As good/well as anyone

[diego94]

Naturally, I am quite familiar with the phrase "as good/well as anyone." Nonetheless, it would appear it sometimes has a different meaning than the one I would expect.

So, if I were told for example that "John is as good as anyone", I would understand that he is neither worse nor better than anyone. Correct? I assume.

However, I recently heard some football commentators describing a team saying: "They're just as good as anyone", and from the context I could infer that what they meant was that the team was actually better than the rest.

I thought I must be mistaken, but then today I read this article by Paolo Bandini on The Guardian which near the end goes: "It all adds up to an impressive collective, a team playing as well as anyone outside the top two." Again, what I get from this is that the team is essentially better than anyone outside the top two.

Now, my question is: is there really this, shall we say, idiomatic usage of the expression or they did not really mean what I have understood in the first place?

<Topic added to post, and line spacing provided, by moderator (Florentia52)>

 

[Myridon]

So, if I were told for example that "John is as good as anyone", I would understand that he is neither worse nor better than anyone. Correct?

You have a flaw in your assumption. If John is not better or worse than anyone, then everyone is exactly as good as John. Your logic means that all people must be equal.
John is as good as the best people. There may be many people who are worse than he is.

 

[Loob]

Hello diego94 - welcome to the forums!

You're right: there are two different ideas here.

One is straightforward, literal comparison: X is as good as Y.

The other is either praise or faint praise: X is among the best (where the best may be good or really not very good).

I'll come back when I think of a more coherent explanation....

 

[diego94]

Hi! First of all, thank you for your answers.

@Myridon I am sorry, I don't understand what you mean (but I am here to understand it). In such a context, and I realise my logic might be utterly wrong as far as the English language is concerned, "anyone" is completely synonymous with "everyone", which would make John exactly as good as anyone else, literally, not worse, not better.

If you could think of a couple of examples, that could be very helpful, thanks!

 

[Chasint]

I would say that this is a matter of mild hyperbole rather than strict logic. After all what does 'good' actually mean?

Scenario - A room contains 10 people.
John: You are a worthless human being.
Bill: How dare you say that? I'm as good as anyone in this room!

If we look at strict logic then Bill considers himself equal to the 'best' person in the room whoever that may be.

In terms of human interaction Bill could mean anything when he says 'good' - he probably means 'worthwhile'. But, what does worthwhile mean? That also is subjective.

Conversational 'as good as' is not clearly defined.

For a team, it could mean they are equally talented or they train an equal amount or they're nice people. It could mean they are good players but just subject to bad luck. Who knows?

 

[Myridon]

I am sorry, I don't understand what you mean (but I am here to understand it). In such a context, and I realise my logic might be utterly wrong as far as the English language is concerned, "anyone" is completely synonymous with "everyone", which would make John exactly as good as anyone else, literally, not worse, not better.

It is not that "as good as" has two meanings, but that "good" has many meanings.
The US Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal." That is regard to the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that sort of thing. John is as good as anyone (because everyone is equal under the law).
John can't play soccer at all. John is not as good as anyone, but the outstanding soccer players are as good as anyone. Everyone is not equally good at soccer.
All the teams in the league aren't equally good or there would be very little point in playing. A whole season of draws.

 

[diego94]

It is not that "as good as" has two meanings, but that "good" has many meanings.
The US Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal." That is regard to the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that sort of thing. John is as good as anyone (because everyone is equal under the law).
John can't play soccer at all. John is not as good as anyone, but the outstanding soccer players are as good as anyone. Everyone is not equally good at soccer.
All the teams in the league aren't equally good or there would be very little point in playing. A whole season of draws.

I did not intend to discuss the many meanings of the word "good"; in fact, the adjective "talented" would be equally suitable, in this case. I am simply trying to understand why one should say that a team are "as good as" (or "talented" or "strong") instead of "better than" (or "more talented" or "stronger"). In particular, I am having a hard time trying to get who this "anyone" they are being compared to is. Obviously, it isn't possible that all the teams in the league are equally good, but that is just the point! I read the sentence as "Since they are as good as anyone, there is nothing to tell them from the others". Am I making my point any clearer?

 

[Davokiin]

@diego94

"Everyone" and "anyone" do not have the exact same meaning which is where you are having trouble understanding this statement made by the commentators.

You wouldn't hear a teacher say to the class: "Does "everyone" have a question?". The reason behind this is that "anyone" allows for individualism while "everyone" does not. "Anyone" refers to each person as an individual and not a collective; this allows for choice. Think about the questions: "Do you want any of these?" and "Do you want all of these?", which question allows for choice? "Any" allows for the speaker to make a selection.

"They`re just as good as anyone" means that we can select the individuals at the highest skill level for our comparison. We can select those individuals that are objectively better than everyone below them. Thinking from this viewpoint, we can see how the statement would mean "they can be better than almost every player because they are equal to the best".

I hope this makes sense! I know this is three years later, but please reply if you see this!