Greatest ODI batsman of all time

[SJS]

It's fine to admire Dhoni as a one day batsman but to prefer him as a batsman over the likes of Ponting and Lara is getting carried away.

 

[hendrix]

But he is arguably the best WK batsman; so if you are going to use both Dhoni and Gilchrist you are sacrificing Ponting for Anwar. Gilchrist averages slightly less than Anwar but is far faster in SR, and I would be more comfortable to put someone like Gilchrist in a team designed to play a similarly great team, considering his record.

You are essentially leaving him out for the slight advantage Anwar might have over Gilchrist in batting; as well as sacrificing Ponting's fielding - arguably the greatest ever in the format. That slight advantage you hold for Anwar is removed as Ponting is a better batsman than Watson. Essentially, the slight advantage you might hold for Anwar comes at a greater cost to the team.

It's pretty simple.

Anwar is a better batsman than Gilchrist, and Watson is an allrounder and is thus more essential than Ponting. Someone needs to bowl 10 overs and it's not going to be Ponting.

If the R-L combo is so important then you, open with Gilchrist.

Anwar is a better opener than Gilchrist.

So I guess we should start playing Bradman due to his Test record.

No, I'm explaining why it's ok to play Gilchrist out of position.

IMO Bond was a fantastic bowler - in all formats - but its a leap of faith. His overall record is not on par with the greats of the game.

Let's take a look at someone both you and I selected.

Joel Garner
ODIs best figures average economy S/R
98 5/31 18.84 3.09 36.5

Shane Bond
ODIs best figures Average Economy S/R
82 6/19 20.88 4.28 38.7

Can you tell me what is not "on par" in this record?

Everyone has their own opinions, and fair dos to them, but yours looks like your shoe-horning players in there for pretty crappy reasons.

Here are the reasons:
Anwar is better than Gilchrist
Ponting cannot displace any of the middle order batsmen.
Bond is statistically the most dangerous ODI bowler of all time

I understand why you'd pick Ponting and that's fine, but my selections are just as justifiable as yours.

 

[hendrix]

It's fine to admire Dhoni as a one day batsman but to prefer him as a batsman over the likes of Ponting and Lara is getting carried away.

You'd prefer Ponting or Lara batting in the number 5 position?

That's fine. I wouldn't.

 

[Red]

Here is my team for today...


- Tendulkar
- Gilchrist
- V. Richards
- Ponting
- D. Jones
- Rhodes
- K. Dev
- W. Akram
- J. Garner
- Murali
- Donald

 

[Ikki]

It's pretty simple.

Anwar is a better batsman than Gilchrist, and Watson is an allrounder and is thus more essential than Ponting. Someone needs to bowl 10 overs and it's not going to be Ponting.

Anwar is a better opener than Gilchrist.

Anwar being better than Gilchrist is debatable, but Watson is not a better batsman than Ponting. That's the batting stakes, which evens out, even under the logic that Anwar is better.

Ponting is arguably the best fielder the format has seen, you won't have that if you have Anwar. Watson has also been brilliant because of his opening. For me, all that is a negative to the team overall...simply for the sake of having Anwar, because of the R-L difference?

No, I'm explaining why it's ok to play Gilchrist out of position.

Ignore the post, I thought you were referring to Bond, as to why he gets in on T20.

Let's take a look at someone both you and I selected.

Joel Garner
ODIs best figures average economy S/R
98 5/31 18.84 3.09 36.5

Shane Bond
ODIs best figures Average Economy S/R
82 6/19 20.88 4.28 38.7

Can you tell me what is not "on par" in this record?

In Garner's era ODIs were less frequently played. It would be like saying a batsman in this era playing 61 Tests, averaging 50+, has a record on par with Hobbs.

Even for Garner's era, he didn't play lots, but I still lean towards him. There is a reason, however, why Bond had a short career; and his career is not on par with someone like Brett Lee, who has basically the same ratios, as the above, and played many more ODIs.

Here are the reasons:
Anwar is better than Gilchrist
Ponting cannot displace any of the middle order batsmen.
Bond is statistically the most dangerous ODI bowler of all time

I understand why you'd pick Ponting and that's fine, but my selections are just as justifiable as yours.

Picking Bond would be like picking Philander in a Test all-time XI. You can see his ability, but he clearly has not played enough to be reasonably compared equal to the people he is competing for that spot.

You're entitled to your opinion, but IMO your picks aren't wholly logical, and that's fine. We'll have different favourites. I thought your post after mine was a criticism of my choices and I was explaining why I think mine are more reasonable.

 

[hendrix]

Anwar being better than Gilchrist is debatable, but Watson is not a better batsman than Ponting. That's the batting stakes, which evens out, even under the logic that Anwar is better.

