Masters vs Geniuses in ATGs

[subshakerz]

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

How exactly? I am not saying geniuses are better, but that their natural ability allows them to do exceptional in terms of the skills they display.

 

[trundler]

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

Gavaskar was Gavaskar and the others hid down the order. No doubt Gavaskar was exceptionally talented as well and a genius by any non-shallow definition.

 

[Starfighter]

How exactly? I am not saying geniuses are better, but that their natural ability allows them to do exceptional in terms of the skills they display.

As I pointed out, you're only looking at things in terms of what is superficially impressive and then running with that for your definition of 'genius'. Once again, is it more genius to learn a few different types of variations or be so consistent and controlled in your placement of the ball that you can get batsmen out with nothing more than seam movement? Such a thing may in fact require as much 'genius' as any variation or ball management strategy.

Let's go back to the ultimate outlier of them all, Don Bradman. His style of play was not the most attractive (certainly compared to, say, the reputation of Trumper) and he didn't have any special shots in his armoury except maybe for being able to pull balls somewhat fuller than most batsmen. In short that doesn't point him immediately out as genius. He had one thing that all other batsmen before since have lacked, which is an incredible ability to go into a bubble, place his shots and get a big score.

Players all the time are learning new shots or bowling variations. De Villiers wasn't born with the ability to play the crazy scoops and ramps, he didn't have them at the start of career, and he didn't invent them. He saw they could be an asset and practiced extremely hard to play them. Now other batsmen are also putting in practice and playing these shots. No-one has yet done what Bradman did, yet it would be very hard to fit him into your definition of genius by anything other than the fact he scored **** loads of runs. That's why I don't think your definition is useful, because you're defining the ability to do something unusual action as genius and ignoring everything else going on.

 

[Ali TT]

I think basically all (or most, always easy to find exceptions to any rule) top players, and not just ATGs, do have natural physical ability and have taken advantage of coaching and opportunity in their youth. Beyond that? There may be some physical uniqueness or fortune (like Anderson's injury resilience or additional physical strength/height of a Garner) but I think you get into unique psychological advantages. That could be massive levels of concentration, greater ability to handle and thrive under huge pressure, risk-taking, "seeing" the game differently. A lot of the "genius" players who've done new things in the international game are often implementing shots or deliveries that have been around for some time in club cricket. So they are not true inventors or innovators, they just have the right combination of skill, hard-work and adventure to do it successfully against the very best opposition.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

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

Herbert Sutcliffe

 

[subshakerz]

I think basically all (or most, always easy to find exceptions to any rule) top players, and not just ATGs, do have natural physical ability and have taken advantage of coaching and opportunity in their youth. Beyond that? There may be some physical uniqueness or fortune (like Anderson's injury resilience or additional physical strength/height of a Garner) but I think you get into unique psychological advantages. That could be massive levels of concentration, greater ability to handle and thrive under huge pressure, risk-taking, "seeing" the game differently. A lot of the "genius" players who've done new things in the international game are often implementing shots or deliveries that have been around for some time in club cricket. So they are not true inventors or innovators, they just have the right combination of skill, hard-work and adventure to do it successfully against the very best opposition.

It's not just physical uniqueness but also certain skills that some may possess at a superlative level relative to other ATGs. You can't tell me that Wasim's swing skills with the ball was just routine stuff as far as ATGs go.

It is one thing for someone to do something that others all do just a bit better, like concentrate or put the ball in the right areas, and another to show skills that haven't been seen before or take them to the next level of variety, etc.

Also, it is one thing to do something in first class cricket, and another to do it in international cricket. We are talking about the epitome of skill and ability here at the highest level.

 

[subshakerz]

As I pointed out, you're only looking at things in terms of what is superficially impressive and then running with that for your definition of 'genius'. Once again, is it more genius to learn a few different types of variations or be so consistent and controlled in your placement of the ball that you can get batsmen out with nothing more than seam movement? Such a thing may in fact require as much 'genius' as any variation or ball management strategy.

So the former would be a display of genius, and the latter would be a display of mastery. Why is that so hard to understand?

In the former, you have innovation based on the brilliance/talent/ability of the cricketer, which is not something any ATG can do.

In the latter, a cricketer is honing an established skill to the next level of proficiency. Hence, mastery.

