow in our minds. Realistically, the difference in bowling standard between two great bowlers in a Test match situation (and not a theoretical level above) wouldn't be noticeable. For example, the bowling difference between having McGrath in your side or Pollock or Miller in your side for a Test match is **** all, but the batting difference is clearly significant. The bowling difference between having McGrath or having Cairns is massive though; more than the difference in batting would be in terms of utility, even if not skill level.
The further up you go in quality, the more tiny difference in quality become evident and the wider the gap between players gets, which is why (along with diminishing returns, particularly in part-time bowlers) picking an All-time XI side is a lot different to this exercise for me. To me, what we're doing here is looking for the best Test players who'd be of most use to the average Test side, and what we'd be doing if we picked an All-time XI would be trying to pick the best side for a theoretical level of cricket above Tests. Sean Pollock's batting was a significant factor in a standard Test match, but at a higher level against better bowlers in a team where he might bat 9 or 10 anyway and average mid teens, it'd be near worthless, and the gap between his bowling and McGrath's would be greater as well. I picked Pollock ahead of McGrath on this list but I'd sooner pick McGrath if it came down to them for a place in an All-time World XI.
I explained it in that paragraph. To me, the best Test cricketers aren't those who would've performed best at a level of cricket that doesn't exist and never will, which is exactly the level of thinking required when you pick a World XI of any sort. The assumed opposition is one of similar standard, whereas the assumed opposition at Test level is a cross section of Test teams.
To Cevno, verb [variants Cevno-ed, Cevno-ing, Cevnoish (adjective), Cevnoism (noun)]Now what is that?
