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

[marc71178]

There are a lot of cases of fielders being worse/better than people expect when drop rates etc are available. In most cases it confirms conventional wisdom though.

Now you bring out made up numbers to try and back up something again.

 

[viriya]

I use my eyes not spreadsheets.

 

[TheJediBrah]

How does Sanath being a "very good bowler" and Shakib just being a "good bowler" make sense? If anything it should be reversed.

The part where Shakib has played vs minnows more is countered by the fact that he never gets to play vs his own team who is a minnow as well.

No it's not. As I said, Bangladesh have played far more games against other "minnows" than other Test playing nations.

I remember a few years ago it seemed like a Bangladesh v Zimbabwe series was on every few months, and they're just forced to schedule games against other minnows because that's what they can get. On top of that Bangladesh often having to play qualifying rounds in world tournaments against the other "minnow" nations.

 

[weldone]

I use my eyes not spreadsheets.

But there will always be people who will watch 50 overs each of 10% of the matches and claim their eyes have told them everything about all the cricketers and they have got the right to rubbish any statistical analysis.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I get just as annoyed when people use "statistics aren't everything" as an argument and imply that "statistics mean nothing", than when people claim that statistics are everything

 

[viriya]

No it's not. As I said, Bangladesh have played far more games against other "minnows" than other Test playing nations.

I remember a few years ago it seemed like a Bangladesh v Zimbabwe series was on every few months, and they're just forced to schedule games against other minnows because that's what they can get. On top of that Bangladesh often having to play qualifying rounds in world tournaments against the other "minnow" nations.

It's true that Ban has played Zim more than other teams. But other teams get to play Ban and Zim and the sum of those matches counters the higher Zim match number imo. At least for the most part that it isn't an unarguable point.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It's true that Ban has played Zim more than other teams. But other teams get to play Ban and Zim and the sum of those matches counters the higher Zim match number imo. At least for the most part that it isn't an unarguable point.

Shakib:

v Minnows: 62 mts (43 v Zim)
v Non-Minnows (Inc WI): 95 mts

= 39.5% vs Minnows

Sanath:

v Minnows (inc Ban): 67 mts
v Non-Minnows: 378 mts

= 15% v Minnows

That's an unarguable point.

 

[smash84]

Shakib:

v Minnows: 62 mts (43 v Zim)
v Non-Minnows (Inc WI): 95 mts

= 39.5% vs Minnows

Sanath:

v Minnows (inc Ban): 67 mts
v Non-Minnows: 378 mts

= 15% v Minnows

That's an unarguable point.

wow, i had no idea shakib had 40% of his matches against minnows. I mean i might have had an idea that its a high percentage but didn't know it would be 40%. Good stats dig up

 

[viriya]

Shakib:

v Minnows: 62 mts (43 v Zim)
v Non-Minnows (Inc WI): 95 mts

= 39.5% vs Minnows

Sanath:

v Minnows (inc Ban): 67 mts
v Non-Minnows: 378 mts

= 15% v Minnows

That's an unarguable point.

Good one - I was aware of Shakib's but didn't know Sanath's was that much lower.

Shakib's performances vs Zim should be adjusted, but can't blame him for playing the opposition he was given. Even with opposition quality adjustments I think his bowling trumps Sanath's more than Sanath's batting does Shakib's.

 

[watson]

Good one - I was aware of Shakib's but didn't know Sanath's was that much lower.

Shakib's performances vs Zim should be adjusted, but can't blame him for playing the opposition he was given. Even with opposition quality adjustments I think his bowling trumps Sanath's more than Sanath's batting does Shakib's.

Had another look at the respective stats so I can see exactly where you are coming from viriya.

Fact is though, I have an emotional soft spot for Jayasuriya because of his World Cup heroics in 1996, so I'm always going to rate him highly no matter what. Not only did he take Sri Lanka to the final with some great innings, but he also bowled reliable overs (ER 4.53). His he voted Player of the Tournament for good reason.

