Furball
Evil Scotsman
Not having Ponting doesn't feel right. Neither does playing one of Ponting, Kohli and Viv at 5 mind.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Top Ten ODI cricketers of All Time
- Thread starter bagapath
- Start date
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
I'm sure you jest and troll, but his SR was considerably higher than the average SR of his contemporaries, somewhere between 10-20 runs per 100 balls higher.
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
I'd still have them about on par when you factor in when their careers happened and also how good a fielder Ponting was (I value fielding very highly in ODI)
But Kohli is an out and out gun in ODIs and I've no hesitation saying it. His chasing is something else.
Shame for Indians that he's not as good a test batsman as either Smith or Warner.
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Fixed.
ImpatientLime
International Regular
if you actually look at strike rates during his 10 year odi career, that is not remotely true.
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
SR of batsman from positions 1-6 in all ODIs
1984 - 63
1985 - 67
1986 - 61
1987 - 67
1998 - 67
1989 - 67
1990 - 67
1991 - 66
1992 - 64
1993 - 64
1994 - 68
Dean Jones' SR in ODIs
1984 - 82
1985 - 84
1986 - 85
1987 - 78
1988 - 72
1989 - 67
1990 - 78
1991 - 64
1992 - 61
1993 - 70
1994 - 66
Daemon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
What's the reason for his SR going down after the first few years? It's not like people caught up to him, he went down.
morgieb
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Because 1980's strike rates are so applicable to today's standards.
NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Comparing the strike rates of modern batsmen to the significant past is like comparing average speeds or lap times between different generations of racing cars.
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Thommo says hi.
Victor Ian
International Coach
Most know about Rose Tinted glasses, but how about Poo Tinted glasses? For those afflicted with Poo Specs it is hard to fathom that players of yore could possibly be as good as modern players.
1) They don't hit as many fours. Never mind that the boundary is further away, that the grass is a jungle or that the bat is a toothpick. They didn't hit as many fours (or sixes) so they can't be right, right? Yeah....right!
2) The commentator isn't excited. Compare...."Lovely shot, that....." against "What the ****! WHAT - THE - ****! Did you see that shot? I just gave involuntary birth - that is the best shot in the world, like, EVA! Waaaa wa waaa, blaaa blaaa blardy blaaaaa - Kholi scores two runs". Clearly the commentators know their stuff. They are all ex players who know their stuff. If they say this is the best we've ever seen, they must be right, right? Yeah....right!
3) They scored less and did it so slowly. No amount of fat bats can account for such a diminished output. Never mind, that a combination of fat bats, shrunken boundaries and fielding restrictions might explain it. Never mind the fact that ODI cricket stats undeniably show an increase in both averages and scoring rates (that, by the way - could be used as crude weighting factors for a better comparison). just never mind all that. Kholi scores over 50 and no one has ever done that. Fogies who remind us about Jones can't be right, right? Yeah....right!
4) Their hair styles are doofy. Some of them don't even have hair! You can't play good cricket without getting your hair right, right? Yeah....right!
Taking off the Poo Specs, Dean Jones was 21 runs better than the average of 31 from 1985 to 1990. That is 67% better. His strike rate was 10 better than the average of 67 or 15% better. In today's terms Jones averaged 65 with a strike rate of 101.
1) They don't hit as many fours. Never mind that the boundary is further away, that the grass is a jungle or that the bat is a toothpick. They didn't hit as many fours (or sixes) so they can't be right, right? Yeah....right!
2) The commentator isn't excited. Compare...."Lovely shot, that....." against "What the ****! WHAT - THE - ****! Did you see that shot? I just gave involuntary birth - that is the best shot in the world, like, EVA! Waaaa wa waaa, blaaa blaaa blardy blaaaaa - Kholi scores two runs". Clearly the commentators know their stuff. They are all ex players who know their stuff. If they say this is the best we've ever seen, they must be right, right? Yeah....right!
3) They scored less and did it so slowly. No amount of fat bats can account for such a diminished output. Never mind, that a combination of fat bats, shrunken boundaries and fielding restrictions might explain it. Never mind the fact that ODI cricket stats undeniably show an increase in both averages and scoring rates (that, by the way - could be used as crude weighting factors for a better comparison). just never mind all that. Kholi scores over 50 and no one has ever done that. Fogies who remind us about Jones can't be right, right? Yeah....right!
4) Their hair styles are doofy. Some of them don't even have hair! You can't play good cricket without getting your hair right, right? Yeah....right!
Taking off the Poo Specs, Dean Jones was 21 runs better than the average of 31 from 1985 to 1990. That is 67% better. His strike rate was 10 better than the average of 67 or 15% better. In today's terms Jones averaged 65 with a strike rate of 101.
Victor Ian
International Coach
I'm not really disputing anyone's teams. They are all exceptional and would be a treat to watch. I'm just disappointed that so many include Viv yet forget to include the only player who was as good* as the Viv in the same era.
*Yeah I know, Viv pre-Jones was better than Viv during-Jones. But during Jones' time, he was about 5 runs better than his next peer. Today there are about 5 or 6 players all within a run of each other.
*Yeah I know, Viv pre-Jones was better than Viv during-Jones. But during Jones' time, he was about 5 runs better than his next peer. Today there are about 5 or 6 players all within a run of each other.
ImpatientLime
International Regular
batsman between 84-94 who had a superior strike rate to jones. (minimum 30 innings)
sir viv
saeed anwar
saleem malik
ijaz ahmed
aravinda de silva
mark waugh
graeme hick
sachin tendulkar
ranatunga
neil fairbrother
alan lamb
alan border
inzamam
gus logie
steve waugh
imran khan
martin crowe
azharuddin
Victor Ian
International Coach
yeah - and Gilly had a better strike rate than Ponting. Some number 10's had a better strike rate. Pretty stupid argument and waste of your time searching for that.
How about you get back to me after you multiply average and strike rate for that period?
How about you get back to me after you multiply average and strike rate for that period?
Last edited:
ImpatientLime
International Regular
the conversation was entirely about strike rate. i don't doubt dean jones prowess as a truly great odi bastsman. but those guys i listed were also all batting way above the average strike rates for the period.
the idea that jones was batting to a modern strike rate of 100 means all of those guys listed were too. not sure i buy that.
Shri
Mr. Glass
For 3 years.