Masters vs Geniuses in ATGs

[subshakerz]

Is it fair to use these two categories to describe those who are ATGs?

Masters are those who are the most accomplished technicians in terms of getting the temperament and technique all sorted out, and taking the fundamentals of cricket to their highest level of skill in performance. This is not to suggest they are not talented, but that natural ability was not as pronounced in their career success as much as their dedication to their craft.

Geniuses are rarer, they possess qualities outside of the norm of even ATGs, capable of displays of talent and performance that are beyond mere mortals. This is not to suggest that they don't possess mastery, but their level of talent elevated their careers. Geniuses by definition add something new to the game.

Based on the above, which are admittedly subjective categories, which ATGs would best exemplify the master and genius definitions?

 

[ZK$]

Kallis is a master, while Jadeja is a genius.

 

[subshakerz]

Kallis is a master, while Jadeja is a genius.

Both masters.

 

[Godard]

Masters: Tendulkar, Hobbs, McGrath
Geniuses: Viv, Lara

 

[Godard]

But one can say in those that masters who take their technical accomplishment or temperament to another level have some level of genius I.e some rare ability or some ability in rare proportions that propels them to do so and stand outside of others. Or maybe the abilities of geniuses are more inexplicable and just there?

 

[subshakerz]

But one can say in those that masters who take their technical accomplishment or temperament to another level have some level of genius I.e some rare ability or some ability in rare proportions that propels them to do so and stand outside of others. Or maybe the abilities of geniuses are more inexplicable and just there?

Yeah from what I gather, genuises are able to do things on the cricket field that others cannot, and add some new aspect or innovative approach to the game. Hence that natural ability sets them apart.

Masters simply hone their more conventional skills to the next level of performance and longevity.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Bradman,Sobers and Warne are the three supreme genius.Though I don’t think Warne is the best spinner ever(O’Reilly #1 imo),he is up there with Bradman,Sobers as the only 3 Genius of the game imo.

 

[Godard]

Bradman,Sobers and Warne are the three supreme genius.Though I don’t think Warne is the best spinner ever(O’Reilly #1 imo),he is up there with Bradman,Sobers as the only 3 Genius of the game imo.

What about Viv Richards? Arguably possessed the greatest reflexes of any batsmen to live(due to which at his peak, he was the second greatest batsmen to live). For me, in terms of genius only behind Sobers and Bradman

 

[subshakerz]

What about Viv Richards? Arguably possessed the greatest reflexes of any batsmen to live(due to which at his peak, he was the second greatest batsmen to live). For me, in terms of genius only behind Sobers and Bradman

Viv, Warne and Sobers are definitely geniuses.

Sobers for his natural all-round skills, Viv for hyper fast power batting against top bowlers, and Warne for the super spin/drift and mind games we haven't seen before.

 

[Ali TT]

Yeah from what I gather, genuises are able to do things on the cricket field that others cannot, and add some new aspect or innovative approach to the game. Hence that natural ability sets them apart.

Masters simply hone their more conventional skills to the next level of performance and longevity.

This idea of geniuses just having natural ability, rocking up at game time and doing incredible things is a false stereotype. Someone like KP, who did a whole heap of new things in test cricket, was the England player who often trained three hardest. Buttler's ramps and scoops were honed through hours and hours of training at Taunton. Warne was a genius because he had absolute mastery of the leg spinner's art and being able to land six deliveries on a line and length.

 

[subshakerz]

This idea of geniuses just having natural ability, rocking up at game time and doing incredible things is a false stereotype. Someone like KP, who did a whole heap of new things in test cricket, was the England player who often trained three hardest. Buttler's ramps and scoops were honed through hours and hours of training at Taunton. Warne was a genius because he had absolute mastery of the leg spinner's art and being able to land six deliveries on a line and length.

I never said geniuses don't work hard. But that's not what made them geniuses.

The idea is not that guys like KP and Warne didn't train, but that they were able to do things on the pitch that conventional great bats and bowlers could not, and they added something new to the game in terms of strokeplay and attacking spin.

Yeah Warne was very accurate but nobody could replicate Warne's natural drift and the degree of spin he got.

 

[Starfighter]

Cricket is not something people are born with the ability to play. Though some people have better natural attributes (reactions, musculature, temperament etc.) it takes a lot of practice.

