CW50 2nd Edition (aka WWIII) - No 21 - 30

[Howe_zat]

Do you mean the poster or the country?

 

[weldone]

To Cevno, verb [variants Cevno-ed, Cevno-ing, Cevnoish (adjective), Cevnoism (noun)]

1. To draw a terrible comparison to an opponent's line of argument in order to discredit it.

2. To erroneously or fallaciously claim two or more events or arguments are similar, and go on to claim your opponent is a hypocrite for not recognizing that.

e.g. "I stopped posting in the UDRS thread, people were Cevno-ing all over the place."

Cricket comparisons come very naturally to me though. Last night my dad was telling me to drive slow. I replied that one should drive at one's natural speed. Any coach shouldn't tell Sehwag to score slowly. That'll only result in his wicket falling cheaply. My dad was like what the hell !!!

 

[Prince EWS]

To Cevno, verb [variants Cevno-ed, Cevno-ing, Cevnoish (adjective), Cevnoism (noun)]

1. To draw a terrible comparison to an opponent's line of argument in order to discredit it.

2. To erroneously or fallaciously claim two or more events or arguments are similar, and go on to claim your opponent is a hypocrite for not recognizing that.

e.g. "I stopped posting in the UDRS thread, people were Cevno-ing all over the place."

Yep; well done. Good definitions. Cevnoing typically changes a debate from an interesting one of merit and freely formed thought into a tedious one of whether or not two things are actually the same or not, and is usually a precursor to straw-manning.

 

[Spark]

Cricket comparisons come very naturally to me though. Last night my dad was telling me to drive slow. I replied that one should drive at one's natural speed. Any coach shouldn't tell Sehwag to score slowly. That'll only result in his wicket falling cheaply. My dad was like what the hell !!!

That's slightly alarming.

 

[Prince EWS]

Cricket comparisons come very naturally to me though. Last night my dad was telling me to drive slow. I replied that one should drive at one's natural speed. Any coach shouldn't tell Sehwag to score slowly. That'll only result in his wicket falling cheaply. My dad was like what the hell !!!

You cevnoed your dad. Well done.

 

[smash84]

No, you misunderstood

The point you are making is mine, not PEWS'

You cevnoed your dad. Well done.

 

[smash84]

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.

never heard of this bloke Sean Pollock tbh

 

[Prince EWS]

never heard of this bloke Sean Pollock tbh

Haha, I always do that. I know it's Shaun. Don't know why but I spell it wrong nearly every time. Even the occasions where I've posted "Shaun Pollock" have largely been edits.

 

[sledger]

Do you mean the poster or the country?

Oh, I meant the poster.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Don't Panic.

I had Miller at 4.

IMO, the stronger a side gets (and as corollary - the stronger their opposition), the weaker the case for the all-rounder. At a high enough level, the all-rounder has to compete for a spot firstly on the basis of his primary skill, with the secondary skill a bonus.

 

[smash84]

IMO, the stronger a side gets (and as corollary - the stronger their opposition), the weaker the case for the all-rounder. At a high enough level, the all-rounder has to compete for a spot firstly on the basis of his primary skill, with the secondary skill a bonus.

Not really.

Where can you add more value to the side? By having a marginal increase in the stronger suite or the huge gains to be made in the secondary suite?

 

[G.I.Joe]

Not really.

Where can you add more value to the side? By having a marginal increase in the stronger suite or the huge gains to be made in the secondary suite?

I don't consider the gains in the stronger suit to be marginal at all, if I'm making the decision to go for the specialist over the all-rounder.

 

[Prince EWS]

Don't Panic.

I had Miller at 4.

IMO, the stronger a side gets (and as corollary - the stronger their opposition), the weaker the case for the all-rounder. At a high enough level, the all-rounder has to compete for a spot firstly on the basis of his primary skill, with the secondary skill a bonus.

It's not really that; it's just that - like the requirements for specialists - the standard required to be an allrounder rises with each rise in standard. If James Anderson played park cricket he'd be an allrounder, for example. It's not an intrinsic definition that stays with you at every level you play at.

Balance issues are the same regardless of the standard of the match. If you get two teams of similar quality then you're still going to need batting properly down to seven and a useful eighth option, and you're still going to need four proper bowlers and a useful fifth option. What's "useful" and what's not is determined by the standard though; Shaun Pollock would not be an allrounder at an imaginary level of cricket above Tests for example. It does mean he'd have to justify his place on bowling alone - not because allrounders are less relevant, but because his batting no longer satisfies the requirements of one. There isn't a single player in history who we could imagine justifying their spot at a level above Tests on batting and bowling alone for a sustained period (hell there have barely been any even at Test level!), but that's because there hasn't been a player quite that special yet; it's not because it's not a theoretical possibility.

