Masters vs Geniuses in ATGs

[Starfighter]

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.

No, your love of certain players and preference for certain things is dictating your definitions here. Your rebuttal here is so weak I only need to refer back to my earlier posts, because you are restating exactly the same flawed ideas.

I can only conclude that you are easily impressed by superficial things. The only places you have touched on deeper more cognitive aspects (like thinking batsmen out) your examples have been poor.

 

[subshakerz]

No, your love of certain players and preference for certain things is dictating your definitions here. Your rebuttal here is so weak I only need to refer back to my earlier posts, because you are restating exactly the same flawed ideas.

I can only conclude that you are easily impressed by superficial things. The only places you have touched on deeper more cognitive aspects (like thinking batsmen out) your examples have been poor.

I guess we have reached an impasse since you don't want to acknowledge that certain ATG players are unique enough in how they play to set them apart, something most of their fans and peers can recognize.

So do you believe that a category of genius exists outside cricket?

 

[subshakerz]

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.

Yup that is pretty much my point. A cricketer with exceptional gifts who brings something special outside of the current conventions of play at the time at the highest level.

 

[subshakerz]

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

I have conceded there is a certain of subjectivity involved but I think saying something like 'Sobers was a genius' most posters would pretty much get what is being said.

 

[Prince EWS]

Was going to say it's weird to find so many people in a thread just rejecting the entire premise of it and that it'd be better to just not post in it in those circumstances, but the OP does start with:

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

... so debating the merits of the premise seems to be entirely fair game.

I agree with trundler in particular - concentration and aptitude for learning classical techniques are just as much 'natural talents' as hand-eye etc.

 

[subshakerz]

I agree with trundler in particular - concentration and aptitude for learning classical techniques are just as much 'natural talents' as hand-eye etc.

I am not saying they aren't. I am saying a genius bring something different to the table.

 

[Victor Ian]

rename thread to s3xy vs effective

This.

It was pretty clear from the opening post that this is what was desired as the distinction.

Subs even outlined his criteria for each definition so that we could understand the nuance with which he meant for us to begin categorising players. It's not hard to work within those confines instead of taking the thread into a redefine definitions direction.

 

[subshakerz]

This.

It was pretty clear from the opening post that this is what was desired as the distinction.

Subs even outlined his criteria for each definition so that we could understand the nuance with which he meant for us to begin categorising players. It's not hard to work within those confines instead of taking the thread into a redefine definitions direction.

I expected debate on term use because i admitted they are somewhat subjective criteria but not rejection of the use of the term genius out of hand.

 

[Arachnodouche]

You can bet your purse a genius with the numbers to show for it, like Lara or even KP at a lesser level, worked their asses off, chiselling away at their craft, every bit as much as the masters. The rest is optics.

 

[Victor Ian]

You can bet your purse a genius with the numbers to show for it, like Lara or even KP at a lesser level, worked their asses off, chiselling away at their craft, every bit as much as the masters. The rest is optics.

Of course. Any genius who does not work to perfect their craft is just talented

 

[subshakerz]

You can bet your purse a genius with the numbers to show for it, like Lara or even KP at a lesser level, worked their asses off, chiselling away at their craft, every bit as much as the masters. The rest is optics.

Duh. Nobody is disputing that. Just because someone has natural gifts doesn't mean they work less to translate that into performance.

But I disagree the rest is optics. There is a qualitative difference in what a genius produces and how they play.

Lara broke the 1st class and test records for highest innings in a single year, and then 10 years later, broke the test record again. He produced ATG series in 99 and in 2001 on the back of wretched form when he was basically written off as a bat. If those aren't superhuman works of a genius, I don't know what is.

The qualitative factor in labelling a genius is what some posters don't seem to get their heads around.

 

[subshakerz]

Of course. Any genius who does not work to perfect their craft is just talented

So you don't dispute the word 'genius' itself, you just have a broader application than I do, yes? That is fine with me.