 

[subshakerz]

Gavaskar was Gavaskar and the others hid down the order. No doubt Gavaskar was exceptionally talented as well and a genius by any non-shallow definition.

Gavaskar was the definition of a master. He was all about mastering the fundamentals of batting.

 

[Starfighter]

So the former would be a display of genius, and the latter would be a display of mastery. Why is that so hard to understand?

In the former, you have innovation based on the brilliance/talent/ability of the cricketer, which is not something any ATG can do.

In the latter, a cricketer is honing an established skill to the next level of proficiency. Hence, mastery.

That's a false dichotomy.

To run with your example, we'll continue to compare Akram and McGrath. Wasim invented exactly zero new skills. He learnt how to swing the ball from others and chose to put his time into practicing and refining those skills until he was very good at them. McGrath did not formulate the concept of accuracy but learnt it and put his time into practicing bowling at one spot consistently until he was very good at it.

Otherwise you have literally just repeated your argument and added nothing new. I nailed the issue the first time.

 

[subshakerz]

That's a false dichotomy.

To run with your example, we'll continue to compare Akram and McGrath. Wasim invented exactly zero new skills. He learnt how to swing the ball from others and chose to put his time into practicing and refining those skills until he was very good at them. McGrath did not formulate the concept of accuracy but learnt it and put his time into practicing bowling at one spot consistently until he was very good at it.

Otherwise you have literally just repeated your argument and added nothing new. I nailed the issue the first time.

You don't have to literally invent new skills to be genius, but can display those skills in a new way.

What set Akram apart was being able to vary his swing style delivery by delivery. It was a bit hyperbole, but they said he could bowl you six different deliveries well in one over. Even until today, I haven't seen an ATG bowler who could reverse swing it both ways like that.

You are less likely to have another ATG come who bowls like geniuses like Akram, Warne and Murali than one who bowls like masters like McGrath, Hadlee and others.

You are less likely to have another ATG comes who bats like geniuses like Lara or Viv than one who bats like a master like Chappell or Tendulkar.

Not saying the latter are any less better, but the former are more rare for how they played.

 

[Starfighter]

You don't have to literally invent new skills to be genius, but can display those skills in a new way.

What set Akram apart was being able to vary his swing style delivery by delivery. It was a bit hyperbole, but they said he could bowl you six different deliveries well in one over. Even until today, I haven't seen an ATG bowler who could reverse swing it both ways like that.

You are less likely to have another ATG come who bowls like geniuses like Akram, Warne and Murali than one who bowls like masters like McGrath, Hadlee and others.

You are less likely to have another ATG comes who bats like geniuses like Lara or Viv than one who bats like a master like Chappell or Tendulkar.

Not saying the latter are any less better, but the former are more rare for how they played.

You haven't said anything to disprove my characterisation of your idea and its flaws.

No matter how much you say otherwise you have reduced genius to how many tricks you have in your bag. Your Akram example shows this even though you are claiming to show otherwise. Bowling a whole bunch of variations is not cricketing genius. Any kid who has just learned to bowl a googly or swing the ball the other way tries to do it twice an over. Bowlers all the time talk about setting up batsmen and the fact you don't want to expose everything. I don't see any evidence that Akram was any better at that than any other bowler you have named. All your 'genius' examples have are utilising what you are characterising as 'mastery' is ways that you find impressive.

I'm beginning to think you're either deliberately ignoring/misunderstanding what I'm saying or you simply can't recognise the issues in your ideas, perhaps due to your attachment to them. I'm not sure if this is a measure of mastery or genius, by your definitions.

 

[subshakerz]

No matter how much you say otherwise you have reduced genius to how many tricks you have in your bag. Your Akram example shows this even though you are claiming to show otherwise. Bowling a whole bunch of variations is not cricketing genius. Any kid who has just learned to bowl a googly or swing the ball the other way tries to do it twice an over. Bowlers all the time talk about setting up batsmen and the fact you don't want to expose everything. I don't see any evidence that Akram was any better at that than any other bowler you have named. All your 'genius' examples have are utilising what you are characterising as 'mastery' is ways that you find impressive.

I'm beginning to think you're either deliberately ignoring/misunderstanding what I'm saying or you simply can't recognise the issues in your ideas, perhaps due to your attachment to them. I'm not sure if this is a measure of mastery or genius, by your definitions.

