What would you rather be: Master Strategist or Super Skillful?

In honour of this my own thread, it got me thinking.

If you had a choice between being:

a) Super skillful in a generalistic way (meaning that to every type of action/art you are adept at manouvering/playing it)


b) Master Strategist (this includes being masterful at tactics - so basically both long-term and short-term planning and the How/When/Why/Where(s))

Which would you be?

Let’s say a genie gave you a choice to be one of them. He told you that if you were a), it would not necessarily undermine your strategic planning (i.e. you could improve your tactics+strategy, however you would never be as good as a) - or anywhere in the same league).

But this also applied to being b) (i.e. you would be a masterful planner in everyway, however you would never be in the same caliber of skillfullness as a)).

So which is it gonna be?

Any sports analogies (where a team with greater skill but less strategy or vice versa won) or field analogies of any type (war/arts&crafts/poker etc.) are welcome.

Give totally your own personal take on the matter.

I am not quite sure what you are trying. Strategy and skill are not mutually exclusive.

Do notice one thing: at the very top level of sport competition, skill pretty much levels out, so strategy plays a very important part. This includes individual and team sports, but particularly for team sports.

After saying that, I will choose to be a master strategist. For example, as a football (soccer to some of you) manager, there is no lack of talent these days. The important thing is a coherent plan of building a team, and the versatility of fielding the players during the games.

If you’re exceptionally skillful there’s probably more career stability. Even a masterful strategist is likely to make a mistake, and if he’s dealing with large sums of money or with armies while at war, this can be devestating and he could get kicked to the curb.