CW's 50 Best ODI Cricketers of all time - The Countdown

[Cevno]

But the question here is that is Kallis a better all rounder than Watson. Pollock is better than Kallis is a given if you consider bowling all rounders to be more valuable than batting allrounders..

I don't actually.

And In ODI'S it is usually the other way round.

But i don't see Kallis as a good enough Batsmen in ODI's despite his average to make the very top category.

And in ODI's there are a number of very high quality batsmen who have been decent bowlers.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Fix'd

Pollock is extremely over rated with the bat. He's a wonderful bowler, but nowhere near the top 5 ODI cricketers of all time.

 

[Maximus0723]

Pollock is extremely over rated with the bat. He's a wonderful bowler, but nowhere near the top 5 ODI cricketers of all time.

This.

 

[Cevno]

uh, look at the not outs. Also, Watson is opener, Klusener isn't.

Looking at stats closely? Hmm, well, go down this page at the bottom and look at his number at 1st and 2nd position.

Watson - 118 ODI - 11 MoM
Kapil Dev - 238 ODI - 11 MoM
I Khan - 174 ODI - 13 MoM
Klusener - 171 ODI - 19 MoM

He doesn't lag behind quite a bit.

I rate Watson highly.

But MOM usually goes to the winning side, and so it depends on how succesful your side has been too.

 

[vcs]

Yeah, personally, I don't buy the "allrounder > specialist if he's close to the top in his preferred discipline" ideology either. Neither in ODIs nor in Tests. I would have McGrath over Pollock as an ODI cricketer.

 

[Maximus0723]

True. But he is not too close to Imran or Kapil in terms of bowling.

Kapil - SR (44) - ECO (3.7) - AVG (27.5)
Watson - SR (34) (lol) - ECO (4.9) (not bad in modern times) - AVG (28.5)

They are comparable.

 

[Cevno]

Pollock is extremely over rated with the bat. He's a wonderful bowler, but nowhere near the top 5 ODI cricketers of all time.

I agree.

I won't say extremely overrated though.

For me Kallis's bowling and Pollock's batting both are a bit overrated.

Though Pollock was a very good bowler in Odi's and certainly a better bowler than Kallis was a batsman.

 

[Maximus0723]

I rate Watson highly.

But MOM usually goes to the winning side, and so it depends on how succesful your side has been too.

True, but that stat is backed up by his numbers, which should reduce that assumption by considerable margin. If he had average stats with above MoM numbers then we can look in seeing how important was he for his team.

 

[smash84]

uh, look at the not outs. Also, Watson is opener, Klusener isn't. .

And Watson played most of his cricket in an era when the top quality bowing attacks have all but vanished. Klusener made his name against the best.

Like you said that Watson has been around for 10 years and only recently has been able to break through into the Aussie side since he just wasn't as good before. Watson's average is probably higher as an opener than Mark Waugh but he isn't a better batsman than Mark Waugh. Watson has had the advantage of facing some of the ****iest bowling attacks ever.

 

[Cevno]

watson is a better batsman than kapil/imran/klusenser already imo.

dwta.

Klusener was a gun batsmen in ODI's ,so was Kapil.

Imran later on became very good too.

 

[smash84]

Kapil - SR (44) - ECO (3.7) - AVG (27.5)
Watson - SR (34) (lol) - ECO (4.9) (not bad in modern times) - AVG (28.5)

They are comparable.

Mohammad Sami also has an ER of 4.9. That is not very good.

 

[Cevno]

And Watson played most of his cricket in an era when the top quality bowing attacks have all but vanished. Klusener made his name against the best.

Like you said that Watson has been around for 10 years and only recently has been able to break through into the Aussie side since he just wasn't as good before. Watson's average is probably higher as an opener than Mark Waugh but he isn't a better batsman than Mark Waugh. Watson has had the advantage of facing some of the ****iest bowling attacks ever.

Klusener's numbers are second to Only Sachin and maybe Bevan in the charts of (SR and Average) batsmen in the 90's.

 

[Cevno]

Yeah, personally, I don't buy the "allrounder > specialist if he's close to the top in his preferred discipline" ideology either. Neither in ODIs nor in Tests. I would have McGrath over Pollock as an ODI cricketer.

Agree.

Though Pollock and Mcgrath are extremely hard to split in ODI's for me.


Also i don't subscribe to relying fully on stats in Test Cricket ,let alone something as Dynamic as ODI cricket where the game is evolving every few years.
You just can't rely on stats fully in ODI cricket at all.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Pollock is extremely over rated with the bat. He's a wonderful bowler, but nowhere near the top 5 ODI cricketers of all time.

Haha, I just realised I voted Pollock in at #3 in the list I submitted for the CW Top 50 exercise. Oh well.

 

[smash84]

Though Pollock and Mcgrath are extremely hard to split in ODI's for me.
.

Exactly. And when two players bring so much to the table with one of their disciplines you are bound to question what more can they bring. And if someone brings in a good part of another discipline then that means more value to the team. IMO

 

[Maximus0723]

Mohammad Sami also has an ER of 4.9. That is not very good.

Again, stupid arguments.

Waqar has ECO of 4.8, so he is like Sami? um no.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Yes but that is a big achievement considering that he comes in at number 3 and still has so many not outs. If anything that is a big plus.

His SR might be lower than a lot of batsmen but he can keep his wicket.

That doesn't necessarily hold true for a South African. It could just mean they and had a well set batsman undismissed at an end, but they still managed to screw up and lose the game. *choke*

On a serious note, Kallis's reputation for costing his team matches due to his his inability to pace his innings well isn't entirely unfounded. For instance, Kallis getting dismissed cheaply and quickly in the 434 game was the best thing to happen to them that day.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Watson beats both Kallis and Klusener in bat and bowl.
Matter of fact, he beats everyone in bat. He comprehensively beats Pollock, Dev and Khan in bat.
By notable margin, in bowl he looses to Pollock. But his numbers are similar and probably comparable to Dev and Khan but, Khan and Dev are still better at bowl.

I agree with this post in its entirity.

 

[smash84]

Again, stupid arguments.

Waqar has ECO of 4.8, so he is like Sami? um no.

And No. Waqar's ER is 4.68

lol.........now you realize how stupid your arguments seemed....so you now get the point that just comparing raw figures without taking the context into account is not a great idea. That is what you seem to be doing by comparing Dev, Imran and Watson just on their raw numbers.

Dev and Imran used to open the bowling for their sides and bowl in the death overs. Waqar used to bowl in the death overs. I haven't seen Shane Watson bowl as much in the death overs to say that he is comparable. Also the quality of the opposition and the quality of batsmen dismissed matters. Imran, Kapil, and Waqar could be relied to get the best batsman out or to keep them in check. Do you honestly think that Watson is in that same league?????

 

[smash84]

I agree with this post in its entirity.

You think that Watson is a better ODI batsman than Kallis??????