IMO Jayasuriyah is an absolute icon of ODI cricket. Shakib simply doesn't have the same enormous legacy.

 

[viriya]

Had another look at the respective stats so I can see exactly where you are coming from viriya.

Fact is though, I have an emotional soft spot for Jayasuriya because of his World Cup heroics in 1996, so I'm always going to rate him highly no matter what. Not only did he take Sri Lanka to the final with great innings, but also forged an unlikely but effective bowling partnership with Aravinda de Silva. They could generally be relied upon to bowl 10 good overs between them

IMO Jayasuriyah is an absolute icon of ODI cricket. Shakib simply doesn't have the same enormous legacy.

I completely agree regarding legacy. Most of the disagreements this thread come from people equating a better all-rounder to mean a better player/more valuable player. There is a clear distinction imo.

Also, Shakib is still only 29, and probably has a good 5 prime years left. I think by then he would have made an irrefutable argument (assuming IPL doesn't kill ODI cricket before that happens).

 

[mr_mister]

whoops forget to start this.


THE FINAL COUNTDOWN


Kapil Dev vs Shane Watson


who is the greatest LO AR, OAT

 

[viriya]

Kapil i guess

 

[StephenZA]

Kapil Dev

 

[OverratedSanity]

Watson

Flintoff was robbed though imo.

 

[watson]

Kapil's career makes interesting reading;

Kapil Dev: Stats analysis - India's first fast-bowling match-winner

.........Kapil's best phase as an ODI bowler coincided with two famous victories in world events for India. During the period between May 1983 and March 1986, when India won the World Cup and the World Championship of Cricket, he averaged 31.25 with the bat and 20.39 with the ball, taking 69 wickets in 47 games. His performances remained impressive till the early 1990s, but in the last couple of years of his career his numbers fell away alarmingly: in 36 matches he averaged 13.50 with the bat and more than 37 with the ball. The only aspect that wasn't affected was his economy rate, which remained well below four runs per over.


........The aspect of his ODI bowling that stands out best is his economy rate. Admittedly, Kapil played in an era when ODI scores hadn't reached the astronomical heights they have today, but even among his contemporaries, his economy rate was among the best.

Of the 212 games in which he bowled at least five overs, 63 times he conceded fewer than three runs per over, which is 30% of those matches. Similarly, in another 32% his economy rate was between three and four. Only 34 times did he go at five or more per over.

A statistical analysis of Kapil Dev's career | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[weldone]

Kapil Dev

 

[watson]

Watson's numbers are also impressive;

A limited-overs champion

Shane Watson's Test career was underwhelming, but with his brute batting force and his canny bowling, he was an absolute asset in the limited-overs formats

........There remains a persistent feeling that he underachieved in Tests, but in the limited-overs format his numbers are superb, with both bat and ball. In ODIs, he finishes with a batting average of 40.54 at a strike rate of 90.44, including nine centuries; with the ball, his 168 wickets came at 31.79 each, at an economy rate of 4.95. Despite being so injury prone, he is among a select band of 11 allrounders to score more than 5000 runs and bowl more than 1000 overs in ODIs.

Watson's best years in ODIs were between 2007 and 2011. In those five years, he scored 60% of his career runs, and took 51% of his career wickets in that format. His batting average during that period soared to 47.28 at a strike rate of more than 94, while his bowling average dropped to 28.50. Of the 17 Man-of-the-Match awards he won in his ODI career, 11 came during that five-year period between 2007 and 2011. (Overall, only five Australians won more MoM awards in ODIs than Watson.)

Numbers Game: Shane Watson - A limited-overs champion | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Noble One]

Kapil Dev

 

[watson]

It's difficult to make a choice here.

Basically it boils down to whether I should favour;

1. A powerfull top order batsman who was also an effecient bowler, or

2. An accurate bowling miser who was also a hard hitting middle-order batsman at 6 and 7.

Both their stats are impressive with absolute peaks that lasted 3-4 years.