Your Top Ten One-Day International BOWLERS of all-time

[Francis]

That is wrong, plain and simple. Statistics, such as average, strike rate and economy rate, tell what has happened over the course of a bowlers career. You can't logically deny that they are facts.

I was just going through this thread in-depth when I stumbled across what Perm said here.

To me, that kind of thinking is everything that's wrong about cricket fans psycho-analyzing and over-thinking cricketers contributions. Stats are not facts. They do not tell you what happened over the course of a bowlers career. Stats are an attempt to somewhat guage how good someone is, but they don't discriminate against thousands of scenarios that influence them.

Every bowler I mentioned had some incredible performances like that...

None that were consistently done on the big stage when it mattered.

Take for example Waqar....What an incredible performer with the ball he was...

... and one of the greatest ever as well.

And yet no one will say he was almost as good as Akram or better than Warne.....the only reason is the 7 letter word 'glamour'.

I'll say he's in the same league as Warne and Akram. I think Akram is better, but not because of glamour or any crap like that. I think Akram the best because in my mind he was the most successful bowler.

 

[weldone]

How are you going to argue that with Shaun Pollock in your top 5?

How can you argue that?In ODI Shaun Pollock has many more wickets than Warne, at a lower average and a much much lower strike rate..... Some people who attach much importance to glamour and not facts, can compare Pollock in ODI to Warne, but I can't.

 

[weldone]

To me, that kind of thinking is everything that's wrong about cricket fans psycho-analyzing and over-thinking cricketers contributions. Stats are not facts. They do not tell you what happened over the course of a bowlers career. Stats are an attempt to somewhat guage how good someone is, but they don't discriminate against thousands of scenarios that influence them.

No I have no probs with what Perm said....A scorecard might not tell what kind of performer a player is, but hundreds of scorecards, when taken together, gives an idea.

Of course stats might not tell you what kind of player a person is/was, but it tells what kind of performer one is/was. Thousands of people might say Graeme Hick was a world-class player in the same rank with Sachin and Lara according to them and I have no problem with their personal choice. But if they say he was a world-class performer then I would have some problem because stats don't suggest that.

 

[weldone]

None that were consistently done on the big stage when it mattered.
.

If you want to rank bowlers based on performances on the big stage like World Cup semi-finals and finals then that won't be a ranking of best ODI bowlers, but a ranking of best performers in World Cup semi-finals and finals only.

 

[Ikki]

How can you argue that?In ODI Shaun Pollock has many more wickets than Warne, at a lower average and a much much lower strike rate..... Some people who attach much importance to glamour and not facts, can compare Pollock in ODI to Warne, but I can't.

Wrong. His average is only 0.87 run/runs better but his SR is 3.5 balls worse.

This is still disregarding the fact that Warne was much better than Pollock on the highest stage of all...consistently.

 

[Ikki]

If you want to rank bowlers based on performances on the big stage like World Cup semi-finals and finals then that won't be a ranking of best ODI bowlers, but a ranking of best performers in World Cup semi-finals and finals only.

That's akin to saying: "When you compare players and how they did against the best sides, you're not talking about how good they are overall, but just against the best sides".

 

[weldone]

This is still disregarding the fact that Warne was much better than Pollock on the highest stage of all...consistently.

Sorry, I meant the economy rate, not the strike rate. I think in ODI's the total no. of wickets, average and economy rate are the three most important factors, even more important than strike rate. And in all those 3 factors Pollock's performance is much better than Warne.

 

[weldone]

That's akin to saying: "When you compare players and how they did against the best sides, you're not talking about how good they are overall, but just against the best sides".

Yeah absolutely I mean that....A good bowler must not only bowl well to Lara, Tendulkar or Ponting but he must also have lethal skills to demolish weaker batting sides within as little time as possible....If a bowler takes 40 overs to take 2 wickets against Bangladesh I don't call him a good bowler, you may.

 

[Ikki]

Sorry, I meant the economy rate, not the strike rate. I think in ODI's the total no. of wickets, average and economy rate are the three most important factors, even more important than strike rate. And in all those 3 factors Pollock's performance is much better than Warne.

Um, no he's not. The only thing he has quite better than Warne is ER. Whilst Warne's SR is equally superior in comparison to Pollock's ER. The only thing then it comes down to is 0.87 runs per wicket. Which is ridiculous if you're basing the difference on that.

Yeah absolutely I mean that....A good bowler must not only bowl well to Lara, Tendulkar or Ponting but he must also have lethal skills to demolish weaker batting sides within as little time as possible....If a bowler takes 40 overs to take 2 wickets against Bangladesh I don't call him a good bowler, you may.

But here's the point: those players do very well against the lesser sides so what should separate them is doing better against the superior sides.

