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

[weldone]

I'd never vote for someone like Flintoff for the top spot because he was a dud in the World Cups, just like all his teammates.

 

[ankitj]

Who won?

 

[mr_mister]

Kapil

 

[ankitj]

Looks like 7-2 in favour of Kapil if I counted it right.

 

[AndrewB]

I'd never vote for someone like Flintoff for the top spot because he was a dud in the World Cups, just like all his teammates.

I wouldn't say he was a dud in 2003: 7 wickets at 20.00 with an economy rate of 2.87 (the best for anyone in the tournament who bowled 10+ overs) and an average of 20, while his batting average was over 30. It's hardly his fault that when he scored 64 and had figures of 10-2-15-2 against India (Sehwag + Tendulkar), the rest of the team failed completely.

Even in 2007 his bowling was pretty respectable (14@21.28, economy rate of 4.31).

 

[CricAddict]

Will tell you who Sanath is. Can't compare him with Shakib.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Holy ****, that's impressive. Brings back so many memories of shellackings at the hands of the Sri Lankans over that 4 year period.

 

[OverratedSanity]

View attachment 22695 Will tell you who Sanath is. Can't compare him with Shakib.

Meh. The cheat had metal springs in his bat.

 

[vcs]

I mean this sort of accurate;

Love those uniforms, they've never been bettered.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Holy ****, that's impressive. Brings back so many memories of shellackings at the hands of the Sri Lankans over that 4 year period.

The part you don't see is that SL ended up bowled out for 170 and losing by 40 runs . . .

Sanath made 76 off 28 balls though, insane

 

[G.I.Joe]

The part you don't see is that SL ended up bowled out for 170 and losing by 40 runs . . .

That's irrelevant to the post. India capitulated against them more often than not in those times. We didn't have Pakistan's bowling attack.

 

[honestbharani]

Holy ****, that's impressive. Brings back so many memories of shellackings at the hands of the Sri Lankans over that 4 year period.

They lost that game too btw.. It was an epic epic choke by SL..

 

[viriya]

The part you don't see is that SL ended up bowled out for 170 and losing by 40 runs . . .

Sanath made 76 off 28 balls though, insane

One of the greatest sub-100 ODI scores of all-time. There's probably no other innings where the the difference between the player and the rest of his team is so stark:
cricrate | ODI #1093

He made 76 runs (44%) @ 271 SR
Rest of his team made 96 runs @ 47 SR

 

[vcs]

cricrate | ODI #1933

This one was also great, though not sub-100.

 

[TheJediBrah]

That's irrelevant to the post. India capitulated against them more often than not in those times. We didn't have Pakistan's bowling attack.

How is it irrelevant? I was making a comment directly related to the innings in question.

And it was a somewhat humorous and interesting addition if I say so myself.

 

[_Ed_]

cricrate | ODI #1933

This one was also great, though not sub-100.

Definitely one of the best ODI innings I've seen live. Pretty heartbreaking defeat tbh.

 

[G.I.Joe]

How is it irrelevant? I was making a comment directly related to the innings in question.

And it was a somewhat humorous and interesting addition if I say so myself.

It's irrelevant to the shellackings SL gave India in that period because they simply didn't collapse against India in that manner.

Yes, it's interesting and humorous as a tangent.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It's irrelevant to the shellackings SL gave India in that period because they simply didn't collapse against India in that manner.

Yes, it's interesting and humorous as a tangent.

what has Sl v India got anything to do with it? We were discussing a particular innings

The SL v India thing was a tangent itself. Very bizarre to label a post irrelevant because it's a "tangent" to something that is already a "tangent"

 

[G.I.Joe]

what has Sl v India got anything to do with it? We were discussing a particular innings

The SL v India thing was a tangent itself. Very bizarre to label a post irrelevant because it's a "tangent" to something that is already a "tangent"

"We" weren't discussing anything. I made an observation wrt the score there. it flowed naturally from the previous post and was relevant to it. What SL might have done against another team once was however not relevant in any way to the point being made about India-SL outcomes there. Stop making this misplaced contrarianism your defining feature.

 

[TheJediBrah]

"We" weren't discussing anything. I made an observation wrt the score there. it flowed naturally from the previous post and was relevant to it. What SL might have done against another team once was however not relevant in any way to the point being made about India-SL outcomes there. Stop making this misplaced contrarianism your defining feature.

You seem to be in a frame of mind that everything is a competition and people are naturally trying to prove superiority over each other or something, I don't know.

Sometimes a comment is just a comment. It's not "irrelevant" because it doesn't refer to exactly what you want it to refer to. I'm honestly struggling to see where you're coming from at all. A simple "sorry I misunderstood your post" would have been fine and sufficient. There was no need to compound your error.

edit: you know, I can actually see why you may have made the erroneous inference you did, given that my "irrelevant" post quoted yours. You can rest assured though that nothing I had to say had anything to with "Sl v India" or any history there that I couldn't care less about either way.

maybe seemed like an excessively annoyed-sounding response from me. Basically because I was genuinely annoyed at this:

Stop making this misplaced contrarianism your defining feature.

coming from you when the only reason there was any conflict at all was your "contrarianism"