Greatest ODI batsman of all time

[ankitj]

Another stat: In wins, Brian Lara averages 61 at a strike rate of 86. Anwar averages 51 at a strike rate of 84.

Tempted to make a long post about how average in wins means nothing at all, but running for lunch right now.

 

[smash84]

Ambrose as the best ODI bowler during 1995-2000....NOT

McGrath and Murali only started to really move ahead post 1999.

Only ones in contention with Saqlain during that time were pollock, wasim and donald.

Other than those 7000 runs lara had for long periods been very ordinary. Which is why he probably wouldn't make it in to most people's ODI ATXI

 

[smash84]

and you have Anwar scoring four and a half thousand runs at an average of 45 and SR of 84 in about 4 years at his peak

 

[hendrix]

Tempted to make a long post about how average in wins means nothing at all, but running for lunch right now.

Tempted to agree I just thought it was interesting because I'd guessed it would be the other way around. I remember Anwar as being a guy who would completely take the game away from the opposition.

It's probably more to do with the fact that Lara batting at 5 would've had a few more opportunities to get not outs.

 

[Prince EWS]

That really looks like too many batsmen to me. Pick someone who can bat reasonably but who can actually bowl for #7 IMO.

Flintoff.

 

[Prince EWS]

No mention of Lara in this thread (especially when we are discussing AT ODI XIs) is disappointing. Yes, he was a better batsman in test cricket overall perhaps but we so conveniently forget the first part of his ODI batting career. When he used to bat at top 3 (and he batted there for quite a few years) he was very very clearly the best ODI batsman in the world - miles ahead of Tendulkar. Later on he wanted to sacrifice his top-order spot for the team (which was a stupid decision as it didn't help the team either).

Some say his stats aren't good enough. OK here's a task for you:

Among all ODI batsmen of all-time make a list of batsmen who made 4000+ runs batting at top 3 with a 43+ average and a 80+ strike rate.

You think the list shouldn't be too tiny, don't you?

You will be surprised to know that the list comprises of only 2 names - Sachin Tendulkar and Brian Lara. You'll be more surprised to know this:

Even though they are the only 2 batsmen who scored 4000+ runs at top 3 with 43+ average and 80+ strike rate, they both actually scored 6000+ runs at top 3 with 45+ average and 81+ strike rate. So the point is even though they are the only 2 who make that list, they both make the list very comfortably. Lara was such an unstoppable force in the first part of his OD career.

Haha probably I bored you all with stats by now. But opening the innings with Lara and Tendulkar gives you a left-hand right-hand combination, and gives you an opening combination which is technically very solid in spite of being aggressive - something which can't be said about Jayasuriya or Gilchrist IMO. I shall rely more on such a technically solid opening combination when my team is up against top opening bowlers. Plus opening with Lara lets you play Dhoni at no. 6 and add someone like Klusener or Kapil at no. 7.

I see nothing wrong with this team for example:

Brian Lara
Sachin Tendulkar
Ricky Ponting / Zaheer Abbas
Viv Richards *
Michael Bevan
Mahendra Dhoni +
Lance Klusener
Wasim Akram
Joel Garner / Richard Hadlee
Glenn McGrath
Muttiah Muralitharan

If Kapil plays at 7 in place of Klusener, Pollock could be added at no. 8 dragging Wasim down to no. 9 and dropping the the Garner / Hadlee option altogether.

...but the main point stands.

I just don't think he did it for long enough compared to the alternatives. I also think there's probably something to the point ankit tried to make; it's quite possible he batted in the top three when he was seeing it like a beach ball to get the most out of himself and then slid down the order when he was struggling a little bit to take on a different role. In terms of averages and strike rates and such this gives him a massive advantage over the more proper opening alternatives who faced up first no matter what.

 

[Prince EWS]

Could be a lot worse, ITBT. Symonds/Bevan/Viv/Sachin (depending on selections) could probably split 10 reasonably well.

Well they could for a regular, stationary-in-time ODI team, but for picking this team to be actually be even slightly meaningful we have to assume there'd be a significant level jump from that. Playing against an equivalent side from another cricketing setup or a Second XI or something, there's no way I'd want ten overs to come from that lot. The idea of Flintoff or Kapil batting seven against an ATG bowling attack definitely sits better with me than the idea of Symonds and Viv having to get through ten overs bowling against the equivalent of themselves...

 

[weldone]

I just don't think he did it for long enough compared to the alternatives. I also think there's probably something to the point ankit tried to make; it's quite possible he batted in the top three when he was seeing it like a beach ball to get the most out of himself and then slid down the order when he was struggling a little bit to take on a different role. In terms of averages and strike rates and such this gives him a massive advantage over the more proper opening alternatives who faced up first no matter what.

6700 ODI runs and being world's absolute best batsman for 5 continuous years not long enough for you? Then you don't rate Bevan that high an ODI batsman may I assume?