If two bowlers have pretty much the same record, but one does a bit better against weaker sides and one does a bit better against the best sides then it's really not much of a discussion. It would be better to have someone do average against weak sides and be excellent against the best sides than have a guy who is average against the best sides and excellent against the poorer ones.

 

[weldone]

Um, no he's not. The only thing he has quite better than Warne is ER. Whilst Warne's SR is equally superior in comparison to Pollock's ER. The only thing then it comes down to is 0.87 runs per wicket. Which is ridiculous if you're basing the difference on that.

What about the greater number of wickets? What if Pollock played much less ODI (like Warne) and got less number of wickets with similar record?...Won't you give him any credit for toiling hard for that extra 100 wickets with better records (ok according to you similar records) than Warne?

But here's the point: those players do very well against the lesser sides so what should separate them is doing better against the superior sides.

If two bowlers have pretty much the same record, but one does a bit better against weaker sides and one does a bit better against the best sides then it's really not much of a discussion. It would be better to have someone do average against weak sides and be excellent against the best sides than have a guy who is average against the best sides and excellent against the poorer ones.

ya that's true...but only in case their overall record is pretty similar

 

[Engle]

Warne's worth and value to an ODI team would be far greater than SPollocks, simply because medium-paced seamers abound, whereas decent spinners are few and far between.

 

[Ikki]

What about the greater number of wickets? What if Pollock played much less ODI (like Warne) and got less number of wickets with similar record?...Won't you give him any credit for toiling hard for that extra 100 wickets with better records (ok according to you similar records) than Warne?

Why would I give him any extra credit there? He played 104 more matches and got only 94 more wickets. That's not even a wicket a match. Not a great feat there.

Regardless, he got more wickets because he played more. It's not much more than that.

ya that's true...but only in case their overall record is pretty similar

And their records are pretty similar. So how can you say Pollock is eligible for top 5 but Warne isn't? And then, as you mention above, it is applicable to rate these kinds of performances and in the toughest of all tournaments Warne is almost unparalleled.

 

[Francis]

No I have no probs with what Perm said....A scorecard might not tell what kind of performer a player is, but hundreds of scorecards, when taken together, gives an idea.

They give an idea, you're right. Facts prove things conclusively. Obviously if a bowler has an average of 30 and another 20, then the 20 bowler is better, but a couple of runs...? Nope. If a bowler has an average of 22 and another 24, that means literally nothing to me. Stats haven't proved a thing.

NOTE: I wasn't using any cricketers there as an example. Just saying that stats aren't facts that prove who's better. They don't show anything conclusively.

If you want to rank bowlers based on performances on the big stage like World Cup semi-finals and finals then that won't be a ranking of best ODI bowlers, but a ranking of best performers in World Cup semi-finals and finals only.

Those were just the tip of the iceberg. I remember Warne bowling at the death in 1998 (or '99) against SA and getting the winning wicket that saved a certain loss. Basically I was just listing the most obvious ones. I really shouldn't have to say Warne was a big match performer.

 

[weldone]

If a bowler has an average of 22 and another 24, that means literally nothing to me. Stats haven't proved a thing.

Of course it has. It means if both the bowlers take 500 wickets each, then the bowler with average 22 does it conceding 11000 runs and the bowler with average 24 does it conceding 12000 runs. So a difference of 1000 runs conceded without the difference of a single wicket. That conveys a message to me, maybe not to you.

 

[Days of Grace]

That's over a very, very long period of time though isn't it?

 

[Days of Grace]

Pollock deserves a enormous kudos, because somehow, in this era of Haydens and Gilchrists, he has kept his E/R around 3.7, and it hasn't even gone up since 2000, when all this bashing and crashing began.

 

[pasag]

They give an idea, you're right. Facts prove things conclusively. Obviously if a bowler has an average of 30 and another 20, then the 20 bowler is better, but a couple of runs...? Nope. If a bowler has an average of 22 and another 24, that means literally nothing to me. Stats haven't proved a thing.

NOTE: I wasn't using any cricketers there as an example. Just saying that stats aren't facts that prove who's better. They don't show anything conclusively.

Agree very, very strongly with the above.

 

[Days of Grace]

Stats are nothing if not facts.

Fact: Player A took 250 wickets. He conceded 20 runs for each wicket taken.

That's a fact, is it not?

 

[pasag]

Stats are nothing if not facts.

Fact: Player A took 250 wickets. He conceded 20 runs for each wicket taken.

That's a fact, is it not?

The conclusions you draw from those stats are not facts, however.

 

[weldone]

Regardless, he got more wickets because he played more. It's not much more than that.

So if he played 94 matches less with the same average and the same economy rate then you would have respected him the same way as you do now as an ODI bowler? Then there is no reward for his taking the pain of playing that extra amount of cricket?........What you said is equivalent to saying "If two players make 11500 runs and 4500 runs respectively with the same average 55.46 then they should be considered equal performers". ....Ridiculous.