Ponting is arguably the best fielder the format has seen, you won't have that if you have Anwar. Watson has also been brilliant because of his opening. For me, all that is a negative to the team overall...simply for the sake of having Anwar, because of the R-L difference?

I agree that Ponting is a better batsman than Watson. But Watson bowls.

As you said, the batting evens out, but the advantage is that there's a bowler there.

There is a big loss to the fielding without Ponting. Not entirely sure how that would work out TBH.

In Garner's era ODIs were less frequently played..

I'm not quite sure why this is relevant. Fewer games is fewer games. Why does it matter how frequently they were played?

It's almost the opposite to the Hobbs example. The modern era ODIs are far more high scoring on flatter wickets with smaller boundaries.

Even for Garner's era, he didn't play lots, but I still lean towards him. There is a reason, however, why Bond had a short career; and his career is not on par with someone like Brett Lee, who has basically the same ratios, as the above, and played many more ODIs.

Bond was injured a lot, but so was Lee. You have to remember that Bond was banned from international cricket for 2 years because of the BCCI. He would have still had a pretty short career because he debuted relatively late. I guess I just think it was still a career long enough to make a judgement on.

Picking Bond would be like picking Philander in a Test all-time XI. You can see his ability, but he clearly has not played enough to be reasonably compared equal to the people he is competing for that spot.

You're entitled to your opinion, but IMO your picks aren't wholly logical, and that's fine. We'll have different favourites. I thought your post after mine was a criticism of my choices and I was explaining why I think mine are more reasonable.

At the end of the day, I think 82 ODIs is enough to judge, and you don't. That's cool.

Wasn't really critiquing, so much as discussing. It's a pretty good and fun discussion, TBH. We're going to have different opinions but as long as we have some justification it's all good.

 

[Red]

imo Ponting and V. Richards pick themselves on batting alone.

The fact that they are also (about) the greatest ground fielders ever makes them doubly important in an ODI.

 

[watson]

Has anyone posted this study where Richards just trumps Tendulkar as the greatest ODI batsman?

It Figures | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

However, this study prefers Michael Hussey!;

It Figures | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Satyanash89]

Has anyone posted this study where Richards just trumps Tendulkar as the greatest ODI batsman?

It Figures | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

That study gives a large weightage to WC performances and especially WC wins, and it was posted in 2008... if it was done after the 2011 WC where Sachin scored a mountain of runs and India won, Sachin would probably come out on top

 

[Contra]

it's fine to admire dhoni as a one day batsman but to prefer him as a batsman over the likes of ponting and lara is getting carried away.

 

[watson]

That study gives a large weightage to WC performances and especially WC wins, and it was posted in 2008... if it was done after the 2011 WC where Sachin scored a mountain of runs and India won, Sachin would probably come out on top

Fair enough

 

[Ikki]

I agree that Ponting is a better batsman than Watson. But Watson bowls.

As you said, the batting evens out, but the advantage is that there's a bowler there.

There is a big loss to the fielding without Ponting. Not entirely sure how that would work out TBH.

You're not picking Watson over Ponting. You're picking Anwar, that's the point. Watson is still going to play. You're misplacing the obvious benefits of Watson opening, and bowling; Ponting superior batting, and his fielding; for what would be a marginal benefit in Anwar opening over Gilchrist.

I'm not quite sure why this is relevant. Fewer games is fewer games. Why does it matter how frequently they were played?

It's almost the opposite to the Hobbs example. The modern era ODIs are far more high scoring on flatter wickets with smaller boundaries.

Because it evens out if fewer games are played across a long time-frame. If two players have played 22 years (like Hobbs) and one in an era where more tests have played, the other not; both could make an argument that their predicament was tougher. One will say the Tests being infrequent meant it was harder to find consistency or to take advantage of a good run in form; the other will say the gruelling schedule is an inhibition towards playing healthy and that long. But, for the sake of argument you say it evens out because both arguments are legitimate.

In Bonds case he not only didn't bowl for a long time, he bowled infrequently in that short time.

Bond was injured a lot, but so was Lee. You have to remember that Bond was banned from international cricket for 2 years because of the BCCI. He would have still had a pretty short career because he debuted relatively late. I guess I just think it was still a career long enough to make a judgement on.

But Lee still played 221 ODIs over 12 years, his career is not really in question. Bond being banned is something to take into consideration, but 82 matches in a short career is scraping it. I think if you're picking him, you're doing it on a leap of faith...and that's fine. I disagree, though, that his record is as good as Lee or some other ATG bowlers in the format. They did it for much longer, more frequently.

At the end of the day, I think 82 ODIs is enough to judge, and you don't. That's cool.

Wasn't really critiquing, so much as discussing. It's a pretty good and fun discussion, TBH. We're going to have different opinions but as long as we have some justification it's all good.