People who play in a manner considered attractive, carefree or thrilling are going to get into the 'genius' category, the same way many consider a batsman talented because they play some pretty shots, while highly successful but less aesthetically pleasing or thrilling players the other.

It's bunkum, especially to me as someone who puts less stock in 'tricks' and strike rates than many do.

 

[subshakerz]

Cricket is not something people are born with the ability to play. Though some people have better natural attributes (reactions, musculature, temperament etc.) it takes a lot of practice.

People who play in a manner considered attractive, carefree or thrilling are going to get into the 'genius' category, the same way many consider a batsman talented because they play some pretty shots, while highly successful but less aesthetically pleasing or thrilling players the other.

It's bunkum, especially to me as someone who puts less stock in 'tricks' and strike rates than many do.

I don't think you would argue everyone is the same in natural attributes. Some cricketers can achieve things with practice that others cannot just by design.

What makes the play style of geniuses attractive is that it is something new and different in terms of ability that is beyond the scope of other ATGs.

Akram could reverse and conventionally swing the ball both ways in a manner no other pace could.

Lara's ability to make daddy scores and ability against spin was well outside the norm for ATGs.

I have never seen a spin bowler with Warne's combo of drift, spin and strategy.

Mohammad Asif had the gift of being completely undetectable in terms of wrist position and seam, too bad he couldnt play longer.

Viv's SR, power and reflexes were unmatched.

If a player can take exceptional talent and deliver over the course of a career, that leads to a genius. A genius by the way doesn't necessarily make them better than a master.

 

[trundler]

I don't think you would argue everyone is the same in natural attributes. Some cricketers can achieve things with practice that others cannot just by design.

What makes the play style of geniuses attractive is that it is something new and different in terms of ability that is beyond the scope of other ATGs.

Akram could reverse and conventionally swing the ball both ways in a manner no other pace could.

Lara's ability to make daddy scores and ability against spin was well outside the norm for ATGs.

I have never seen a spin bowler with Warne's combo of drift, spin and strategy.

Mohammad Asif had the gift of being completely undetectable in terms of wrist position and seam, too bad he couldnt play longer.

Viv's SR, power and reflexes were unmatched.

If a player can take exceptional talent and deliver over the course of a career, that leads to a genius. A genius by the way doesn't necessarily make them better than a master.

Who's to say Dravid's supreme level of concentrator isn't a gift? Or that he had a natural advantage over others in that record.

 

[subshakerz]

Who's to say Dravid's supreme level of concentrator isn't a gift? Or that he had a natural advantage over others in that record.

Great concentration is pretty common for ATG bats though. It's not like he was doing something others were not.

 

[trundler]

Great concentration is pretty common for ATG bats though. It's not like he was doing something others were not.

Playing shots is something all ATG batsmen do too. Nobody batted like Dravid on dodgy decks.

 

[Starfighter]

I don't think you would argue everyone is the same in natural attributes. Some cricketers can achieve things with practice that others cannot just by design.

What makes the play style of geniuses attractive is that it is something new and different in terms of ability that is beyond the scope of other ATGs.

Akram could reverse and conventionally swing the ball both ways in a manner no other pace could.

Lara's ability to make daddy scores and ability against spin was well outside the norm for ATGs.

I have never seen a spin bowler with Warne's combo of drift, spin and strategy.

Mohammad Asif had the gift of being completely undetectable in terms of wrist position and seam, too bad he couldnt play longer.

Viv's SR, power and reflexes were unmatched.

If a player can take exceptional talent and deliver over the course of a career, that leads to a genius. A genius by the way doesn't necessarily make them better than a master.

You've fallen into exactly the trap I alluded to.

 

[Godard]

Playing shots is something all ATG batsmen do too. Nobody batted like Dravid on dodgy decks.

Well on the dodgy decks in SA and SL and in Aus(outside of 2004), some others did way better than Dravid.

 

[Starfighter]

Well on the dodgy decks in SA and SL and in Aus(outside of 2004), some others did way better than Dravid.

There were no dodgy decks in Australia that Dravid played on during his career.

 

[subshakerz]

Playing shots is something all ATG batsmen do too. Nobody batted like Dravid on dodgy decks.

Gavaskar, Steve Waugh, Border would all be good shouts for me.