Best ever ODI bowler

[Ikki]

And that's the thing; Wasim has great longevity. For as good as Garner was, he only played 98 ODIs. I don't take a side, but that kind of discrepancy should be a talking point.

 

[smash84]

So how is he better then a player with 300 odd ODIs....( i don't remember the exact number of ODIs Akram played...) and more then 500 wickets...?

Or Murali for that matter...who probably beats Akram in those numbers....

IIRC Akram played 356 ODIs and Murali around about that number. Although I must say that Saqlain in his first 100 ODIs was awesome. 98 seems like a very small number of matches to me.

 

[smash84]

And that's the thing; Wasim has great longevity. For as good as Garner was, he only played 98 ODIs. I don't take a side, but that kind of discrepancy should be a talking point.

That's what I am thinking too. 98 is not a great number of ODI matches IMO.

 

[Migara]

Joel Garner is too much overrated as the best ODI bowlers.

For me,

1. Glenn McGrath
2. Muralitharan
3. Wasim Akram
4. Joel Garner
5. Curtely Ambrose

 

[Migara]

The 1993 tri-series highlights involving Pak, SA, and WI have to be seen to see Waqar's unplayable yorkers in ODIs at their best. Might be able to find those wickets on youtube.

That was a fast bowling orgy!

 

[Furball]

So how is he better then a player with 300 odd ODIs....( i don't remember the exact number of ODIs Akram played...) and more then 500 wickets...?

Or Murali for that matter...who probably beats Akram in those numbers....

By that logic, Chanderpaul is a better Test batsman than Bradman.

 

[Migara]

By that logic, Chanderpaul is a better Test batsman than Bradman.

That shows that you have not understood the logic.

 

[Faisal1985]

By that logic, Chanderpaul is a better Test batsman than Bradman.

Test Batting not the same as ODI bowling...

 

[tooextracool]

And that's the thing; Wasim has great longevity. For as good as Garner was, he only played 98 ODIs. I don't take a side, but that kind of discrepancy should be a talking point.

Not to be rude, but quite frankly this argument holds 0 value. Garner is a victim of circumstance, Wasim played in an era where ODIs were if anything overplayed and therefore had the opportunity to play a lot more than someone like Garner. Holding that against him is like saying that Border is a better player than Bradman because he played more tests conveniently forgetting the fact that Bradman missed out on god knows how many tests due to the war.

 

[smash84]

That shows that you have not understood the logic.

 

[Howe_zat]

By that logic, Chanderpaul is a better Test batsman than Bradman.

Hence the difference between "logic" and "valid opinion". The former rarely exists in sporting fan conjecture and indeed has no place.

 

[Ikki]

Not to be rude, but quite frankly this argument holds 0 value. Garner is a victim of circumstance, Wasim played in an era where ODIs were if anything overplayed and therefore had the opportunity to play a lot more than someone like Garner. Holding that against him is like saying that Border is a better player than Bradman because he played more tests conveniently forgetting the fact that Bradman missed out on god knows how many tests due to the war.

But was Garner that good to assume he'd keep at the same rate? How do we know that had he bowled more his figures wouldn't have suffered? Conversely, how do we know Wasim couldn't have been even better if he had played less?

And the Bradman argument is just wrong. Bradman played for 20 years, longevity is not an issue. Also, his average is so far higher than anyone else it's not really a concern.

Wasim played 3.5 times as many ODIs as Garner for almost twice as long (almost 20 years).

Garner may have been better but I do think it's not that clear cut.

 

[tooextracool]

But was Garner that good to assume he'd keep at the same rate? How do we know that had he bowled more his figures wouldn't have suffered? Conversely, how do we know Wasim couldn't have been even better if he had played less?

And the Bradman argument is just wrong. Bradman played for 20 years, longevity is not an issue. Also, his average is so far higher than anyone else it's not really a concern.

Wasim played 3.5 times as many ODIs as Garner for almost twice as long (almost 20 years).

Garner may have been better but I do think it's not that clear cut.

I dont think it is clear cut at all. But given that Garner played in a different time period in ODIs, I'd prefer not to judge because there is no accurate way to compare the 2. Its like comparing one player in tests to another in ODIs. With the exception of Richards, the majority of ODI players in the 70s and early 80s played ODI cricket like test cricket.

All we know is that Garner was head and shoulders above pretty much every ODI bowler of his time. Everything else is pure speculation.

 

[akilana]

Go on then, I'll hoist my colours.

Tendulkar
Gilchrist
Ponting
Lara
Richards
Bevan
Flintoff
Pollock
Wasim Akram
Garner
Muralitharan

Flintoff was stunning in ODIs. Arguably England's best ever one-day bowler in his own right, and would often bat in the middle order with a strike rate of nearly 90.

Like your team but would have Klusener in place of Flintoff though.

 

[sifter132]

But was Garner that good to assume he'd keep at the same rate? How do we know that had he bowled more his figures wouldn't have suffered?.

Well Uppercut laid out the man's credentials:

In spite of the fact that batting was a lot less aggressive when Garner played, he took wickets almost exactly as often as Wasim did- every 36 balls- and, of course, conceded quite considerably less runs. He actually averaged 16 in List A games, with an E/R of 2.9. To go with his test average of 20 and FC average of 18. This was a bowler who pretty much never bowled a bad spell.

Given what Garner did in the rest of his career I think it's an insult to ask your question really. The guy was a GREAT bowler, he just didn't get to play in many games.

Speaking statistically, of course you want your sample sizes to be as large as possible, but 98 games and 140-odd wickets is still a lot of data to count. Guys have been labelled ATGs with less. This is why I hate Tendulkar and Murali - we now have these expectations that ATG players have to play for 15-20 years and play hundreds of matches. I don't think that's necessary to prove someone was great. It helps, but longevity is only part of greatness to me.

 

[smash84]

All we know is that Garner was head and shoulders above pretty much every ODI bowler of his time. Everything else is pure speculation.

Mat Inns Balls Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 4w 5w 10
RJH 115 112 6182 3407 158 5/25 5/25 21.56 3.30 39.1 1 5 0
Gar 98 98 5330 2752 146 5/31 5/31 18.84 3.09 36.5 2 3 0

There is a comparison between Hadlee and Garner. The difference doesn't seem to be as great as we might think.

 

[akilana]

then Graeme Pollock is an ATG

 

[smash84]

then Graeme Pollock is an ATG

?

 

[marc71178]

Mat Inns Balls Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 4w 5w 10
RJH 115 112 6182 3407 158 5/25 5/25 21.56 3.30 39.1 1 5 0
Gar 98 98 5330 2752 146 5/31 5/31 18.84 3.09 36.5 2 3 0

There is a comparison between Hadlee and Garner. The difference doesn't seem to be as great as we might think.

Apart from Garner striking quicker whilst being more economical and hence having a much better record you mean?

 

[Uppercut]

And the Bradman argument is just wrong. Bradman played for 20 years, longevity is not an issue. Also, his average is so far higher than anyone else it's not really a concern.

I'm going to go off on a bit of a mathematical tangent here. Garner's average is really a lot better than Wasim's. Five runs doesn't seem a huge amount, but bowling averages don't change linearly, so once the averages get that good, it kinda is.

It's a little more obvious if you look at their respective strike rates and economy rates. Garner was conceding a good 25% less runs than Wasim, while taking almost exactly the same number of wickets. That's a good ten runs a match less that your batsmen have to chase down. Obviously it's not comparable to Bradman's statistical dominance, but it's pretty significant.

I don't think it's a good idea to go down the statistical route in ODIs, but I thought it was worth pointing out.