Comparison of great specialist cricketers with great all-rounders

[putrevus]

On 10/17/2019 at 3:54 PM, Muloghonto said:

Except nobody walks into the team as a fifth bowler in tests, fifth bowlers are always allrounders or part timers. The batting allrounders who could walk into their team as 3rd or 4th bowler were Sobers, Tony Greig and Aubrey Faulkner.

Bowling allrounders who could walk in their team as the 5th or 6th batsman are Kapil, Botham, Mankad and Keith Miller. 

Rest are all there on the basis of their primary skill.

Kallis would walk into any team based on his batting alone.His bowling was just bonus.

[putrevus]

On 10/17/2019 at 4:09 PM, Muloghonto said:

Cracking 900 points requires a purple patch, somethign Sachin never had. He was the epitome of consistency without purple patch. You cannot crack 900 rating scoring 100-150 every 3-4 innings and having 4 outta 10 50+ scores in a ten innings sequence. Yet, that is exactly what a team needs long term over purple patch followed by ghanta for an entire season. 

No. Sachin wasn’t an instant hit. He took 3-4 years to find his feet in international cricket. Lara was the instant hit. Scores 277 in his 4th innings, 501 and 375 in his third season etc. 

Nobody has faced more quality bowlers in their career than Sachin. He faced Hadlee when Hadlee was #2 bowler in the world, he faced Imran, Wasim, Waqar, Mushie, Saqqi, Akhtar, McGrath, Hughes, Warne,McGill, Gillespie, Johnson, Fraser, Anderson, Broad, Swann, Donald, Pollock, Ntini, Steyn, Philander, Walsh, Ambrose,Bishop plus Murali. That is a bigger collection of pacers with under 25 average and spinners under 30 than any batsman in history of test cricket.

 

And in tests comprising of these bowlers, he and Lara are head and shoulders above Kallis, Ponting, Dravid in their returns. This is why Tendulkar was a far superior batsman to Kallis, Ponting or Dravid, who are still ATGs but a tier below.

 

Same way how the 70s and 80s had an ATG top tier of Sunny, Boycott, Greg Chappell and Viv Richards, with another lower tier ATG in the form of Crowe, Border and Mum-n-dad. The difference back then, as is now, down to performance against elite lineups or delivering when chips are down.

Cracking 900 and maintaining 900 requires batting purple patch to last.Which Sachin never did and it also means Sachin never did well against bowlers with 900 plus ratings.

 

Sachin was an instant for the innings he played against Waqar after getting hurt.He also hit Qadir for 4 sixes in an exhibition and that brought him into odi side.

 

Facing quality bowlers togther and facing them by one of two is totally different story.Sachin never faced a quality bowling attack with all their superstars in them.

 

Sunny and co atleast dominated few series which  Sachin never did in his 200 tests.Sachin was nothing but a steady eddy in tests who got his stats but rarely imposed himself on opposition.For last decade he was more absent than present when team needed him most.

 

Don't make him Bradman who was so far superior to his peers.

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, putrevus said:

Cracking 900 and maintaining 900 requires batting purple patch to last.Which Sachin never did

And that’s fine. I’d rather have a batsman score 2 tons and 2 fifties every 10 innings spaced for most of their careers than purple patches of 7 50+ score in a row and 1 fifty in 10 innings. The stats reward the latter not the former.

1 hour ago, putrevus said:

and it also means Sachin never did well against bowlers with 900 plus ratings.

False. You can have 2 tons and 2 fifties every 10 innings for 40+ innings against 900 rating bowlers and your peak rating will be lower than the guy who has 7 fifty plus scores on the trot and 1 fifty in 10 innings. I consider the former to be a bigger success than the latter due to team needs.

1 hour ago, putrevus said:

Sachin was an instant for the innings he played against Waqar after getting hurt.He also hit Qadir for 4 sixes in an exhibition and that brought him into odi side.

That is not an instant anything. Lots of people have scored flashy 30 or a six in their first few innings. But fact remains that Sachin was not an instant success , which Lara was. 

1 hour ago, putrevus said:

 

Facing quality bowlers togther and facing them by one of two is totally different story.Sachin never faced a quality bowling attack with all their superstars in them.

Australians from 1999 and Pakistani of the same year say Hello. 

1 hour ago, putrevus said:

Sunny and co atleast dominated few series which  Sachin never did in his 200 tests.Sachin was nothing but a steady eddy in tests who got his stats but rarely imposed himself on opposition.For last decade he was more absent than present when team needed him most.

Lol at kids like you using words like ‘steady eddy’. He was consistent and a destroyer in his prime. From 92-02,when he was at his peak, he was the PERFECT destroyer: got his eye in with perfect technique and used to be at 20 off 40-50 balls, then scored run a ball or higher for his ton at 65-70 strike rate, nearly double the strike rate of the whole team. At a consistency level nobody had at the time, including tuk tuk steady eddies like Steve Waugh. A steady eddy is not a dominant batsman, while almost all 50+ score of Tendulkar were dominant batting.

1 hour ago, putrevus said:

Don't make him Bradman who was so far superior to his peers.

