Can A be 'greater' than B and B 'greater' than C but C 'greater' than A?

[Goughy]

I dont generally get too involved with the ranking or vs threads but the CW50 thread is interesting and it got me thinking:

Can A be 'greater' than B and B 'greater' than C but C 'greater' than A?

Are they absolute or is it dependant on the strengths and weaknesses of the players being compared and the matchup that each presents?

Hypothetical example.
Tendulkar > Lara
Lara > Waugh
Waugh > Tendulkar

 

[Flem274*]

Iain O'Brien>all

I'll leave you to it now.

 

[aussie]

I guess its possible. But in this hypotetical exam IMO Tendulkar (A) is better than Lara (B) & S Waugh (C).

 

[Black_Warrior]

You actually have to give an example of 3 players like that. This one is not working because Waugh is not greater than Tendulkar.

 

[JBMAC]

If beauty is in the eye of the beholder tthen GREATNESS is in the eye of the fan

 

[silentstriker]

No, assuming you are comparing one attribute. Could be say, ability to play Shane Warne, or could be batting in general. If the criteris is constrained, then no, it is not possible.

 

[0RI0N]

If beauty is in the eye of the beholder tthen GREATNESS is in the eye of the fan

I c what you did there

Be greatfull we had the privilege to c so many greats.
Does anybody think that ESPN or 9 or Sky should bring out a BR titled:
'The Greatest of the Greats: Greatest HITs'
That would be great.
How bout this great equation:
Bradman > [{Hammond = Sobers} > the rest]

 

[Pratters]

Cricket is a game with a lot of aspects. The dynamics involved means that it is certainly possible that in condition x they three variables rank in a particular order while in y condition they rank completely differently.

 

[wpdavid]

Don't know about players, but I can think of a couple of occasions involving teams.

Mid1950's, England > Aus, WI > England and Aus > W I.

Mid 1960's Aus > WI, WI > England but England = Aus

 

[G.I.Joe]

Currently, i'd say India>Australia>Sri Lanka>SA>India

 

[Dissector]

This kind of cycling can happen with head to head comparisons between teams or players in individual sports like tennis. In other words team A consistently beats B which beats C which beats A. Can't see how it applies comparisons between batsmen though since they don't go head to head. It could perhaps apply to combinations of batsmen and bowlers. So Batsman A dominates bowler B who dominates batsman C who dominates bowler D who dominates batsman A. Can't think of a real-world example though.

 

[Matt79]

As SS said, not if you're comparing apples with apples, unless you've got an inconsistency in your rating process. If you're thinking "I think Tendulkar is better than Lara, and Lara is better than Waugh, but Waugh is better than Tendulkar" (for example's sake, ferchristsakes no need to leap to Sachin's defence here), then you're just a bit confused. It's a different thing from saying "Hayden is in general better than Sehwag, and Sehwag is in general better than Atherton, but in conditions with sideways movement through the air, Atherton is better than Hayden".

 

[silentstriker]

As SS said, not if you're comparing apples with apples, unless you've got an inconsistency in your rating process. If you're thinking "I think Tendulkar is better than Lara, and Lara is better than Waugh, but Waugh is better than Tendulkar" (for example's sake, ferchristsakes no need to leap to Sachin's defence here), then you're just a bit confused. It's a different thing from saying "Hayden is in general better than Sehwag, and Sehwag is in general better than Atherton, but in conditions with sideways movement through the air, Atherton is better than Hayden".

Yup. If you're saying one person is better than another, except in this case, it is fine. But not if you're using the same exact criteria - it's just logically impossible.

 

[Shri]

Shane Bond's name should make an appearance here in this thread surely?

 

[zaremba]

If you're thinking "I think Tendulkar is better than Lara, and Lara is better than Waugh, but Waugh is better than Tendulkar" (for example's sake, ferchristsakes no need to leap to Sachin's defence here), then you're just a bit confused.

Yes but Goughy's (excellent) point is that this is in fact precisely how we do think. It's not easy to encapsulate why we think that way, but we do. I think it has to do with the particular constellation of biases (for and against) that we harbour in relation to any selection of well-known players. It is only when we set one player up against the other that certain aspects of their play comes to the forefront of our minds. When we compare one of those players to another player, instinctively we focus on different aspects of their play.

Or something.

My head hurts, and I need to go to bed.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yes but Goughy's (excellent) point is that this is in fact precisely how we do think. It's not easy to encapsulate why we think that way, but we do. I think it has to do with the particular constellation of biases (for and against) that we harbour in relation to any selection of well-known players. It is only when we set one player up against the other that certain aspects of their play comes to the forefront of our minds. When we compare one of those players to another player, instinctively we focus on different aspects of their play.

Or something.

My head hurts, and I need to go to bed.

Yeah, I see the point, but my mind doesn't really work that way when they players are all of the same type as such. Waugh, Tendulkar and Lara are all batsmen so I'd never really arrive at the example in the first post.

Allrounders tend to do this to my line of thinking though. For example, "Ntini v Kallis" or "Ntini v Pollock" would make me instinctively compare them as bowlers, whereas "Kallis v Pollock" would make me instinctively compare them as allrounders, so..

Ntini > Kallis
Pollock > Ntini
Kallis > Pollock

As has been said, we're now comparing apples with oranges, but when that's how I'd approach those three questions.

 

[honestbharani]

There is no real subjective way to say one is greater than the other when comparing the cricketing greats in certain matchups.. Ponting, Lara, Sachin is a good example of this. So it is possible to regard that A > B and B > C and yet C > A. I do see SS' point that if you are using the same criteria, logically, it should be the same result but when we do ratings from our heart, it is not always logical..


In fact, thinking it over a little further, I do think that if you are rating on a PARTICULAR criteria then there is no real way A > B, B > C and C > A at the same thing. Something MUST have changed..

 

[zaremba]

"Ntini v Kallis" or "Ntini v Pollock" would make me instinctively compare them as bowlers, whereas "Kallis v Pollock" would make me instinctively compare them as allrounders, so..

Ntini > Kallis
Pollock > Ntini
Kallis > Pollock

As has been said, we're now comparing apples with oranges, but when that's how I'd approach those three questions.

Yes this is a good illustration of the point I was hamfistedly trying to make.

 

[steve132]

If someone believes that A>B and B>C but C>A that person has what an economist would describe as intransitive preferences. Intransitive preferences are generally considered to be irrational, as the following example shows. If you believe that A>B there will be some small amount of money that you would pay to switch from B to A. Similarly, you would also pay to switch from C to B and from A to C, so that you could potentially end up paying to get from C to B, B to A and A back to C - where you began.

In sports, however, the issue is a bit more complicated because of matchup effects. You can see this a bit more easily in individual sports than in cricket. For example, it is often the case that tennis player A beats B who beats C, while C beats A. In cricket some batsmen have difficulty with some bowlers and vice versa.

So in general, you can't say that A is a better batsman or bowler than B, B is better than C and C is better than A. It's also true, however, that if batsman B gets runs in a particular situation or against a particular group of bowlers and A is a better batsman than B, you can't conclude that A would do as well or better than B did. Things just don't work that way.