Are multi-format greats a thing of past?

[Pap Finn Keighl]

After the 2011 WC, Sachin played 10 ODIs, scoring 315 runs at an average of 31 and SR of 81. That's the declining stage.

Ok.
So his stats between kohli debut and 2011 wc migjt be 55ish avg at 100 sr. Thats jaw dropping.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Smith as a batsman is much more versatile in different conditions than Kumble was as a bowler. Not a good comparison.

Eh, I'd still consider kumble a better test bowler than Smith is a batsman in odis. Don't think your initial comparison of Smith and Lara as ODI batsman is very good either. Lara was a ridiculously good ODI batsman early in his career. Smith has been perfectly good without being incredible in an era of ballooning ODI statistics.

 

[harsh.ag]

Yeah, Smith has a way to go before becoming an all time ODI great. He's a great of his time though imo.

 

[vcs]

Just needs to play India more to get back into his ODI groove. I think England kept him fairly quiet earlier this year.

 

[akilana]

Yeah just because Smith in ODIs isn't Kohli doesn't mean he's not seriously good. He's actually probably about what Kohli is in tests, if that makes sense.

It still pisses me off that he's banned.

No it doesn’t make any sense.

 

[Agricultural]

SA - Rabada. Markram might get there.
Oz - Smith is pretty good in LOs. As good as someone like Lara was in the 90s. Starc should count too imo though I can see disagreement on this.
Eng - Root. Bairstow ain't half bad.
India - Bumrah will probably get there.
NZ - KW.

If you define multi format as tests and LOs, then lesser players than before definitely because of the explosion of LO specialists. But if ODIs and T20s count as multi format, then we might even have more than earlier.

Bairstow averages 37 in tests (and not a gun keeper either). Great with the bat is an average over 50.

 

[srbhkshk]

Bairstow averages 37 in tests (and not a gun keeper either). Great with the bat is an average over 50.

I think that can be relaxed somewhat for keepers - I'd say a keeper averaging 40+ is a great (given he is not total Kamran Akmal with the Gloves).

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Ross Taylor is an ODI great, and a test "very good".

 

[Athlai]

Ross Taylor is a Test and ODI great.

Not an alltime great in either though.

 

[CricAddict]

People who are not greats according to this metric:

Sangakkara
Ponting
Lara
De Silva
Anwar
Haynes
M Waugh
Clarke
S Waugh
G Smith
Bevan
Hayden
Jones

...

Very few batsmen in ODI history have struck at >85. It's really only modern batsmen with the 2 new balls, fielding restrictions, ripped in boundaries and super bats that strike at greater than 85 consistently.

Greenidge struck at less than 65 and most people consider him a great ODI batsman.

Agreed. The strike rate criteria is a little stringent accounting for eras. Will go by the average total of >90 though for multi format ATG and >80 for multi format ATVG.

 

[Athlai]

Agreed. The strike rate criteria is a little stringent accounting for eras. Will go by the average total of >90 though for multi format ATG and >80 for multi format ATVG.

See ^ he agrees about Ross Taylor

 

[CricAddict]

See ^ he agrees about Ross Taylor

Absolutely. This fact shows that he has been quite underrated by everyone so far.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Nah if Taylor didn't play on NZ caketins he'd average 25 at most

see how much he struggled in Aus. Clueless in Perth.

 

[vcs]

Didn't he make 290 in Perth?

 

[TheJediBrah]

only 290. Hack.

 

[Prince EWS]

Didn't he make 290 in Perth?

 

[stephen]

I kind of view ODI cricket pre-90s a bit like pre-WWI test cricket. The game was so different back then that trying to categorise players by the same statistical metrics is absurd.

In the 80s strike rate virtually didn't matter. 65 was acceptable, 70 was good, 80 was extreme.

In the 90s that metric went up to 70 being fine, 80 being very good and 85 being extreme.

In the 00s (after around 2003), 80 became the good, 85 very good and 95 extreme.

Since around 2015 we've seen that now 85 is merely good, 95 excellent but all the best are striking at >100. Some batsmen have been playing long enough that their career strike rate hasn't adjusted to where they are at in actual games.

Then you also need to look at conditions. In Australia strike rates are lower than they are in India. Eden park in New Zealand sees either really low or really high strike rates, based on what the ball is doing. English conditions see ridiculous strike rates regularly.

Where a batsman bats is important too. The #4 usually has the lowest strike rate of all players in the top 7/8 as that tends to be the anchor position.

Strike rate in ODIs is too variable between players/ eras/ batting position/ location to really mean a while lot as a blanket statistic.

Similarly averages tend to be much higher at the top of the order (which is why Bevan, Dhoni and Hussey were so special and why Kohli, de Villiers and Richards are rated as the best) since openers are the most likely to bat full innings and never come under pressure to score quickly from ball one.

ODI greatness has factor in average, strike rate, team role and era. Which is why Richards is considered the very best despite modern players striking faster with higher averages.

The corollary of this is that Garner is probably not as good in ODI cricket as is often made out. I still rate him number 1 but I'm beginning to think I might be over rating him.

 

[CricAddict]

Yes, Dravid will be a ODI great if we just blindly followed stats. But stats is a good indicator for initial segregation before we apply cricketing knowledge to it.

 

[Victor Ian]

I didn't think AB had a shot at ATG status, but I changed my mind at the very end of his career looking at the gulf in quality between him and every other bat on the field.

He meets all of the criteria people have listed here. Average of 55 away is excellent. Failed in an extremely limited sample vs minnows, but otherwise has a lowest average of 39 vs any country, and a lowest average of 42 in any country. Behind only Tendulkar and arguably Kallis and the lesser AB that I can think of in this regard, who all had a lot more matches to smooth over the cracks.

ATG for me. Not by much, but he did enough.

Nah! **** that. Shameless trolling. Go hang your head in shame while you think about how pitiful you have become.

 

[ankitj]

Are strike rates in Australia consistently lower? In 2015 world cup there were 2 double hundreds and in knockout stages more 300+ team scores than in any other world cup.