Except that he was. He was so much superior to his peers that his most closest rival, Lara, himself said that there is no comparison between him and Arendt, he is far superior. 

 

You are of the generation that mostly saw Tendulkar in the second half of his career, where he took a more steady eddy approach due to rise of Sehwag. Hence your ignorance. For the 90s, there wasn’t a more destructive batsman in tests than him- Lara matched him in late innings acceleration but not better than him at it and certainly nobody was as consistent either at consistent demolition of the attacks. 

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, putrevus said:

Kallis would walk into any team based on his batting alone.His bowling was just bonus.

Sure. That’s not the point. Point was who could walk into their teams as EITHER bowler or batsman only. Kapil botham Miller, Mankad,Sobers and Faulkner could on either skill set. Kallis cannot and that doesn’t take away from his greatness. It just makes him a different type of all rounder. 

[Deleted_User_1]

Chalo phir se aa gaya Thakor saheb apna gyaan batane. Toohi jawab de na, hum logon kyun poochh raha hain?

[Khota]

On 10/22/2019 at 1:52 PM, Muloghonto said:

A linear body has way more predictable and therefore controllable aerodynamics than a non linear seam. Ie, far more options, which is why a cricket ball does way more in the air than a baseball. And since it pitches, it does a whole lot more due to the linear nature of aerodynamic upon impact.

 

but keep peddling your nonsense that baseball hasn’t more variations like cricket. Just like the nonsense of mediocre Harby being better than Ashwin. 

 

I have already proven that cricket ball has more variations than baseball in this thread and that’s not even counting the batting superior strategies 

Which seam is more even cricket that spits ball in two or a two seam baseball. Have you ever touched a baseball? I just picked one and started looking at it to convince you that two seams are cutting the airflow.

[Muloghonto]

52 minutes ago, Khota said:

Which seam is more even cricket that spits ball in two or a two seam baseball. Have you ever touched a baseball? I just picked one and started looking at it to convince you that two seams are cutting the airflow.

You do not understand the first thing about aerodynamics then. Let m educate you from university days: a symmetric, axial body will always produce a more predictable aerodynamic flow than asymmetric one. Doesn’t matter if it’s a ball or a F-117. Predictable aerodynamics = better ability to control it. Better ability to control it = better ability to apply thought, aka strategy to it. You are yet to answer the point that how can a faster process with less reaction time give you greater ability to think and apply strategy to it. 

 

How many strategies are at a cricket batsmans disposal vs that of a baseball batter ? Name the various strokes please. 

[Khota]

6 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

You do not understand the first thing about aerodynamics then. Let m educate you from university days: a symmetric, axial body will always produce a more predictable aerodynamic flow than asymmetric one. Doesn’t matter if it’s a ball or a F-117. Predictable aerodynamics = better ability to control it. Better ability to control it = better ability to apply thought, aka strategy to it. You are yet to answer the point that how can a faster process with less reaction time give you greater ability to think and apply strategy to it. 

 

How many strategies are at a cricket batsmans disposal vs that of a baseball batter ? Name the various strokes please. 

A baseball can change direction twice like I said before, so what requires more staretgy to hit?

 

Let me simplify, does a walk in the park require more startegy or running a 100m dash?

[Muloghonto]

6 hours ago, Khota said:

A baseball can change direction twice like I said before, so what requires more staretgy to hit?

But cannot be controlled and repeated easily so it’s not strategy

6 hours ago, Khota said:

Let me simplify, does a walk in the park require more startegy or running a 100m dash?

Walk. Less time equals less strategy. Name the batting strokes as I asked. 

[Vilander]

7 hours ago, Khota said:

A baseball can change direction twice like I said before, so what requires more staretgy to hit?

 

Let me simplify, does a walk in the park require more startegy or running a 100m dash?

understand strategy and tactics, strategy in baseball is often done outside in the dugout, while strategy is done by coach and then evolved by captain on the field in cricket.

 

IMO fundamental difference is this.

 

Strategy:

bowling or throwing repeated action of the sport is attack in cricket and defense in baseball.

 

Batting which is higher risk play ( probably of out/strikeout or caught ) and examination from other trade of (bowling or throwing) is defense in cricket and offence in baseball.

 

so it appears baseball mostly is contested in the domain of tactics applied to achieve an objective with a well set strategy  with need to sharpen tactics during the play where attacker is rewarded with score for superior attack of the ball, cricket is contested in the domain of Strategy evolution as well as tactics,( with the bowlers who are the attackers on to a defender who is the batter who is rewarded for his great defense with score or more playtime, and bowlers have the extended time to plan a through examination of the defenders).

 

Tactics:

its just semantics, i think what you are trying to say is Baseball batting needs more tactical nous , which can be scientifically argued as well cricket bat is wider and baseball is narrower for baseball which is larger but not by same margin perhaps.  But cricket batters score more runs anyway, so it mostly cancels out but we could give benefit of doubt that baseball batting needs more tactical nous of hitting, but then cricket has batting all around the ground not just  'hitting' in the arc or the V which is where baseball is 'hit.

 

you are comparing a Tank squad leaders tactics to a generals campaign strategy basically. 

