Best ever ODI bowler

[ankitj]

Perhaps. But a difference of 24 in head-to-head matches is too big to be compensated by any amount of titles.

 

[vcs]

Does anyone remember the Titan Cup in '96? Man, South Africa were properly robbed in that one, lost only the final out of the 7 or so games they played.

 

[vcs]

Perhaps. But a difference of 24 in head-to-head matches is too big to be compensated by any amount of titles.

H2H, no question Pak > India, though it is somewhat compensated by India beating them in the WCs.

However, to evaluate them overall as ODI sides, one must look at the overall win-loss record, and the titles won, IMO. Pak might have a good individual H2H against India but a bad one against another team, while India could be doing well against that team.

 

[smash84]

The C&U tri-series win by Pakistan in 1997 does not cancel out India's win in Australia after the World Cup because India won a tri-series in Australia in 2008.

If you are going to be counting every mama-papa series played in Sharjah then that is your prerogative. If you want to nit-pik you can throw in the fact that Pakistan have never beaten South Africa in an ODI series; India managed to do that earlier this year with a few of their first choice ODI players missing.

It is a never-ending debate - just like any other India vs Pakistan debate. I have no inclination to get into one. Like I said, you could make a fair case for either of the two sides; my post was just a reply to Akilana, who misunderstood my post.

My point is that Pakistan seems to have a stronger case if you give more weightage to H2H matches and W/L ratio (I have not calculated this ratio but I think it might be in Pak's favor. Not sure though. Could be the other way around) against other teams.

And yes I don't see why every mama papa sharjah cup shouldn't be cluded while you are including Asia Cup (where the only other team other than those at the Sharjah cup is Bangladesh). Your stats about ODI tournament finals gives a very misleading picture hence I had posted about those Sharjah cups.

And I don't want it to be an India-Pakistan debate either but while you are busy posting India's successes at the Asia Cup you might as well post Pakistan's victories at Sharjah to give a fairer picture.

 

[vcs]

Someone needs to post the overall ODI W/L stats to settle this argument. I suspect it will be comfortably, but not overwhelmingly in favour of Pakistan, and that pretty much reflects the difference between the two sides.

 

[smash84]

Perhaps. But a difference of 24 in head-to-head matches is too big to be compensated by any amount of titles.

I do agree. 24 matches is a huge difference. But it could have been accounted for had India's record with other teams been much better than Pakistan (which I think it probably is not). And I say again that I might be wrond.

As vcs suggests we would need to calculate w/l ratios for that.

 

[Blaze 18]

Someone needs to post the overall ODI W/L stats to settle this argument. I suspect it will be comfortably, but not overwhelmingly in favour of Pakistan, and that pretty much reflects the difference between the two sides.

1.20 to 1.04

 

[smash84]

1.20 to 1.04

That is a bit of a difference (assuming 1.20 is Pakistan).

 

[Blaze 18]

That is a bit of a difference (assuming 1.20 is Pakistan).

Yes, it is. If you want to dig deeper :

India have a better W/L ratio vs Australia, England, South Africa; Pakistan have a better W/L ratio against New Zealand, West Indies, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.

India also have a better W/L ration in Australia, England and South Africa.

It really depends on how you look at it

 

[Xuhaib]

Does anyone remember the Titan Cup in '96? Man, South Africa were properly robbed in that one, lost only the final out of the 7 or so games they played.

wonder how much money Hansie made from this.

 

[smash84]

Yes, it is. If you want to dig deeper :

India have a better W/L ratio vs Australia, England, South Africa; Pakistan have a better W/L ratio against New Zealand, West Indies, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.

India also have a better W/L ration in Australia, England and South Africa.

It really depends on how you look at it

So Pakistan have a better W/L ratio against 6 teams and India against 3 good teams??? And I also wonder how much of a difference is there in the ratios in these countries. I am guessing that the difference against 2 of these 3 teams will not be too much since the overall difference in ratios between India and Pak is quite big.

A difference of 16% is quite high unless Pak were playing a very high proportion of their matches against the minnows. Otherwise I really don't see how you can put India overall as the better team.

 

[Blaze 18]

Look, no offence but this is a pointless discussion. I will just sum up what I have already said earlier.


Someone insinuated that Pakistan were clearly the better ODI side because of their superior head-to-head record. I replied by saying that India have won a Champions Trophy and four Asia Cups more than Pakistan.

Following that, I was asked to include Sharjah matches also. The reason given was that the only difference between an Asia Cup and a tri-series in Sharjah was the presence of Bangladesh in the former. Personally, I feel that it is a moot point; but using that line of argument, India have won two World Cups because the only difference between a World Cup and a Champions Trophy is that minnows take part in the former. Even if you do not wish to count Asia Cups, you have to count Champions Trophy as it is an ICC tournament


Like I said, it really comes down to what you would rather have : An overall Win-Loss ration that is 0.16 better, or an ICC tournament more with a better Win-Loss ratio against the three stronger sides.

We could keep having this discussion till the comes come home; I doubt it would change anyone's view. By the way, I am not trying to "prove" that India are a better ODI side than Pakistan, but merely that they are quite close. Who you rate higher may just come down what you value more, like I have already mentioned. However, an all-time Pakistan side would beat an all-time Indian side in an ODI. That is it from me on this

 

[srkven]

Wasim Akram - Not that great in tests, but boy ODI - can't beat him, but maybe Joel Garner?

 

[miscer]

if garner can be judged the best based on 146 wickets i dont understand why shane bond cant, based on 147 wickets..?

Bond: 147 wickets, 20.88 ave, 29.2 strike rate, 11 4/5 wicket hauls, 4.28 economy in 80 innings
Garner: 146 wickets, 18.84 ave, 36.5 strike rate, 5 4/5 wicket hauls, 3.09 economy in 98 innings

so garner had a better average and was more economical. But Bond had a better strike rate and was more prolific.


Sounds kind of equal to me. Clear bias towards players who have long since retired because Bond isnt even in the poll lmfao.

 

[Blaze 18]

Wasim Akram - Not that great in tests, but boy ODI - can't beat him, but maybe Joel Garner?

What ?!

 

[Debris]

if garner can be judged the best based on 146 wickets i dont understand why shane bond cant, based on 147 wickets..?

Bond: 147 wickets, 20.88 ave, 29.2 strike rate, 11 4/5 wicket hauls, 4.28 economy in 80 innings
Garner: 146 wickets, 18.84 ave, 36.5 strike rate, 5 4/5 wicket hauls, 3.09 economy in 98 innings

so garner had a better average and was more economical. But Bond had a better strike rate and was more prolific.


Sounds kind of equal to me. Clear bias towards players who have long since retired because Bond isnt even in the poll lmfao.

Except you knew Garner was going to be fit to bowl. Advantage Garner.

 

[Athlai]

Except you knew Garner was going to be fit to bowl. Advantage Garner.

Not really, if you change the circumstances of his career you can't be sure of anything. If Bond played in his day he might have never missed a match. Judge them by the matches they played or not at all.

 

[Flem274*]

Bond's injury woes were mainly caused by tests anyway. In that 2007 onwards period he played a ****load of ODIs and there were no issues, but in the two tests he played he got injured.

 

[ankitj]

What ?!

Surprising but true.

EDIT: Another indicator

 

[smash84]

Surprising but true.

EDIT: Another indicator

what is surprising????