The theoretical jump between Test cricket and a theoretical level above that wouldn't be much different from the thousands of jumps in standard prior to that - top level skill differences from one level below will become exaggerated and low level skill differences from one level below will become marginalised. But that's exactly why this exercise (best Test cricketers) and picking an ATWXI (cricketers who'd best go up a theoretical level) are such different tasks for me; just as picking my best current eleven Sheffield Shield cricketers would be a lot different to picking my Australian Test side.

 

[smash84]

It's not really that; it's just that - like the requirements for specialists - the standard required to be an allrounder rises with each rise in standard. If James Anderson played park cricket he'd be an allrounder, for example. It's not an intrinsic definition that stays with you at every level you play at.

Balance issues are the same regardless of the standard of the match. If you get two teams of similar quality then you're still going to need batting properly down to seven and a useful eighth option, and you're still going to need four proper bowlers and a useful fifth option. What's "useful" and what's not is determined by the standard though; Shaun Pollock would not be an allrounder at an imaginary level of cricket above Tests for example. It does mean he'd have to justify his place on bowling alone - not because allrounders are less relevant, but because his batting no longer satisfies the requirements of one. There is a single player in history who we could imagine justifying their spot at a level above Tests on batting and bowling alone for a sustained period (hell there have barely been any even at Test level!), but that's because there hasn't been a player quite that special yet; it's not because it's not a theoretical possibility.
.

Imran

 

[Prince EWS]

Imran

The closest is probably Botham really but the "sustained period" of my post disqualifies him.

 

[Lostman]

PEWS, nice stuff on an all time XI and a ranked list, I have similar thoughts on this.

Curious what your views are on Gilchrist? Personally, he always makes my all-time XI, but I never have him as a high on my rankings. (high as this one anyway)

 

[G.I.Joe]

It's not really that; it's just that - like the requirements for specialists - the standard required to be an allrounder rises with each rise in standard. If James Anderson played park cricket he'd be an allrounder, for example. It's not an intrinsic definition that stays with you at every level you play at.

Isn't that exactly my point though? Anderson would be an all-rounder at park cricket level, but as he climbs through the grades, he'd have to have a pretty good strong suite to make it. Imran's numbers as batsman are good for the level of cricket he played, but at the all-time level he'd be the equivalent of Hooper vs an attack of Marshall, Barnes, Murali and Ambrose. I have him in my AT XI anyway, but his inclusion at that level does imply that he's less of an all-rounder than before; his bowling is the suite that got him included, and his now feeble batting is only a bonus. Whether I value that extra batting over the better bowling McGrath or Marshall (for instance) would provide me is an issue that definitely comes into the picture. I do want the best bowlers bowling at the opposition. It's why McGrath makes it ahead of Pollock or Marshall. I rate the extra something that McGrath brings over the extra batting that Pollock or Marshall bring.

 

[Prince EWS]

PEWS, nice stuff on an all time XI and a ranked list, I have similar thoughts on this.

Curious what your views are on Gilchrist? Personally, he always makes my all-time XI, but I never have him as a high on my rankings. (high as this one anyway)

Wicket keepers are tough to rate for me, because there's no way of really quantifying just how good players I haven't seen were at keeping. Same for trying to incorporate fielding. We can always go by contemporary accounts, but given how often I disagree with experts and former players about players I've seen, there's a fair chance I would've disagreed with them back then too.

For that reason I don't think I really put as much emphasis on wicket keeping or indeed fielding in general as I should/would if there was more/better data available. He wasn't high on my list (in fact I can't even remember if he's on my list at all) but he probably should've been in the top ten, really. It'd just make it hard to decide how high to rate someone like Jono Waite who I never saw keep, or Alan Davidson who was apparently a sublime fielder anywhere on the park.

 

[Prince EWS]

Isn't that exactly my point though? Anderson would be an all-rounder at park cricket level, but as he climbs through the grades, he'd have to have a pretty good strong suite to make it. Imran's numbers as batsman are good for the level of cricket he played, but at the all-time level he'd be the equivalent of Hooper vs an attack of Marshall, Barnes, Murali and Ambrose. I have him in my AT XI anyway, but his inclusion at that level does imply that he's less of an all-rounder than before; his bowling is the suite that got him included, and his now feeble batting is only a bonus.

I agree then. I thought you were saying that allrounders were intrinsically less useful at higher levels, but you weren't really.

 

[ankitj]

Curious what your views are on Gilchrist? Personally, he always makes my all-time XI, but I never have him as a high on my rankings. (high as this one anyway)

Same with me. I always find a place for Gilchrist in my all time XI but find it a tad unfair on others if I include him in top 25 or so. Very similar is the case of openers. Other than Hobbs no one else makes it to my top 20, but I still have to find a second opener who wouldn't be in top 11 in a list. As a matter of fact, the second highest rated opener in my list was Hutton at #25.