 

So mulog will keep playing with you and destroying you.

 

[Khota]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

But cannot be controlled and repeated easily so it’s not strategy

Walk. Less time equals less strategy. Name the batting strokes as I asked. 

So much pride that you cannot even see the absurd statements you make.

[Khota]

5 minutes ago, Vilander said:

understand strategy and tactics, strategy in baseball is often done outside in the dugout, while strategy is done by coach and then evolved by captain on the field in cricket.

 

IMO fundamental difference is this.

 

Strategy:

bowling or throwing repeated action of the sport is attack in cricket and defense in baseball.

 

Batting which is higher risk play ( probably of out/strikeout or caught ) and examination from other trade of (bowling or throwing) is defense in cricket and offence in baseball.

 

so it appears baseball mostly is contested in the domain of tactics applied to achieve an objective with a well set strategy  with need to sharpen tactics during the play where attacker is rewarded with score for superior attack of the ball, cricket is contested in the domain of Strategy evolution as well as tactics,( with the bowlers who are the attackers on to a defender who is the batter who is rewarded for his great defense with score or more playtime, and bowlers have the extended time to plan a through examination of the defenders).

 

Tactics:

its just semantics, i think what you are trying to say is Baseball batting needs more tactical nous , which can be scientifically argued as well cricket bat is wider and baseball is narrower for baseball which is larger but not by same margin perhaps.  But cricket batters score more runs anyway, so it mostly cancels out but we could give benefit of doubt that baseball batting needs more tactical nous of hitting, but then cricket has batting all around the ground not just  'hitting' in the arc or the V which is where baseball is 'hit.

 

you are comparing a Tank squad leaders tactics to a generals campaign strategy basically. 

 

So mulog will keep playing with you and destroying you.

 

Anyone who thinks walking requires more strategy than 100 m dash needs outside help to discuss.

[Muloghonto]

3 minutes ago, Khota said:

So much pride that you cannot even see the absurd statements you make.

There is no absurdity in the statement, I can actually quote Olympians on this. Slower the activity, more time to think and more strategies at play.

why are you running away from mentioning different strokes in baseball hitting vs batting ?

[Vilander]

one thing to add though. similarity between cirkcet and baseball is that one run of play is seldom seen impacting the final win/loss scenario like base tactical games like soccer for instance. in that sense, say a cricket captains strategy and a baseball managers strategy often goes through thorough examination.

Edited October 26, 2019 by Vilander

[Khota]

14 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

There is no absurdity in the statement, I can actually quote Olympians on this. Slower the activity, more time to think and more strategies at play.

why are you running away from mentioning different strokes in baseball hitting vs batting ?

I am not running away from anything.

 

Now that the topic has been dumbed down to your level please explain to me why is there more startegy involved in walking then 100m dash.? 

[Khota]

2 minutes ago, Vilander said:

one thing to add though. similarity between cirkcet and baseball is that one run of play is seldom seen impacting the final win/loss scenario like base tactical games like soccer for instance. in that sense, say a cricket captains strategy and a baseball managers strategy often goes through through examination.

Baseball is complex. Very complex. Every person placed on the oufiled is a result of analytics not bythe whims and fancies of a captain. They let cooler heads make the decision rather than a captain on the field who has very little oxygen going to his brain. I am the biggest cricket fan in the world but the first one to admit that a double play in baseball happens at speed of light whereas there is nothing like that in cricket.

[Muloghonto]

5 minutes ago, Khota said:

I am not running away from anything.

 

Now that the topic has been dumbed down to your level please explain to me why is there more startegy involved in walking then 100m dash.? 

Because the greater amount of time taken to achieve the goal gives more time to use ones brain, aka strategy.

If you are not running away, please tell me the various hitting strokes in baseball and how many there are in cricket.

[Muloghonto]

4 minutes ago, Khota said:

Baseball is complex. Very complex. Every person placed on the oufiled is a result of analytics not bythe whims and fancies of a captain. They let cooler heads make the decision rather than a captain on the field who has very little oxygen going to his brain. I am the biggest cricket fan in the world but the first one to admit that a double play in baseball happens at speed of light whereas there is nothing like that in cricket.

This does not change the fact that there are far less options and therefore strategy at the disposal of the batter and the pitcher due to less things achievable with the ball and bat in baseball. Something happening at speed of light means there is far less strategy and far more instinct at play.

[Khota]

52 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

This does not change the fact that there are far less options and therefore strategy at the disposal of the batter and the pitcher due to less things achievable with the ball and bat in baseball. Something happening at speed of light means there is far less strategy and far more instinct at play.

You need more startegy to counter something happening fast.

like I said running is more complex than walking.

 

[Vilander]

1 hour ago, Khota said:

Baseball is complex. Very complex. Every person placed on the oufiled is a result of analytics not bythe whims and fancies of a captain. They let cooler heads make the decision rather than a captain on the field who has very little oxygen going to his brain. I am the biggest cricket fan in the world but the first one to admit that a double play in baseball happens at speed of light whereas there is nothing like that in cricket.

Complex in terms of what ?