Greatest Limited Overs All-rounder of all time, tournament/voting thread

[honestbharani]

If you want to be amicable, don't be disingenuous wrapping up your conversation. Symonds batted at #5 the overwhelming majority of the time, he wasn't a "#7 biffer" as you put it.

I was going by the general trend of voting here. As OS pointed out, when you say ODI AR, it looks like most people just think of a fast or fast medium bowler who also hits big down the order.

 

[smash84]

I can't comprehend anyone rating Shakib higher than Sanath, in ODIs especially

That's viriya for you. Incomprehensible a lot of times

 

[viriya]

That might make Shakib a more "rounded" all rounder but not the greater all rounder. Sanath also the better fielder.

I can't comprehend anyone rating Shakib higher than Sanath, in ODIs especially

It's pretty straightforward if you consider an all-rounder to be someone that can perform (or even win you the match) with bat or ball in the same game. Not someone who had a phase in his career where he did that sorta. Shakib is a rare example of a player who defines a genuine all-rounder.

 

[watson]

It's pretty straightforward if you consider an all-rounder to be someone that can perform (or even win you the match) with bat or ball in the same game. Not someone who had a phase in his career where he did that sorta. Shakib is a rare example of a player who defines a genuine all-rounder.

If you start with a preconceived definition of 'allrounder' then sure, Shakib is going to be the better allrounder because he just so happens to fit your preconceived definition.

However, there is nothing in this thread that says a great allrounder has to be a balanced allrounder with equal skills in both and batting and bowling. So we are all free to create our own definition.

Personally, I take the 'sum of the parts' approach, and therefore look at the combined effect of the player's batting, bowling, fielding, and leadership skills. For me, the sum total of Sanath's skills out-weigh the sum total of Shakib's skills. This is because Sanath's brilliance with the bat means that the difference between their batting is greater than the difference between their bowling.

Of course I could be wrong in my estimation of Sanath's brilliance with the bat etc. But so what? After all, we are only playing a game

 

[TheJediBrah]

Also I only take into account matches played against Australia so nothing else counts imo

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Shakib is better than Sanath afaic. During this career Sanath would've never made an odi world xi (behind the likes of Tendulkar, M Waugh,Ganguly, Gilchrist, Smith, Hayden as an opener and Harris, Cairns, Klusener, Pollock, Kallis, Symonds, Flintoff as an allrounder). Shakib is best allrounder of the post-Kallis period. To take a NZ example (as I know the NZ players best) Shakib is Vettori's bowling with Elliot's batting which equates to a world-class allrounder. Nonetheless, Santner might eclipse him.

 

[YorksLanka]

They have both won MoMs at about the same rate. This whole "match-winner" argument isn't relevant because Sanath almost never won a game with the ball (I think once early in his career). Shakib on the other hand has won MoMs for batting and bowling - a sign of a genuine all-rounder.

The reason that Sanath never won the match with his bowling was due to having murali in the team and doing that..Bangladesh don't have anyone else like that so of course, Shakib looks a superstar- they are up and coming but name me one bowler who comes close to Murali in that team?
Same applies to batting with Aravinda but Sansth often changed games and won them with his batting..

 

[harsh.ag]

Shakib is better than Sanath afaic. During this career Sanath would've never made an odi world xi (behind the likes of Tendulkar, M Waugh,Ganguly, Gilchrist, Smith, Hayden as an opener and Harris, Cairns, Klusener, Pollock, Kallis, Symonds, Flintoff as an allrounder). Shakib is best allrounder of the post-Kallis period. To take a NZ example (as I know the NZ players best) Shakib is Vettori's bowling with Elliot's batting which equates to a world-class allrounder. Nonetheless, Santner might eclipse him.

Even though this is wrong because Sanath would have made many World ODI XIs post the 1996 WC, it wouldn't matter because the reasoning is very, very, very bad. Player 1 plays in an era with 5 amazing all rounder peers, while Player 2 plays in an era with 0 amazing all round peers. So while comparing the two, forget Player 1 because he wasn't the best of his era, Player 2 wins!!

 

[TheJediBrah]

The reason that Sanath never won the match with his bowling was due to having murali in the team and doing that..Bangladesh don't have anyone else like that so of course, Shakib looks a superstar- they are up and coming but name me one bowler who comes close to Murali in that team?
Same applies to batting with Aravinda but Sansth often changed games and won them with his batting..

some good points. I have little doubt that playing in such a weak team makes Shakib look better in comparison.

 

[weldone]

Klusener

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Sanath had an economy rate of 4.78 when scoring rates were much lower in contrast to Shakib's 4.3 in an era when scoring rates are higher. Sanath was a world-class batsman and a handy part-timer whereas Shakib is a world-class bowler and a very good batsman.

 

[smash84]

Sanath had an economy rate of 4.78 when scoring rates were much lower in contrast to Shakib's 4.3 in an era when scoring rates are higher. Sanath was a world-class batsman and a handy part-timer whereas Shakib is a world-class bowler and a very good batsman.

And what is shskib's batting SR?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Sanath had a strike rate of 91.20 when scoring rates were much lower in contrast to Shakib's 80.31 in an era when scoring rates are higher. Sanath was a world-class batsman and a very good bowler, whereas Shakib is a good bowler and a good batsman.

btw pretty sure Shakib has played a much higher percentage of his games against "minnows", which is not his fault, Bangladesh play who they can, but no doubt pads his stats a bit

 

[honestbharani]

I think Sanath is better than Shakib but the SR comparison has to keep in mind the fact that they play very different roles again in their sides. Plus the 15 over no bouncer over the shoulders severely helped Sanath's cause at the top of the order.

 

[mr_mister]

Kapil leads 8-3
Watto leads 6-4


Closing in 12 hours

 

[weldone]

I'm voting for Watto now, close it already

 

[smash84]

kapil
twatto

 

[mr_mister]

I'm voting for Watto now, close it already

voting closes in 13 hours

 

[smash84]

 

[viriya]

The reason that Sanath never won the match with his bowling was due to having murali in the team and doing that..Bangladesh don't have anyone else like that so of course, Shakib looks a superstar- they are up and coming but name me one bowler who comes close to Murali in that team?
Same applies to batting with Aravinda but Sansth often changed games and won them with his batting..

This makes no sense because it implies that Sanath would've taken the wickets that Murali took if not for him. Since Sanath was nowhere near in quality this is a bad assumption. Also, Murali's impact in ODIs is limited just because of the 10 over rule.