Something like this implicitly misses the point that one of the harder things to overcome when trying to do theoretical physics are the details of how research is done. This is the main point of having a PhD-level adviser and research group: to be able to get through the difficult parts that require intuition and very-specific domain expertise. These are not necessarily difficult or too technical, but they are obscure (e.g. how to get MadEvent and MadGraph up and running).
If all you care about is learning some physics, then this is great. But to really do theoretical physics the best way still seems to be to have an apprenticeship with someone who already does it.
Thanks for the kind words - although many people have commented that I've missed out some discussion on Statistical Physics. That is the first thing to correct.
As it happens, Physics is not my main discipline. I did Maths, then Aero (CFD). I did get by with enough Cosmology/Quantum Mechanics at undergrad to be able to pick up some advanced undergrad/grad level texts however.
I can certainly agree that some of the more obscure aspects of compressible flow solvers would have been very difficult to grasp, if I hadn't been able to question my supervisor on the topic.
I visited the MadEvent/MadGraph wiki. I can see it is related to particle physics and symmetry models, but what does it do, out of interest?
If all you care about is learning some physics, then this is great. But to really do theoretical physics the best way still seems to be to have an apprenticeship with someone who already does it.