On the contrary, I am wondering if you are being deliberately obstinate in refusing to accept simple straightforward definitions without this reductionist nitpicking.

I have bowled down genius for an ATG to the uniqueness of their methods that sets them apart from other ATGs. In Wasim's case, his uniqueness was his exceptional variation. Sure you may ppl at club level who try variations but only operating on ATG level with that swing skillet was what made him a genius.

If you don't think Wasim was unique in his playing style or had more expertise at variety than let's say McGrath, then you probably never watched him and hence arguing this with you will be difficult.

I will admit the subjectivity though in this category since it depends on watching a player play and recognizing there is something in how they play that is truly a mark of genius and special. But that is where the debate was supposed to be fun as opposed to your rather redundant microanalysis.

 

[subshakerz]

And let me just say again, genius doesn't mean better than other ATGs who have better output.

Geniuses are rarer though.

 

[Ali TT]

McGrath and Wasim was my go-to comparison as well. Genius suggests some kind intellectual brilliance. While we all probably use the term when seeing some jaw-dropping cricketing moment, I don't really see what sets apart most great players intellectually, other than how they apply themselves mentally. Why is it genius to have the audacity of KP when he reverse swept Murali but mastery to have the concentration required to bat for 400+ deliveries in 30+ deg heat? Why is it genius to be able to swing the ball late, both ways at pace but mastery to land every ball on a postage stamp and then get the odd one to nibble either way?

 

[subshakerz]

McGrath and Wasim was my go-to comparison as well. Genius suggests some kind intellectual brilliance. While we all probably use the term when seeing some jaw-dropping cricketing moment, I don't really see what sets apart most great players intellectually, other than how they apply themselves mentally. Why is it genius to have the audacity of KP when he reverse swept Murali but mastery to have the concentration required to bat for 400+ deliveries in 30+ deg heat? Why is it genius to be able to swing the ball late, both ways at pace but mastery to land every ball on a postage stamp and then get the odd one to nibble either way?

Because what KP did was breaking the mold and throwing out the rule book, the hallmark of a genius if done by a great player. Whereas batting 400 plus deliveries or bowling on a stamp is pretty much following the rule book to a T, just at a level that requires mastery to actually achieve consistently.

You can't teach people to bowl like Murali or bat like Viv and expect them to become worldclass. Their genius sets them apart.

You can teach people to bowl like McGrath and bat like Tendulkar though.

Does that makes sense?

 

[subshakerz]

Let's use another example of ABD and Kohli in ODIs.

Kohli is an absolutely master who basically figured the entire game out and became the ultimate chase champ, etc. He had perfected every shot for every stage of the game and his performance level was unmatched. But his skillet was very much classical shot making, etc.

But ABD is an absolute genius for pioneering the 360 degree style play at such a level of excellence where others before him who would have attempted such a style of play would never have achieved his level of results.

 

[Socerer 01]

why isn’t Kohli’s chasing prowess or figuring out the entire odi game not called genius?


i get what you are trying to convey but as already pointed out these are very arbitrary definitions and examples that can be interpreted and twisted them in any way rendering them devoid of meaning at the end

 

[Daemon]

rename thread to s3xy vs effective

 

[Ali TT]

Because what KP did was breaking the mold and throwing out the rule book, the hallmark of a genius if done by a great player. Whereas batting 400 plus deliveries or bowling on a stamp is pretty much following the rule book to a T, just at a level that requires mastery to actually achieve consistently.

You can't teach people to bowl like Murali or bat like Viv and expect them to become worldclass. Their genius sets them apart.

You can teach people to bowl like McGrath and bat like Tendulkar though.

Does that makes sense?

Of course you can teach people to bat like AB or Viv, just like you can teach people to bowl like McGrath or bat like Dravid. Thing is, you have to be both technically and mentally exceptional to pull it off at the top level. Murali a little different due to his elbow.

Take someone like Buttler - he didn't just turn up in his first international and think "you know what, I'll ramp that 90mph bowler over my head". He'd spent hours honing his variety of shots in the nets at Taunton, facing yorkers from Alfonso Thomas, then he tried it out in the domestic game in England. Is he a genius? I dunno, but having seen him play he has some of the fastest hands I've seen in a cricketer and I think that might be just as important.

 

[Coronis]

Genius is never understood in its own time.