 

[subshakerz]

I think there are only a handful of cricketers in the post-war era who I would be comfortable calling a genius in test cricket.

Sobers, Viv, Wasim, Lara, Murali, Warne and Gilchrist would likely be the only ones who qualify out of the ATGs.

 

[Victor Ian]

So you don't dispute the word 'genius' itself, you just have a broader application than I do, yes? That is fine with me.

Dude! I'm in your corner.

 

[subshakerz]

Dude! I'm in your corner.

Oops my apologies, got confused.

Yes, I totally agree with your point. A genius who doesn't bother to hone their skills/talents is just like that, a wasted talent. And cricket has many examples of those. There are many potential geniuses out there who never made it to the ATG level.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I think there are only a handful of cricketers in the post-war era who I would be comfortable calling a genius in test cricket.

Sobers, Viv, Wasim, Lara, Murali, Warne and Gilchrist would likely be the only ones who qualify out of the ATGs.

Would add Keith Miller and Steve Smith

 

[subshakerz]

Would add Keith Miller and Steve Smith

Yeah I was thinking about both. Miller need to read up on more.

Smith I think you can make a good case on his quirky style of play that has been so distinctive yet effective.

 

[Ali TT]

Duh. Nobody is disputing that. Just because someone has natural gifts doesn't mean they work less to translate that into performance.

But I disagree the rest is optics. There is a qualitative difference in what a genius produces and how they play.

Lara broke the 1st class and test records for highest innings in a single year, and then 10 years later, broke the test record again. He produced ATG series in 99 and in 2001 on the back of wretched form when he was basically written off as a bat. If those aren't superhuman works of a genius, I don't know what is.

The qualitative factor in labelling a genius is what some posters don't seem to get their heads around.

I reckon there's a whole lot of "natural gifts" that allowed McGrath to be as accurate and deadly as he was, or for Dravid to have the willpower to bat the way he did with immense powers of concentration. All ATGs do things that are exceptional, and they probably all think about the game differently to "lesser" players, that's what makes them ATGs, it's just that they take different paths to get there.

I don't see what's genius in scoring big scores. There are many other superlatives I'd use for Lara. If you'd talked about those ATGs who "empty the members' bar" or who you turn the TV on to watch, then I'd produce a list much like your one in post #53 but I don't agree that you can imbue them with some additional intellectual quality, as that disrespects and discredits the achievements of their peers.

 

[Coronis]

Lara broke the 1st class and test records for highest innings in a single year, and then 10 years later, broke the test record again.

Those 3 innings aren’t exactly what I’d use to describe a player as genius. Flat wickets and **** attacks where players from both teams were tonning up and putting up 500+ scores, sure. (Obviously he was the best batsmen in all those matches, and so yeah excelled).

But I disagree the rest is optics. There is a qualitative difference in what a genius produces and how they play.

There’s also a qualitative difference in what a “master” produces and how they play.

Anyway, I’ve read this definition of genius and I like it: an exceptionally intelligent person or one with exceptional skill in a particular area of activity.

I don’t mind calling all ATGs geniuses tbh

 

[subshakerz]

I reckon there's a whole lot of "natural gifts" that allowed McGrath to be as accurate and deadly as he was, or for Dravid to have the willpower to bat the way he did with immense powers of concentration. All ATGs do things that are exceptional, and they probably all think about the game differently to "lesser" players, that's what makes them ATGs, it's just that they take different paths to get there.

I don't see what's genius in scoring big scores. There are many other superlatives I'd use for Lara. If you'd talked about those ATGs who "empty the members' bar" or who you turn the TV on to watch, then I'd produce a list much like your one in post #53 but I don't agree that you can imbue them with some additional intellectual quality, as that disrespects and discredits the achievements of their peers.

Yes but the majority of ATGs have skillsets around certain molds and conventions and very few are able to achieve the same level of success outside of those set patterns.