Shane Watson---the greatest odi player ever?

[kiwiviktor81]

I am halfway through running a series of simulations to determine who is the greatest ODI allrounder of all time. So far I've run nine players against each other, one of whom was Watson. My methodology was to stack a team with eleven clones of each allrounder and play them off against each other, 100 matches for every combination (see sig for a link to the page).

Watson did pretty well, he's currently in fourth place out of nine, narrowly behind Shaun Pollock and Andrew Flintoff and a fair distance behind Kapil Dev. What costs him from being better is his high bowling economy rate. He was able to put on some big scores but they got chased down by the players with high batting strike rates, if he couldn't bowl them out.

Watson's economy rate is 4.81, which is very high compared to the players ahead of him (Pollock 3.67, Flintoff 4.39, Dev 3.71). This means that against Dev and Pollock he leaks over 50 runs an innings in comparison. In a form of the game in which economy rate is so important, Watson is just too expensive to be considered the greatest player of all time IMO.

 

[Spark]

Completely different eras though. An ER of 4.81 isn't bad considering the era he played in.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

It balances out though, because that makes his batting strike rate less impressive. Dev striking at 95 in his era was pretty incredible.

 

[Spark]

They also played completely different roles. It's very, very dangerous to do a straight statistical analysis for ODIs.

 

[NUFAN]

It balances out though, because that makes his batting strike rate less impressive. Dev striking at 95 in his era was pretty incredible.

11 Watto's would easily face the full 50 overs so he could afford to 'go crazy' with a few of his dismissals. Would 11 Kapil's last 50 overs? Perhaps, but he wouldn't be able to bat too much differently to what he actually did.

I would be interested in seeing how someone like Afridi would go in this. Andew Symonds and Mark Waugh would be fun too as they would save some runs with excellent fielding and could offer some variety with the ball too.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Agreed. Perhaps a fairer way to do it would be to have two identical teams apart from the presence of each player, but that raises the problem that they batted in different places in the order.

Of course, stats don't tell the whole story anyway. I think Watson is definitely in line for ATG status.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Needs more time. for some reason I don't rate his bowling and always think of him as sixth bowler, more like a batsman who can bowl.

The response of a guy who plainly hasn't watched him bowl recently. Swings it both ways with great precision, and can bump up the pace to 140 for his quicker ball when he wants to.

He's also a total unbearable **** ftr.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

11 Watto's would easily face the full 50 overs so he could afford to 'go crazy' with a few of his dismissals. Would 11 Kapil's last 50 overs? Perhaps, but he wouldn't be able to bat too much differently to what he actually did.

I would be interested in seeing how someone like Afridi would go in this. Andew Symonds and Mark Waugh would be fun too as they would save some runs with excellent fielding and could offer some variety with the ball too.

To some extent the simulator accounts for this - the AI makes the batsmen more aggressive if fewer wickets have fallen. Because Watson (or the Watsons) often survived the first overs he was able to slog out at the end and often posted scores of 300+ even against tight bowlers like Pollock, Dev and Hadlee. As you pointed out, Dev didn't have this luxury as his average innings length was just over 25 balls. Still, 25 x 11 is just about a full complement of overs, even against someone with Watson's bowling SR of 36-odd.

I think Afridi will do well (when I get around to him) because of his freakish strike rate. Something that this simulation suggested was that strike rate is a bit undervalued in ODIs, and batting average a bit overvalued. At least by me. But Dev's batting, for his era, was pretty much the equivalent of what Afridi is now and his bowling is a lot better, so I still think Dev would win.

 

[Spikey]

i would have thought the biggest problem with a statistical analysis for Shane Watson v others is that he got fit and got moved to opener pretty much right when his prime started. So he doesn't really have the slow start some others might have cause he uh wasn't really playing

 

[Ikki]

I think if he plays an important role in a WC win then, yes, he would be.

 

[thierry henry]

Completely different eras though. An ER of 4.81 isn't bad considering the era he played in.

Yeah but as KV says it balances out. In modern terms Dev is the equivalent of someone with an ER of, say, 4.5 and a SR of 125. Amazing really.

 

[andyc]

Watson
Gilchrist (wk)
Ponting
Chappell
Hussey
Symonds
Bevan
Warne
Lee
Lillee
McGrath


??? Harsh on Mark Waugh to make way for Watson, but even at this stage, I'd say Watson offers more for that team than the younger Waugh twin would.

I posted this side a while ago which was virtually the same, albeit with Dean Jones or Mark Waugh in for Chappell at number 4. Had Bracken in for Lillee as well though I'm really not that fussed about it and no doubt a bit biased having actually seen Bracken.

The thing is that without Watson in that lineup, you've not really got much for your fifth bowling option; you don't want to be relying on 10 overs from Symonds and Bevan/Hussey every game.

 

[smash84]

I am halfway through running a series of simulations to determine who is the greatest ODI allrounder of all time. So far I've run nine players against each other, one of whom was Watson. My methodology was to stack a team with eleven clones of each allrounder and play them off against each other, 100 matches for every combination (see sig for a link to the page).

Watson did pretty well, he's currently in fourth place out of nine, narrowly behind Shaun Pollock and Andrew Flintoff and a fair distance behind Kapil Dev. What costs him from being better is his high bowling economy rate. He was able to put on some big scores but they got chased down by the players with high batting strike rates, if he couldn't bowl them out.

Watson's economy rate is 4.81, which is very high compared to the players ahead of him (Pollock 3.67, Flintoff 4.39, Dev 3.71). This means that against Dev and Pollock he leaks over 50 runs an innings in comparison. In a form of the game in which economy rate is so important, Watson is just too expensive to be considered the greatest player of all time IMO.

who were the other all rounders in your list?

 

[kiwiviktor81]

So far it's the four great allrounders of the 80s (Khan, Botham, Hadlee, Dev), plus Heath Streak, Shaun Pollock, Andrew Flintoff, Shane Watson and Chris Cairns. I suspect Jacques Kallis might do well but his strike rate isn't very good.

 

[benchmark00]

Needs more Ian Harvey.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Gavaskar used to be such an understated, untheatrical commentator back in the day. I remember his composed presence in the Prime Sports (now Star) box during the '92 WC alongside Brian Langley. Now he's just another senile old coot.

EDIT:Sorry tht was meant for the Donald thread.

 

[NasserFan207]

No way.

He doesn't bowl enough. I like him as a bowler but injuries have constrained his output. To put it simply, he hasn't been a good bowler long enough, and his batting doesn't make up for it.

 

[Ikki]

He averages about a wicket a game with a pretty good ER and bowls about 7 overs an inning. Unless you're comparing him with strictly front-line pacers then I'd say that's enough. I'd actually use his injuries to suggest that he is even better than his figures because how good he is has been hidden by his restricted input.

 

[Spikey]

the greatest odi player ever is probably a good fielder tbh

 

[NasserFan207]

He averages about a wicket a game with a pretty good ER and bowls about 7 overs an inning. Unless you're comparing him with strictly front-line pacers then I'd say that's enough. I'd actually use his injuries to suggest that he is even better than his figures because how good he is has been hidden by his restricted input.

He's only taken 138 wickets. An average of 29 pushing 30 isn't particularly special either.

Sorry, but I value longevity. He hasn't contributed enough for long enough to be considered anything like the 'best' ODI player ever. You can't 'discount' injuries either, they come with the player. Being injury prone is a negative trait, and counts against you.

If we compare with Kallis, he has a marginally worse bowling average yet almost double the number of wickets and almost three times as many runs at a significantly better average. They aren't even close, and ODIs aren't even Kallis' strong suit.