ODI ATG XIs

[TheJediBrah]

It's a disguised slight when you put that as a strength of Murali.

haha fair enough

good from Stephen

edit: although technically it was a strength of his. Murali's stats against minnows improved more than most players stats against minnows IIRC.

 

[Borges]

Hooper and Harper were different guys btw

Hooper. Carl Hooper. Better bowler than Warne. But not as good as Murali.
It was already established by ankitj that Harper was vastly better than Warne and marginally better than Murali. I'm not contesting that, because it can't be contested.

 

[stephen]

I also only remember ERs for Aussie players like McGrath and it makes him stand out immensely. Murali played until 2011 while other 2 until 2003. You have to adjust for that. Only 3 runs a match is a silly way to look at it. Those are averages over large numbers and indicative of how much more often one is likely to bowl a seriously miserly spell compared to the others.

If anyone is keen here are the stats for the decade of 2000s which shows how stupendous Murali, McGrath and Pollock were (notice the ERs): 2000s Cricket Team Records & Stats | ESPNcricinfo.com

The problem with rating economy so highly is that it's a false economy (pun intended). Economy works for the ten overs the bowler is on but if they don't take wickets the batsmen can feast in the other 40 overs.

Of course the best bowlers both have exceptional economies and take lots of wickets. And in a real team you want to balance them out - 4 Waqars would win you half your matches in 20 overs and lose you the other half just as quickly.

My point is that stats can only lead you so far. Slicing and dicing them can only tell you so much. Saqlain is the statistically most successful of the 3. But the fact that there is even argument about this shows that there are other factors than raw averages, strike rate or economy.

You can make good arguments for all three spinners being included in an AT XI. It's certainly not unquestionable that Murali or Warne or Saqlain is the best in every circumstance.

 

[morgieb]

IMO it’s wrong to discredit Zimbabwe and Bangladesh stats at ODI level entirely.

 

[Borges]

It's certainly not unquestionable that Murali or Warne or Saqlain is the best in every circumstance.

Agreed. I can think of a couple of circumstances where Saeed Ajmal would be the best. Spin bowler. In ODIs.

 

[stephen]

It's a disguised slight when you put that as a strength of Murali. You can be more honest and say he was the hardest to score against, even for the side that was the best at playing spin in his day. Oh and if you are honest, also call out Warne's ordinary record against India as his weakness? This is all stupidly dishonest from Stephen and needs to be called out.

I didn't go into depth slicing and dicing players careers to highlight that Saqlain was the best vs India and the worst vs South Africa, that Warne and Murali both averaged over 30 against two separate nations or that both of them averaged under 20 vs New Zealand. Because I was talking very generally. It's not dishonest at all and saying so is an unwarranted attack on my character. I also didn't mention what I ate for breakfast.

And my point was that there are pros and cons for each player, not to provide an exhaustive list of them.

The only reason I mentioned the minnow bashing is that it's the most remarkable statistic of the lot, along side Murali's longevity. 120 wickets at under 14 is huge and isn't something anyone else can boast. You still have to win those games.

Economy is important, but it's nowhere near the most important stat for a front line bowler (you could argue it is for your fifth bowler).

 

[stephen]

IMO it’s wrong to discredit Zimbabwe and Bangladesh stats at ODI level entirely.

Well Bangladesh were pretty horrible during Murali's era. Zimbabwe were okish during the 90s but nothing special. Neither cracked the top 8 nations during that time though if memory serves. Certainly is say Bangladesh are on a par now with where Zimbabwe were during the 90s.

It is important to properly minnow bash in ODIs during world cups or you end up getting knocked out in the opening round.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Late 90's Zimbabwe was genuinely a quality team. Back in the days where their ODI shirts looked like they were designed by someone who had just dropped some acid.

 

[stephen]

It definitely is. I don't think Warne was a better ODI than Murali at all but I also don't get why people are getting so triggered by the suggestion that Murali benefited from playing a lot against minnows, which is clearly true.



Hooper and Harper were different guys btw

People got triggered when I suggested that Murali is not the clear cut best odi spinner ever.

 

[ankitj]

People got triggered when I suggested that Murali is not the clear cut best odi spinner ever.

No.

 

[morgieb]

Late 90's Zimbabwe was genuinely a quality team. Back in the days where their ODI shirts looked like they were designed by someone who had just dropped some acid.

Yeah this. Their 99 World Cup should not be dismissed entirely out of hand at all for example.

 

[stephen]

Late 90's Zimbabwe was genuinely a quality team. Back in the days where their ODI shirts looked like they were designed by someone who had just dropped some acid.

Between 1995 and 1999 they had a win/ loss ratio of 0.55 in ODIs, which still means they lost roughly two matches for every one they won. Which is slightly better than current Australia.

 

[sunilz]

Since we are cherry picking stats to suit our argument, may I suggest that Dhawan is a much better ODI batsman than Gilchrist because of his record in ICC tournaments( Gilchrist averages only 35 ) .

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

 

[Borges]

Shakib Al Hasan! A much better fourth/fifth bowler choice than Warne. In this ATG side. For ODIs.
About as good as Warne (bowling), clearly better than Warne (fielding) and infinitely better than Warne (bating).

 

[ankitj]

Imran Khan as all rounder? Has poor batting SR but averages more than someone like Steve Waugh. And bowling average close to Pollock. Is Imran underrated?

 

[Borges]

Since we are cherry picking stats to suit our argument, may I suggest that Dhawan is a much better ODI batsman than Gilchrist because of his record in ICC tournaments( Gilchrist averages only 35 ) .

Don't meekly suggest it; shout it out. Loudly. DHAWAN >>> GILCHRIST. Because ... Warne > Murali. etc.

 

[stephen]

Australia are obviously three current world minnows. In the last two years in ODIs their win/ loss ratio is 0.222. Zimbabwe were 250% more successful in the late 90s!

 

[stephen]

Since we are cherry picking stats to suit our argument, may I suggest that Dhawan is a much better ODI batsman than Gilchrist because of his record in ICC tournaments( Gilchrist averages only 35 ) .

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

Are we all under rating Anwar?

I'm seriously surprised we don't have more modern players in that list with how easy batting has been in the last few years.

 

[TheJediBrah]

IMO it’s wrong to discredit Zimbabwe and Bangladesh stats at ODI level entirely.

not sure what you mean by "discredit entirely" but it is absolutely fair to discount them to a large extent (depedning on context). Bangladesh and Zimbabwe were far worse than the rest of the international nations throughout Murali's career (Zimbabwe were briefly a decent ODI side but that stopped abruptly around 2003).

In the context of Murali's career statistics, it's a huge factor as shown by his vastly superior stats against these teams than against other sides, and that SL played so much more against them than several other sides

 

[the big bambino]

Since we are cherry picking stats to suit our argument, may I suggest that Dhawan is a much better ODI batsman than Gilchrist because of his record in ICC tournaments( Gilchrist averages only 35 ) .

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

That stats a lemon not a cherry.