True.

 

[ankitj]

Has anyone posted this study where Richards just trumps Tendulkar as the greatest ODI batsman?

It Figures | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

However, this study prefers Michael Hussey!;

It Figures | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

Prefer this one: Stats from the Past: The best ODI batsmen from across eras | Highlights | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Mike5181]

But Lee still played 221 ODIs over 12 years, his career is not really in question. Bond being banned is something to take into consideration, but 82 matches in a short career is scraping it. I think if you're picking him, you're doing it on a leap of faith...and that's fine. I disagree, though, that his record is as good as Lee or some other ATG bowlers in the format. They did it for much longer, more frequently.

More frequently? I'd like to see you prove that claim. Last time I checked, of all bowlers with over 100 wickets, Shane Bond had the best ODI strike rate of all-time. Brett Lee didn't have to play against the best team of all-time either. Gilchrist, Hadyn, Ponting, Bevan, Martyn, Symonds, Clarke etc. Guys like Pollock and Murali averaged 30 against them, while Bond took 3+ against them seven times, including 23/6, 23/5, 25/5, 26/4, 38/4.

 

[vic_orthdox]

For mine, I want to let my trump cards just play. The Anwars, Waughs at the top of the order like to set themselves to bat the innings, and pace their innings in a similar manner to Tendulkar. Even Tendulkar would often take a back seat to Ganguly in the early overs during a lot of their years batting together.

That's why I'd like a Gayle, Sehwag, Jayasuriya-type opener to partner Tendulkar at the top, and lean towards Gilchrist being my keeper; it allows me to fit in a better (IMO) fifth bowler into the side than Watson/Jayasuriya/Gayle.

 

[Spikey]

so i didn't watch the innings, but was that an all time great innings by MSD today

 

[Migara]

Ponting > Anwar
Warne > Murali (overall, bowling, batting, fielding)
Bond played only 82 ODIs. Would go for someone more proven.

Murali was so ahead of Warne in ODI bowling, to an extent batting and fielding don't matter. And BTW, Murali up to his shoulder dislocation in Sharjah, was a way better fielder than Warne, especially in outfield which is more important in ODIs.

 

[Ikki]

More frequently? I'd like to see you prove that claim. Last time I checked, of all bowlers with over 100 wickets, Shane Bond had the best ODI strike rate of all-time. Brett Lee didn't have to play against the best team of all-time either. Gilchrist, Hadyn, Ponting, Bevan, Martyn, Symonds, Clarke etc. Guys like Pollock and Murali averaged 30 against them, while Bond took 3+ against them seven times, including 23/6, 23/5, 25/5, 26/4, 38/4.

I am not talking about taking wickets frequently (SR)...I am talking about playing ODIs frequently, over a long period. 100 wickets in ODIs is not a lot at all - in terms of aggregates. Lee has an SR comparable to Bond's (00.3 worse) yet played almost thrice as long.

Bond playing well against Australia is to his credit, but also irrelevant when talking about a player who didn't play enough to have a record comparable to the other ATG ODI bowlers.

Murali was so ahead of Warne in ODI bowling, to an extent batting and fielding don't matter. And BTW, Murali up to his shoulder dislocation in Sharjah, was a way better fielder than Warne, especially in outfield which is more important in ODIs.

We've discussed this 100 times. Warne and Murali's records are very close when you consider the non-minnow ODI sides the faced. Then in those discussions you said Murali's longevity means he is better. He did play for longer but Warne played for more than long enough. So, no, for me I'd rather Warne being able to hold a bat and his slip fielding will be very valuable. I also believe Warne is the better big game player.

 

[ankitj]

Makes me LOL so hard to hear that Murali and Warne's records are very close.

 

[Debris]

But he is arguably the best WK batsman; so if you are going to use both Dhoni and Gilchrist you are sacrificing Ponting for Anwar. Gilchrist averages slightly less than Anwar but is far faster in SR, and I would be more comfortable to put someone like Gilchrist in a team designed to play a similarly great team, considering his record.

You are essentially leaving him out for the slight advantage Anwar might have over Gilchrist in batting; as well as sacrificing Ponting's fielding - arguably the greatest ever in the format. That slight advantage you hold for Anwar is removed as Ponting is a better batsman than Watson. Essentially, the slight advantage you might hold for Anwar comes at a greater cost to the team.



If the R-L combo is so important then you, open with Gilchrist.



So I guess we should start playing Bradman due to his Test record.

Everyone has their own opinions, and fair dos to them, but yours looks like your shoe-horning players in there for pretty crappy reasons. IMO Bond was a fantastic bowler - in all formats - but its a leap of faith. His overall record is not on par with the greats of the game.

Best point made in this entire thread. Bradman first picked in my ODI side.