• 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.

ODI ATG XIs

B

Bolo

State Captain
Who were the top bowlers who didn't generate substantial amounts of bounce?

Waqar is one, although I rate him a bit below the best because he used to bleed runs.

Lee and akthtar weren't too bouncy considering their pace. Similar tier to Waqar. Starc I guess has a shot of ending in the very top tier.

Akram is the only top tier bowler I can think of who wasn't heavily reliant on lift, although he generated plenty.
 
B

Bolo

State Captain
I don't rate him that highly. He's probably better than akthar if I stop and think about it, but I tend to automatically drop bowlers who averaged in the late 20s down a notch or two.
 
vcs

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
'99 was definitely the best WC.

Shame that was the one I watched the least of, because I was neck deep in studies and preparing for important exams at the time.
 
ankitj

ankitj

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
This is unbelievably poor posting from mr_mister. 96 they were equal, 99 Waugh was better. OK so? You want to ignore a humongous amount of other cricket that Tendulkar played and reduce it to those 2. I am sure we can also find someone better than Viv Richards that way. Or McGrath.

And how can you guys just ignore longevity? It takes immense amount of skill and application to reinvent your game every few years. To do that while staying among gold tier of batsmen is what makes Tendulkar an exceptional ODI batsman. What's M Waugh got to show in that department?
 
mr_mister

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
ankitj said:
This is unbelievably poor posting from mr_mister. 96 they were equal, 99 Waugh was better. OK so? You want to ignore a humongous amount of other cricket that Tendulkar played and reduce it to those 2. I am sure we can also find someone better than Viv Richards that way. Or McGrath.

And how can you guys just ignore longevity? It takes immense amount of skill and application to reinvent your game every few years. To do that while staying among gold tier of batsmen is what makes Tendulkar an exceptional ODI batsman. What's M Waugh got to show in that department?
Click to expand...
Jeez, I was just throwing ideas out there to go against the usual narrative. The bowling was at an all time peak in 96/99 as I'm sure you won't argue. Waugh didn't get the chance to play into 03 and beyond so I didn't include it in my analysis. Considering he was 38 and competing against prime Hayden for a spot we can't really say he was lacking in longevity or anything like that. He played in the 3 world cups that occurred during his international career.

If you want to just include their whole world cup careers, they still had a very similar average, both in the 50s and about 5 points difference. Both in the top 20 of all time for those who played minimum 20 WC matches. Strike rate within 5 points of each other in the mid 80s too. Id say as an opener Waughs record might be better or very close to Sachin as Sachin once got a 140* off 100 balls batting at 4 and Waugh did poorly in the middle order in 92. I can't be bothered checking. His ton to games ratio in WCs is better than Sachin though. 4 in 22 compared to 6 in 45.

Now yes, Sachin performed in more world cups than Junior(and didn't perform in more) and played more games. Just like he played more than Bradman. Before you say that's a stupid point because Bradman played for 20 years, Junior played ODI cricket for 14. Not a short or stunted career ala Headley or Pollock. He debuted in a year right after a WC and retired in a year right before. Unlucky. But if longevity is the only metric where Waugh loses out, it's not exactly a damning mark against him

So now we've established their WC record were very similar, that leaves the question of whether it matters. I think it matters a lot. You may disagree.
 
Last edited:
mr_mister

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Pap Finn Keighl said:
Correct.
Otherwise Kapil Dev is among top tier batsmen with close to 40 AVG at 110 plus strike rate
Click to expand...
Fair point, as was harshes. It's not the only thing to consider. But I kinda thought Sachin's WC record is part of the reason he's rated so highly in ODIs. If we go by career stats as an opener, their records were shown to be similar other then strike rate. But, Sachin played for a decade into the 00s when everyone's strike rate jumped up. Warners raw stats make him look nearly twice as good as Waugh lol.

Im on my phone, but if someone could pull up Waugh and Sachins stats opening the batting in all ODIs, including SR and average and no selective minnow exclusion, up until Waugh's retirement in 02, it'd be revealing. Ill concede defeat if it shows Sachin to be head and shoulders above Waugh, and the fact Waugh did so well in WCs can just be an interesting tidbit.
 
Last edited:
h_hurricane

h_hurricane

International Vice-Captain
Saying that Tendulkar is only a moderate upgrade over Waugh is similar to stating that Warne is only a moderate upgrade over Kumble. Kumble was better than Warne in the 1996 World Cup where as Warne was better in 1999.
And while we are at it, I also learned that Wasim Akram is not even a moderate upgrade over Zaheer Khan. Zaheer was easily better than Wasim in 2003, the only World Cup they both played.

Mcgrath is also only a moderate upgrade over Srinath. Srinath was better in 1996 where as Mcgrath was better in 1999 and 2003.

Zaheer, Srinath and Kumble all played 12- 16 years, in the same ballpark as Waugh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top