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

[smash84]

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*

It could mean that but it doesn't. When SA choke Kallis goes too. He isn't usually the last man standing in such cases. Might have happened rarely but not usually.

 

[Cevno]

No way is Watson a better batsmen than Lance Klusener in ODI's already.

Neither is he a better bowler than Klusener.

 

[smash84]

Just going by looking at stats

Shane Watson | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo

Mohammad Sami | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo

Sami and Watson are very similar bowlers.

 

[vcs]

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

He will be if he goes on at his current rate.

 

[Maximus0723]

And No. Waqar's ER is 4.68

No, Sami's ER is 4.91.

Dev and Imran used to open the bowling for their sides

This is why I said they are still better bowlers.

Do you honestly think that Watson is in that same league?

He probably is in the league of Kapil. He definitely is in the league of Klusener and Kallis.
I said he is not in the league of Pollock.

 

[Maximus0723]

He will be if he goes on at his current rate.

Watson is already a better bat even if you look at Kallis's record of first 118 ODIs.

 

[Cevno]

Watson is not better than Klusener or Kapil at the moment,whatever the statistics might say.

 

[smash84]

This is why I said they are still better bowlers.

He probably is in the league of Kapil. .

Kapil could open the bowling for most ODI sides and bowl for them in the death overs. Do you think Watson is capable of doing that?????

 

[Cevno]

ODI cricket Till the end of 90's and from 2002/3 onwards (except exceptions) is hardly comparable statistically and are almost seperate entities.

 

[smash84]

Watson is already a better bat even if you look at Kallis's record of first 118 ODIs.

Watson could not even cement his place into the Aussies side for a long time since the others were so good and he was quite ordinary. Only now when so many good players have left the scene has he been able to get a place for himself in the side.

Like I said earlier despite being in the running for 10 years which you yourself mentioned he only recently got in. Which might also mean that he has improved but the bowling attacks of so many sides have gone down during the last decade.

The guys who used to play in the 80s and 90s had a lot more tough bowlers to face.

 

[smash84]

ODI cricket Till the end of 90's and from 2002/3 onwards (except exceptions) is hardly comparable statistically and are almost seperate entities.

True

 

[G.I.Joe]

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

Yes. Watson actually knows what the numbers on the gear stick mean.

 

[Maximus0723]

Emphasis put on ODIs in the 00's was higher then 80's.

 

[Maximus0723]

Kapil's SR of 44 as strike and death bowler (as you claim) is not very good.

 

[smash84]

ODI cricket Till the end of 90's and from 2002/3 onwards (except exceptions) is hardly comparable statistically and are almost seperate entities.

Emphasis put on ODIs in the 00's was higher then 80?'s.

so?

 

[Blaze 18]

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.

Good point, I agree entirely. If I had to pick one bowler for my all-time eleven out of Shaun Pollock and Glenn McGrath, I would pick the latter every single day of the week and twice on a Sunday. It makes absolutely no difference to me that Pollock is a better batsman or whatever. For that matter, I don't think the difference between the two (I am taking about their bowling here) is negligible in either format, whatever the statistics might say, but that is another debate for another day.

 

[smash84]

Good point, I agree entirely. If I had to pick one bowler for my all-time eleven out of Shaun Pollock and Glenn McGrath, I would pick the latter every single day of the week and twice on a Sunday. It makes absolutely no difference to me that Pollock is a better batsman or whatever. For that matter, I don't think the difference between the two (I am taking about their bowling here) is negligible in either format, whatever the statistics might say, but that is another debate for another day.

yes Blaze but the point is that you prefer McGrath because you think that there is not a negligible difference between the two. What if there was a negligible difference between the two???/

Let's say pick between Marshall and McGrath or between Ambrose and McGrath

 

[Blaze 18]

yes Blaze but the point is that you prefer McGrath because you think that there is not a negligible difference between the two. What if there was a negligible difference between the two???/

Let's say pick between Marshall and McGrath or between Ambrose and McGrath

Nah, I would pick McGrath even if the difference between him and Pollock as bowlers was negligible.

 

[zaremba]

Nah, I would pick McGrath even if the difference between him and Pollock as bowlers was negligible.

I haven't read the discussion leading up to this post, but that strikes me as a weird thing to say. When two bowlers are equally good as bowlers (or with only a negligible amount between them), surely the enormous difference in their batting skills becomes an important factor in choosing between them?

 

[Teja.]

I think the problem lies in people using their romantic perceptions of who they think based on their exploits deserves to be in the team rather than using the simple criteria of who adds more value to it.

Pollock>McG as a cricketer by a fair margin, IMHO.