And regarding his dip in form, that's a misconception. He was out of touch for 2-3 years alright, but he did come back strong in the later part of his career. If you look at his test career:
pre-1998: 4133 runs @ 51.66
1998 and after: 7820 runs @ 53.56

There's nothing to suggest that he declined permanently. He had a dip in form for 2 years. So even if he went down to no. 5 for poor form (I personally strongly believe that wasn't the reason - I can dig up some interesting facts to support that if contested), he could come back permanently to no. 3 or even opening when he regained his touch as a batsman....In fact, post-1998 also in limited occasions he played at no. 3 he did rather well, much better than what he managed at no. 4 or 5.

 

[hendrix]

Flintoff.

/klusener

 

[Prince EWS]

/klusener

Don't know about Klusener's bowling in a side like this really.

 

[Prince EWS]

6700 ODI runs and being world's absolute best batsman for 5 continuous years not long enough for you?

I just think no matter which way you look at it, he doesn't quite measure up to the alternatives. If you just want to consider the games he opened in then he was good but not for as long as the alternatives, and if you want to consider his entire career then he did it for long enough but wasn't as consistently good as the alternatives.

The point I was trying to make wasn't that he declined permanently, it was that his "batting in the top three" stats are inflated by the fact that he batted lower than that when he wasn't at his best. Not just at the start of his career or at the end of his career or anything like that when he can be given leeway for having such a long career anyway, but a patch right in the middle too. I think rather than showing he was a better top three batsman than he was lower down, it simply hides his poor patches a bit by excluding them. I don't think he performed worse because he was batting lower; his technique and temperament was very well suited to the middle order in ODIs, being such a great and dominating player of spin bowling. I'm not going to just ignore those matches when deciding whether he should be selected to bat in the top three, because I don't think the results were just an effect of where he was batting.

 

[Mike5181]

Flintoff's a much better bowler than Klusener, and there is always a need for someone to bowl in that fifth block. Do you really need a 40 average batsman at number seven? Wouldn't a guy with an average of 31 be sufficient to fulfill the needs of that position whilst providing a better option in arguably a more important part of the game (that 10 over block).

 

[Spark]

/klusener

Flintoff's bowling will be far more useful than Klusener's batting.

 

[smash84]

Flintoff's a much better bowler than Klusener, and there is always a need for someone to bowl in that fifth block. Do you really need a 40 average batsman at number seven? Wouldn't a guy with an average of 31 be sufficient to fulfill the needs of that position whilst providing a better option in arguably a more important part of the game (that 10 over block).

Who is averaging 31 there? Imran?

 

[Mike5181]

Who is averaging 31 there? Imran?

Actually Flintoff averages 32 in ODIs.

 

[smash84]

that isn't bad at all.....his bowling and batting average in ODIs are about equal right?

 

[Mike5181]

that isn't bad at all.....his bowling and batting average in ODIs are about equal right?

He averages 24 with the ball.

 

[andyc]

Personally, have started putting Watson in my ODI all-time XI. It may be a bit early, but he is arguably the best all-rounder ever at even this stage. He gives you a genuine top-order batsman who, by himself, can win a game; and he is also a brilliant bowler to have as a 5th option. He'll bowl the 10 overs and is likely to pick up a wicket or two cheaply.

Yeah, I guess we have been overlooking Watson, his record while opening is pretty impressive. He's got really stiff competition in the top order though his bowling might just give him the edge.

Bit of a minnow basher as well imo. Probably wouldn't be in my AT side for now.

Thumbs up. One of only two players (Klusener) to average 40-plus and sub-30 with bat and ball, IIRC. Not sure if I'd have him in my all-time XI, but definitely in my Australian XI.

 

[hendrix]

Flintoff's bowling will be far more useful than Klusener's batting.

You're probably right.

I just think no matter which way you look at it, he doesn't quite measure up to the alternatives. If you just want to consider the games he opened in then he was good but not for as long as the alternatives, and if you want to consider his entire career then he did it for long enough but wasn't as consistently good as the alternatives.

The point I was trying to make wasn't that he declined permanently, it was that his "batting in the top three" stats are inflated by the fact that he batted lower than that when he wasn't at his best. Not just at the start of his career or at the end of his career or anything like that when he can be given leeway for having such a long career anyway, but a patch right in the middle too. I think rather than showing he was a better top three batsman than he was lower down, it simply hides his poor patches a bit by excluding them. I don't think he performed worse because he was batting lower; his technique and temperament was very well suited to the middle order in ODIs, being such a great and dominating player of spin bowling. I'm not going to just ignore those matches when deciding whether he should be selected to bat in the top three, because I don't think the results were just an effect of where he was batting.

I agree with this train of thought, but even still Lara's career stats compare pretty reasonably with the other options.

 

[weldone]

... and if you want to consider his entire career then he did it for long enough but wasn't as consistently good as the alternatives...

OK even if we forget his stats at top 3..

Who are the alternatives for specialist opening batsmen to partner Tendulkar? Name them. I'm sure even overall his stats (after you consider his longevity) are better than or similar to the likes of Anwar, Hayden, Ganguly, Mark Waugh, Haynes, Greenidge etc. (and better than Gilchrist or Jayasuriya batting-wise).

But unlike these guys, Lara was clearly world's best ODI batsman by a margin for a long period (5 years) - facing up to some of the best bowlers ODI cricket has produced.