Is there a difference between a greater cricketer and a better cricketer?

[subshakerz]

I was thinking this recently given the ' 'greatest ever' rankings outside our forum tend to be all over the place.

Is it fair to say that a cricketer can be technically better based on career output, but somehow not greater? So Warne is seen unanimously as a greater cricketer than McGrath but McGrath is a better bowler?

Is greatness in cricket intrinsically linked to things such as contribution to the game, legacy, flair and box office value (along with career output) and is that equation necessarily bad and should it be reflect in our analysis too?

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Yes. For instance, the "best" cricketer ever is Chris Woakes.

Whereas the "greatest" cricketer is also Chris Woakes, but for different reasons.

 

[JBMAC]

In answer to your question.... How long is a piece of string??

 

[ashley bach]

What bow on the end of that string being the question.

 

[Aritro]

If I tied a bow on the end of my knob, would that make me a greater cricketer?

 

[kyear2]

The difference between greater and better is accomplishments.

A player can be better than the other, but lack the accomplishments of the other or just not completed their career as yet.

Bumrah is better than saw Waqar, but Waqar is still seen as better because of the accomplishments over his career.

I also revert back to football. Mahommes is the best we've seen, ever. But Brady with his 7 titles will be the greatest until Pat at least gets close.

And Warne isn't the greater cricketer, just the more popular and fawned over one.

 

[subshakerz]

The difference between greater and better is accomplishments.

A player can be better than the other, but lack the accomplishments of the other or just not completed their career as yet.

Bumrah is better than saw Waqar, but Waqar is still seen as better because of the accomplishments over his career.

I also revert back to football. Mahommes is the best we've seen, ever. But Brady with his 7 titles will be the greatest until Pat at least gets close.

And Warne isn't the greater cricketer, just the more popular and fawned over one.

Bumrah isn't better or greater than Waqar because you are comparing a bowler at his short peak with one with an entire career.

 

[kyear2]

Bumrah isn't better or greater than Waqar because you are comparing a bowler at his short peak with one with an entire career.

His entire career of 40 tests, but yes... Hence my point.

 

[subshakerz]

His entire career of 40 tests, but yes... Hence my point.

But it's not really a point.

You are making a qualitative assessment of someone by saying better the same way you are doing with greater, but with Bumrah you have incomplete data to make that statement.

 

[Coronis]

Idk if you look at their careers at the same point can you qualitatively say Bumrah is better?

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

 

[capt_Luffy]

Idk if you look at their careers at the same point can you qualitatively say Bumrah is better?

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Waqar did faced relatively weaker battings and struggled Somewhat against the stronger ones (Australia and India, though was great against WI); but has a huge gap in WPM. So overall, at this stage, I will incline towards him.

 

[Coronis]

Waqar did faced relatively weaker battings and struggled Somewhat against the stronger ones (Australia and India, though was great against WI); but has a huge gap in WPM. So overall, at this stage, I will incline towards him.

Yeah my point - they both have their pluses and minuses and I do think it would be disingenuous to say one is clearly better than the other at that point.

Anyway on the topic - does a player’s record outside of when he was at his best affect how much better he was? No imo

But a players record outside of their best definitely affects how much greater he was, imo at least.


I feel like one could easily say the following without any controversy…

I’ve never seen a better batsman than Brian Lara, but I’ve never seen a greater batsman than Sachin Tendulkar.

 

[sledger]

This is a question to which the answer (whatever it is) is completely worthless. Fantastic example of omphaloskepsis.

 

[Coronis]

This is a question to which the answer (whatever it is) is completely worthless. Fantastic example of omphaloskepsis.

Much yoga lately?

 

[Daemon]

Disagree, I think it's a better example of zeepbeepboopdextis

 

[sledger]

Much yoga lately?

 

[Bolo.]

Murali is the GOAT bowler by an appreciable margin, but there's an argument for other bowlers being as good as him.

 

[JBMAC]

Murali is the GOAT bowler by an appreciable margin, but there's an argument for other bowlers being as good as him.

Without starting WW3 this statement is garbage and you know it

 

[ashley bach]

Murali is the GOAT bowler by an appreciable margin, but there's an argument for other bowlers being as good as him.

Hasn't Warne been given the nod as the slightly better bowler? @Migara

 

[OverratedSanity]

Without starting WW3 this statement is garbage and you know it

Calling murali the greatest bowler is perfectly justifiable.